# Talk:Congo serpent eagle

[1] p. 10 batesi as new species Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Congo Serpent Eagle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mdk572 (talk · contribs) 06:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Some pre-review comments 

"This species is found in western and central Africa, stretching" A re-word so that it is not the species doing the stretching?
Its a very big bird :). Good call. Fixed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
"It has been suggested that the Congo Serpent Eagle evolved to mimic ..." Important point but a cumbersome sentence.
Let me think on this, as inspiration is evading me. The point that it is a suggestion, not established doctrine, has to be in there. Any suggestions? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you need both "more closely"s?
Gone. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
"As it is adapted for dense forest, it is not well-adapted for secondary forests and plantations." Is there information available on the specific adaptations?
Its eyes are the main one, though I believe that its weird wing and tail length may be helpful. Not sure if I should slip that info into the habitat section. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Ecology and behavior - many very short sentences. Can they be combined to improve flow?
Is this better? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Goshawk links to a disambig page.
Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
ISBN for Handbook of the Birds of the World - Volume 2?
IBSN is in but doesn't display. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Marj (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for undertaking this review. My notes on your initial suggestions are above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: Still some paras of short sentences but generally good. 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: Some additional information could be used to expand sentences if/when available 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc.
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Seth of Rabi has a photo on Flickr, might be willing for it to be used.
Overall: 

Pass or Fail: 
Marj (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. I'll see if I can get the picture and will try to find a better way of phrasing the mimicry paragraph. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)