Talk:Researchers report rapid formation of new bird species in Galápagos islands

Headline

Title: It looks like the article is about formation of new species so the current title is not exactly correct. How about "Researchers observe formation of new bird species in two generations in Galápagos islands".
•–• 13:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I drew the title from the scientists' generalization that islands could speed up how long until reproductive isolation can occur. Your suggestion works as well, and better suits the article you wrote. —mikemoral (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4366682 [Passed]

Revision 4366682 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: From trying out the suggested headline, "Researchers observe...", realized it was describing the multi-decade process that had led up to the focal event, rather than describing the focal event. The background about Darwin in the last paragraph, I mostly treated as "common knowledge". I didn't actually find much of it in the indicated external links. Btw, if I were treating them as used sources, they would belong in the Sources section; there's nothing that says sources have to be recent, nor that they have to be news outlets (but they do have to be trust-worthy, for the relevant kind of trust). External links can actually be adjusted (cautiously) after an article is archived, as they aren't part of the article content; so if something is really a source, it needs to be treated with more record-keeping respect than it might get in the External links section. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4366682 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: From trying out the suggested headline, "Researchers observe...", realized it was describing the multi-decade process that had led up to the focal event, rather than describing the focal event. The background about Darwin in the last paragraph, I mostly treated as "common knowledge". I didn't actually find much of it in the indicated external links. Btw, if I were treating them as used sources, they would belong in the Sources section; there's nothing that says sources have to be recent, nor that they have to be news outlets (but they do have to be trust-worthy, for the relevant kind of trust). External links can actually be adjusted (cautiously) after an article is archived, as they aren't part of the article content; so if something is really a source, it needs to be treated with more record-keeping respect than it might get in the External links section. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@Pi zero: I added those external links because there should be some sort of verification. I also left a comment for that and mentioned on IRC. It is something that any biology student would know and it was odd to cite something so obvious. But things could be obvious for me but not for the reviewer so I mentioned and left a comment, so if reviewer was not aware of that, they could move to sources section.
•–• 03:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

<nods> Fortunately, the reviewer was aware of it. --Pi zero (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)