I guess this is meant for later FAC? We are very close to the 200 bird FA mark, so let's get the ball rolling! Some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have some nice captions for most of the images, anything to say about the one in the taxobox? Male, female, location?
it is probably but not definitely a male (sexes similar) in Albany. location addedCas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, capitalise first letter? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Otto Finsch cited Kuhl in calling it Platycercus spurius in 1868" But Kuhl named it Psittacus spurius?
changed to "followed" - he used Kuhl's species name thus recognising Kuhl's name's precedence.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"derived from the epithet pileatus of a synonym once used in aviculture" You state earlier that this was coined for a male specimen, seems a bit incongruent.
words-as-words suggests italics, but this gets confusing with latin names. hence changed to quotesCas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"English naturalist W. B. Alexander" Why is this name alone not spelled out?
"Red-capped Parrakeet by Edward Lear, 1832" The reader will not know why you use another name here, perhaps state in the caption it is an alternate, if you even need to mention the name at all there.
"A larger parrot of southwest Australia" This is an odd way to begin the description section. Why do you need to state the location here, and isn't it better to name the subject at the beginning of the section?
removed the contextual bit which conflicts with another bit anywayCas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and easily recognised medium-sized parrot" So is it "larger" or "medium sized"? What does "larger" even mean?
see above (it means its larger than the western rosella I suspect)Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It also occurs in forests dominated by" The former sentence starts with "this tree species", so might be good to specify you refer to the bird instead of "it".
"It has long been classified in its own genus, though genetic analysis shows that its closest relative is the mulga parrot". Why "though? The article body doesn't indicate this has any bearing on its generic affiliation.
It actually lies within the genus Psephotellus, but as Purpureicephalus is the older name, the others would all have to change. Will tweak this Tweaked it and forgot to update here.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should be the last issue, would be nice to elaborate in the taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The intro seems short compared to the article body. There could probably be more on behaviour, and maybe on the juvenile's features.