# Talk:Resplendent quetzal

Do they really swallow avocados whole? I'm having trouble picturing a little bird doing that. I thought avocados were toxic to birds. ~Lu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.88.179 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 

The wild avocados they eat are nothing like the shop ones we eat, they are much smaller Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 07:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But how big is the Resplendent Quetzal? Anthony Appleyard 07:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

67.162.50.93 06:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)I really think that the picture here does very little to capture the beauty of this bird. I can't even see the upperparts or the face.

True, the problem is finding a non-copyright alternative to my pic - previous replacements have all been removed as unsourced or copyright violations. Jimfbleak.talk.07:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I rated this as importance=mid due to the prominance of this species in the history and culture of several countries in the region. Srice13 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

~ I am wondering why the tense of this and most entries words cultures in the past tense?
example, 
Myth and legend
The Resplendent Quetzal was (IS) considered divine, associated with the "snake god", Quetzalcoatl by Pre-Columbian Central American civilizations. Their iridescent green tail feathers, symbols for spring plant growth, were (ARE) venerated by the ancient Mayas and Aztecs, who viewed (VIEW) the quetzal as the "god of the air" and as a symbol of goodness and light. Mesoamerican rulers and some nobility of other ranks wore headdresses made from quetzal feathers, symbolically connecting them to Quetzalcoatl. Quetzalcoatl was (IS) the creator god and god of wind, often depicted with grey hair. In several Mesoamerican languages, the term for quetzal can also mean precious, sacred, or erected.

"The ancient Mayas and Aztecs viewed" (not "view") the quetzal etc." because there are no more ancient Mayas and Aztecs, only modern ones.  Likewise there are no more "Pre-Columbian Central American civilizations".  If we have a reliable source saying that a significant number of living people consider the quetzal to be divine, worship Quetzalcoatl, etc., we could change some tenses.  —JerryFriedman 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
They look pretty divine (: Jimfbleak 17:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:1989 halfQuetzal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a noticeable formatting problem in this article where the lines of the categories overlapped the species info box (also the 140px picture was blown up to 225px, therefore losing resolution; annoying but minor). I fixed it by removing the unnecessary TOC box code that was throwing it off. I wasn't signed in and someone reverted it, obviously without looking. I undid his revert (once), but I know better than to revert-war. If you see this problem again, check for the TOC box that it doesn't need, as WP automatically does TOC on long-enough articles. And the moral of the story: don't revert unsigned in edits without checking that they're legit. Garnet avi (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This page says they hover. Do resplendents do, too?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  16:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything about hovering there. Is that the page you meant? Anyway, my few sources don't mention hovering. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nominated Feb 10 2010;
Support:

Sabine's Sunbird  talk 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Shyamal (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
—innotata 20:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments:

Stunning and charismatic Central American species of considerable cultural significance. Either this or the hornero helps combat systematic bias. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Passerine was a failure, and we need a species article to get a success. This or the hornero are best due to the issue of systemic bias. —innotata 20:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

An IP posted this just about an hour ago, and I reverted it because its uncited, and looks very questionable. Is it vandalism? —focus 00:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It has also been stated in legend that the Resplendent Quetzal became silent after it used its mystic abilities to look into the then distant future beyond the year 2012, seeing the events of Armageddon itself and the end times which followed. It was then said that the Resplendent Quetzal would stare intently at the sun all day in an attempt to scorch its own eyes out, horrified by that which it had borne witness to and wishing to see no more

