Ashy flycatcher has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 5, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Ashy flycatcher appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 September 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
There are a good selection at Flickr. I've requested one. Richard001 ( talk) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 03:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I saw this species myself when I was in South Africa! Some general comments for now; I have a detailed look soon.
The result was: promoted by
Vaticidalprophet (
talk) 13:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by AryKun ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ashy flycatcher; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @ AryKun: Good article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ AryKun:, per WP:INTEXT, we shouldn't be including something in quote marks unless the attribution of that quote is noted in the text. Hence, just saying it is "cuter" without saying who said that is not permitted. Furthermore, however, the term is largely meaningless in scientific or encyclopedic terms and depends entirely on the observer. Saying it has a larger rounded head etc. is fine, and sure, dumpy is a reasonably well-defined term so that can stay, those are meaningful ways to distinguish the species from the other mentioned, but the article doesn't need mention of the "cuter" thing at all. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 09:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Ashy flycatcher has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 5, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Ashy flycatcher appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 September 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
There are a good selection at Flickr. I've requested one. Richard001 ( talk) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 03:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I saw this species myself when I was in South Africa! Some general comments for now; I have a detailed look soon.
The result was: promoted by
Vaticidalprophet (
talk) 13:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by AryKun ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ashy flycatcher; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @ AryKun: Good article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ AryKun:, per WP:INTEXT, we shouldn't be including something in quote marks unless the attribution of that quote is noted in the text. Hence, just saying it is "cuter" without saying who said that is not permitted. Furthermore, however, the term is largely meaningless in scientific or encyclopedic terms and depends entirely on the observer. Saying it has a larger rounded head etc. is fine, and sure, dumpy is a reasonably well-defined term so that can stay, those are meaningful ways to distinguish the species from the other mentioned, but the article doesn't need mention of the "cuter" thing at all. Cheers — Amakuru ( talk) 09:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)