Not sure as yet. Sounds dogy but you never know...will look around. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I know that some people believe(d?) that the Resplendent Quetzal has some sort of mystic/spiritual powers. Is precognition one of them? Dunno. Quite a creepy story though. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are some journal articles to investigate, from a web of science search. Be good to figure out which ones are useful and which are too esoteric or off topic etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
1.  Title: Analysis of Nest Sites of the Resplendent Quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno): Relationship between Nest and Snag Heights 
Author(s): Siegfried DG, Linville DS, Hille D
Source: WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY   Volume: 122   Issue: 3   Pages: 608-611   Published: SEP 2010 
Times Cited: 0 
2.  Title: Morphometric and molecular differentiation between quetzal subspecies of Pharomachrus mocinno (Trogoniformes: Trogonidae) 
Author(s): Solorzano S, Oyama K
Source: REVISTA DE BIOLOGIA TROPICAL   Volume: 58   Issue: 1   Pages: 357-371   Published: MAR 2010 
Times Cited: 0 
3.  Title: The effectiveness of a Mesoamerican 'paper park' in conserving cloud forest avifauna 
Author(s): Martin TE, Blackburn GA
Source: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION   Volume: 18   Issue: 14   Pages: 3841-3859   Published: DEC 2009 
Times Cited: 0 
4.  Title: Genetic diversity and conservation of the Resplendent Quetzal Pharomachrus mocinno in Mesoamerica 
Author(s): Solorzano S, Garcia-Juarez M, Oyama K
Source: REVISTA MEXICANA DE BIODIVERSIDAD   Volume: 80   Issue: 1   Pages: 241-248   Published: APR 2009 
Times Cited: 1 
5.  Title: Nesting behavior and nestling care of the Pavonine Quetzal (Pharomachrus pavoninus) 
Author(s): Lebbin DJ
Source: WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY   Volume: 119   Issue: 3   Pages: 458-463   Published: SEP 2007 
Times Cited: 0 
6.  Title: Birds of a high-altitude cloud forest in Alta Verapaz, Guatemala 
Author(s): Eisermann K, Schulz U
Source: REVISTA DE BIOLOGIA TROPICAL   Volume: 53   Issue: 3-4   Pages: 577-594   Published: SEP-DEC 2005 
Times Cited: 3 
7.  Title: The Resplendent Quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno) in the Sierra Yalijux, Alta Verapaz, Guatemala 
Author(s): Renner SC
Source: JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY   Volume: 146   Issue: 1   Pages: 79-84   Published: JAN 2005 
Times Cited: 5 
8.  Title: Conservation priorities for Resplendent Quetzals based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA control-region sequences 
Author(s): Solorzano S, Baker AJ, Oyama K
Source: CONDOR   Volume: 106   Issue: 3   Pages: 449-456   Published: AUG 2004 
Times Cited: 7 
9.  Title: The Chimalapas Region, Oaxaca, Mexico: a high-priority region for bird conservation in Mesoamerica 
Author(s): Peterson AT, Navarro-Siguenza AG, Hernandez-Banos BE, et al.
Source: BIRD CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL   Volume: 13   Issue: 3   Pages: 227-253   Published: SEP 2003 
Times Cited: 5 
10.  Title: Quetzal abundance in relation to fruit availability in a cloud forest in southeastern Mexico 
Author(s): Solorzano S, Castillo S, Valverde T, et al.
Source: BIOTROPICA   Volume: 32   Issue: 3   Pages: 523-532   Published: SEP 2000 
Times Cited: 14 
11.  Title: Seed dispersal, seed predation, and seedling recruitment of a neotropical montane tree 
Author(s): Wenny DG
Source: ECOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS   Volume: 70   Issue: 2   Pages: 331-351   Published: MAY 2000 
Times Cited: 107 
12.  Title: The diet of Resplendent Quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno mocinno: Trogonidae) in a Mexican cloud forest 
Author(s): Avila ML, Hernandez VH, Velarde E
Source: BIOTROPICA   Volume: 28   Issue: 4   Pages: 720-727   Part: Part B   Published: DEC 1996 
Times Cited: 8 
13.  Title: Key trophic adaptation of trogoniformes and morphofunctional peculiarities of their jaw apparatus 
Author(s): Korzun LP
Source: ZOOLOGICHESKY ZHURNAL   Volume: 75   Issue: 9   Pages: 1382-1393   Published: SEP 1996 
Times Cited: 3 
14.  Title: IMPLICATIONS OF INTRATROPICAL MIGRATION ON RESERVE DESIGN - A CASE-STUDY USING PHAROMACHRUS-MOCINNO 
Author(s): POWELL GVN, BJORK R
Source: CONSERVATION BIOLOGY   Volume: 9   Issue: 2   Pages: 354-362   Published: APR 1995 
Times Cited: 45 
15.  Title: SPATIAL-ORGANIZATION OF THE STRUCTURAL COLOR SYSTEM IN THE QUETZAL, PHAROMACHRUS-MOCINNO (AVES, TROGONIDAE) AND EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS 
Author(s): MONGENAJERA J, HERNANDEZ F
Source: REVISTA DE BIOLOGIA TROPICAL   Volume: 42   Pages: 131-139   Supplement: Suppl. 2   Published: AUG 1994 
Times Cited: 2 
16.  Title: AZTEC EXPLOITATION OF CLOUD FORESTS - TRIBUTES OF LIQUIDAMBAR RESIN AND QUETZAL FEATHERS 
Author(s): PETERSON AA, PETERSON AT
Source: GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY LETTERS   Volume: 2   Issue: 5   Pages: 165-173   Published: SEP 1992 
Times Cited: 1

"Until recently, it was thought that the Resplendent Quetzal could not be bred or held for any long time in captivity, and indeed it was noted for usually killing itself soon after being captured or caged."
Is this even possible?? 131.130.16.86 (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It could starve itself or fly into walls AlexWolfx (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
They did die in captivity.  Unless somebody can figure out how it happened, the article should probably just say that they were popularly believed to kill themselves (if even that has a source). —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 16:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, this seems to be a record of captive breeding in 1943. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Resplendent quetzal/CommentsTalk:Resplendent quetzal/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 09:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC).
Substituted at 04:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Billete-de-Q1-un-quetzal-de-Guatemala-1024x430.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Resplendent quetzal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: VickKiang (talk · contribs) 07:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am VickKiang, and I will be reviewing this article. Many thanks for your time and help. VickKiang (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


### Lead/lede
- "The quetzal is an altitudinal migrant specie" should be "The quetzal is an altitudinal migrant species", see https://grammarist.com/usage/species/

-  Done
- Significant copyvio, see here for the Earwig detector. This needs to be fixed, I'll try to do it. VickKiang (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

- Already trimmed down to below 15%.SpaceEconomist192  ✐ 
Good, IMHO, 13% copyvio is still a bit worrying, I'd like to trim down the paraphrasing even more. VickKiang (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Bellow 10%, violation unlikely it says. SpaceEconomist192 ✐  12:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


### Taxonomy
- Fix two citation needed tags.

- Y Done
- Alter or rm ref 6- self-published and not an RS IMO.

- Y Done
- Could there potentially be a note (Efn template) for this statement instead: "(it is sometimes spelled mocino, but "ñ" was formerly spelled "nn" in Spanish, so the spelling with "nn" is justified and in any case now official[5][6])"4

- Y Done
- Change "his own specie" to "his own species".

-  Done
- In the taxonomy section, IMO there should be info on the bird's close relationship with the Crested Quetzal. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, in its adaptation of Handbook of Birds, noted that "Resplendent Quetzal as a "very near relative of the Crested Quetzal [Pharomachrus antisianus]." Some sources consider the Crested Quetzal to be a race of the Resplendent Quetzal (e.g. Peters 1945), or that the two form a superspecies." This could also be found via its source based on several papers such as Johnsgard (2000). Please see link here, which is also the article's fifteenth ref (it requires a subscription to view the content, so if you can't access it please let me know, thanks): https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/resque1/cur/systematics

- I do not have a subscription. And the old version which I used as the fifteenth source does not mention any of this. Perhaps you can transclude the paragraph you're referring to my  sandbox.
- I have transcluded the content. VickKiang (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Y Done
- Is the third source from Encyclopaedia Britannica, as it reads "Quetzal. 1890. In: Encyclopædia Britannica a dictionary of arts, sciences, and general literature. Chicago: R. S. Peale & Co. p. 179-180"? If so, it is not an RS according to RSP (see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Encyclopaedia_Britannica); please find a better source. Thanks.

- After searching through Google Books and Google Scholar I could not find another source stating that, but a lot of research papers use solely quetzal to refer to the resplendent quetzal. The best alternative I could arrange was the quetzal definition in the Collins and Merriam-Webster dictionaries (1, 2). Regarding the RSP link, it says that the reliableness of Britannica is debatable, so since the statement its supporting is just general information I would let it pass. But you're the reviewer so it's your call, if you want me to remove the phrase I will.
- Not sure those helps, but those refs could also be used in addition, as it also refers to a Euptilotis as a quetzal (http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/Eared-Quetzal). Birds of the World also stated that "Phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequence data, from mitochondrial and nuclear genes, consistently position the monotypic genus Euptilotis as sister to the "true" queztals, Pharomachrus (Espinosa de los Monteros 1998, Moyle 2005, Quintero and Espinosa de los Monteros 2011). The relationship of quetzals (Euptilotis + Pharomachrus) within Trogoniformes is unresolved." I have added those sources as well, but am unsure whether the former is helpful, so you can rm that if you want. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Y Done
- Capitalise the first letter of the first word in the notes section ("it is sometimes spelled mocino, but "ñ" was formerly spelled "nn" in Spanish, so the spelling with "nn" is justified and in any case now official.") Also, a minor (and optional) suggestion is to possibly reword "in any case now official".

- Y Done


### Description
- Please improve ref 15 if possible, it seems to be an unreliable blog.

- Y Done
- In ref 13, where does it state that "The nominate subspecies weighs about 210 g (7.4 oz)"? In the results section, it only says:
"The width of the uppertail-coverts of P. m. mocinno measured 39–79 mm (median: 51 mm, mean: 53.2 ± 9.2 mm, n = 46) and of P. m. costaricensis 26–49 mm (median: 39 mm, mean: 37.7 ± 4.8 mm, n = 27). The mean values were significantly different (Randomisation Test: p <0.0000005) (Fig. 2).
The length of the longest uppertail-covert in P. m. mocinno measured 310–1005 mm (median: 750 mm, mean: 722 ± 164 mm, n = 46), and in P. m. costaricensis 320–860 mm (median: 630 mm, mean: 614 ± 123 mm, n = 27). The mean values were significantly different (Randomisation Test: p <0.005)."

-  Done
- Change the average to the median in those sentences:
"the tail streamers measure between 31 cm (12 in) and 100.5 cm (39.6 in), with the average being 75 cm (30 in) for males"
"The tail plumes are shorter and narrower, measuring between 32 cm (13 in) and 86 cm (34 in), with the average being 63 cm (25 in)"
This is due to that the ref refers to the median as 63cm, however, the average is the mean, and is not the same with the median. VickKiang (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

- I dont understand this, maybe nominator will come back. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify, the mean is the average of a data set (i.e., given 1, 1, 3, and 5, the mean is the sum of the numbers, 10, divided by how many numbers there is, 4, giving 2.5). But the median is the middle number, in the case of 1, 1, 3, and 5, both 1 and 3 are the middle numbers, so the median is the mean of those two, hence 2. In the ref, the stats of 75cm and 63cm are the medians, not the averages, which are 722 ± 164 mm and 614 ± 123 mm. See here: https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-british-ornithologists-club/volume-137/issue-4/bboc.v137i4.2017.a6/Morphometric-differentiation-between-subspecies-of-Resplendent-Quetzal-Pharomachrus-mocinno-mocinno/10.25226/bboc.v137i4.2017.a6.full. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Y Done


### Distribution and habitat
- Better source is needed still for ref 16 (blog?).

- Y Done
- @SpaceEconomist192: Minor comment on distribution: The article says that "This species lives among lush vegetation, in very moist rainforests in high elevations (900-3200m)." The ref backing it up (IUCN) is credible, but IMO there could be a note as there is variation among the refs. Birds of the World cites 1000 to 3000m ("The subspecies costaricensis inhabits Costa Rica and the western highlands of Panama. It ranges from 1,000-3,300 meters in elevation."), whereas the article Conservation Priorities for Resplendent Quetzals Based on Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA Control-Region Sequences cites "These forests, ranging from 1300 to 3000 m elevation, represent the breeding habitats for this species". Again, this is a very minor suggestion, so thanks.

- Y Done


### Behaviour (feeding)
- IMO possibly replace "at least 41" with "41-43" as per Birds of the World (ref 23).

- Y Done
- The cited ref stated that:
"Adults fed on fruits of 15 plant species, six of which (40%) are members of the family Lauraceae; 63 percent of the fruit items consumed were from these species. Other fruit items consumed were from species belong to the families Theaceae (8.3%) and, with 4.2 percent each: Myrsinaceae, Araliaceae, Verbenaceae, Solanaceae, Myrtaceae, Melasomataccae, Moraceae and Clusiaceae." 
But the article stated that:
"Particularly important are wild avocados and other fruit of the laurel family, which the birds swallow whole before regurgitating the pits, which helps to disperse these trees."
As I only have the abstract, I couldn't see where it specifically points out that the family "Lauraceae" just refers to wild avocados. If possible, could you give me the full transcript (otherwise IMO this could be changed)? Many thanks! 

- The citation for that is actually the 24th, I'm going to cite it at the end of both phrases, to avoid future confusion. Table 3. states the Persea vesticulata (avocado) and the Symplococarpon purpusii have the highest percentage (I've added the latter to the article).


### Behaviour (Breeding)
- @SpaceEconomist192: Ref 29 is an RS from National Geographic, but IMO could there be a better peer reviewers journal if possible? 

- Y Done
Many thanks, if you could first address the copyvios that would be great, and the clarification needed tags. I've also marked some suggestions as optional, these don't matter much with the GA review, IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Sure, already addressed the clarification needed tags! SpaceEconomist192 ✐  14:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your help! Also, the minor copyvios are major issues, IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Should the heights of the nest stubs and holes of the respeledent quetzal be mentioned (per ref 14, Pg 5, describing these to be 41 and 31 feet)?

- Y Done
- Perhaps the sizes of the eggs (a mean of 38.9 mm x 32.4 mm per Birds of the World) should be mentioned.

- Y Done
- I find the nest failure to be "around 70 percent" to be confusing. Per here and the cited results form this paper, it's 67-78%, so maybe replace 70% with 67-78%. VickKiang (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

- Y Done
- Many thanks! Just lots of more optional suggestions left now, if replied I'll pass this GA soon. VickKiang 03:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Optional suggestion: Per ref [1], [the] female brought more fruits. Wheelwright also observed shorter return times for parents providing fruits than animal items. Yet, even late in the nestling period, over half of the items give to the nestling were insects or lizards. Maybe the greater provision of fruits and the insects being the primary/main feeding food could be mentioned and reworded.

- It's already mentioned that the primary food of the chicks is fruits and insects. SpaceEconomist192 ✐   — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


### Conservation status
- The number of species is 20,000-49,999 per ref 1, not 20,000-49,000. I changed this, see edit summary. VickKiang (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- There could be mention that the population is differing in subspecies, such as It is thought that some subpopulations may be increasing or at least stable whilst others are declining (S. Renner in litt. 2016). Note, the source is also from ref 1, but the cited ref within IUCN might be more detailed.

- Y Done
- This ref is RS but is dated from 2003, wondering there might be a newer update on conservation data?
- Copyvio: See here, [for] this reason, it is a traditional symbol of liberty. No more other copyvios.

www.deviantart.com is not a reliable source and it was not used to retract information, those specific excerpts were already on the article a long time ago so most likely it was www.deviantart.com who copied Wikipedia and not the other way around. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 
My mistake, striken, didn't see it's also a circular source, oops... VickKiang (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Optional (and minor) suggestion irrelevant to GA (it only needs to be broad in coverage, not comprehensive): that there could be more info on cloud forests, per the ref provided, Cloud forests are among the most threatened ecosystems in the world, mainly due to the demographic explosion, expansion of the agricultural frontier, and the lack of fire control (LaBastille and Allen 1969; Cruz and Erazo 1977; LaBastille and Pool 1978; Solórzano et al. 2003; Renner and Markussen 2005; Toledo-Aceves et al. 2011). Considering that this is the introducting content for the journal with multiple refs cited, this could be included IMO, but is totally optional.


### Others
- Optional: Ref 14 mentions some movement observations from Page 4 to 5. Could some info be briefly covered in article? Many thanks!


### In Culture
- Unfortunately I don't have access to ref 34, could you transclude it? 
- The text on WP is a bit similar and might be paraphrased compared to the original. The ref states: [on] the first strike Tecún Umán, on foot, managed to disable Pedro de Alvarado’s horse. In the WP article, the sentence is also similar, Tecún, equipped with merely an arrow and bow, nevertheless managed to disable Alvarado's horse on the first strike. Maybe this could be tweaked slightly, but is optional. 

- Y Done
- I find the paraphrasing here to be extremely close, it needs to be changed, this is the ref's description: ...has been silent ever since; it will sing once again only when the land is truly free. Compared this to WP's one: Additionally, from that day on, the quetzal, which sang beautifully before the Spanish conquest, has been silent ever since; it will sing once again only when the land is truly free. The paraphrasing might be unintentional, but is way too close and needs improvement. VickKiang (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

- Y Done


### Other C/e and MoS adherence
- Personally, with the above suggestions done, the reviewing is almost done, but I do need to fact-check it again, I did an optional c/e (mostly minor and optional). There are a lot of minor comma preferences issues, but I did a couple, please change if necessary, as GA don't need to have a brilliant flow or adhere with all of the MoS guidelines. VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC) 
- In the conservation section, it states that Until recently, it was thought that the resplendent quetzal could not be bred or held for a long time in... But GAs should follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which frowns upon recently: Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By July 2022 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped" but the first sentence retains its meaning as time passes. And recently type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: Was it in the last week? Month? Year? I find this vague, please reword it. Same with this: [the] current population trend of the resplendent quetzal is decreasing. But the latter one is minor compared to the first. The same applies for this: However, recent scientific discoveries... I've added clarification needed and when tags, please improve. Many thanks!

- Y Done
- Optional Should these animals in the lede be linked: ...insects, lizards, frogs and snails? Many thanks!

- Y Done
VickKiang (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Possible copyvio here. Please check the repeated phrases and paraphrasing (lives among lush vegetation, prefers to inhabit decaying trees, stumps...) VickKiang (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

- Y Done
Many thanks, do you think revdeling is needed? Note this: [the] bright colors of the quetzal are disguised by their natural habitat in the rainforest is still very similar and is still closely paraphrasing, perhaps another reword? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Y Done
- This line is problematic: it will sing anew solely when the land is utterly liberated. Utterly seems to be a word on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. After these are done, I'll pass this GA. VickKiang 03:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Y Done


### Images Check
Images seem to be all right. VickKiang (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm on vacations right now but I will make all the changes after it. SpaceEconomist192 ✐  22:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! IMO if these issues are addressed the article is close to GA, but I think the close paraphrasing is probably the main problem. VickKiang (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


### Sources
This is totally optional, but do the sources section have some info not covered in the in-line refs? If so, could they be moved there? VickKiang (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
All good now. Passing. VickKiang 22:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, after five months we did it! Sorry for my inactivity. SpaceEconomist192 ✐  07:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

While reviewing for GA, there might be some unattributed, very close paraphrasing. See here. I changed the plays an important role in in a fairly minor way, although it isn't much better in prose compared to the original, still, IMO it's better considering the original is very close. I've added more examples to the GA review in bold, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

IMHO these are probably most of my suggestions, will look at some minor c/e, but will place on hold for now. VickKiang (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)