This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Red rail is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2016. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be uncertainty over whether the Red Rail and the Rodrigues Rail should be kept in the same genus, Aphanapteryx, or in separate ones. The latest sources I have, authored by Anthony Cheke and Julian Hume, prefer to keep them separate, but literature not much older unites them. What to do? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Doctree ( talk · contribs) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Definitely will be a Good Article. Reviewer(s) are fixing a couple of minor problems rather than sending it back for a rewrite.
Requested an additional look from a Project BIRDS assessor. Hoping some others will take a look and provide constructive comments. Potential for Featured Article? DocTree ( talk) 19:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. I think that MOS indicates that it would be better to paraphrase long quotations. Also it is in an old form of English and may not be readily understood all around the English speaking world. Snowman ( talk) 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, per your request on my talk page, I'm going take a look through the article and jot down anything that could do with tweaking.
All in all, very nice. If you current FAC is anything to go by, this should sail through once the tweaks are made. My usual disclaimer: The articles only real flaw would be a failure to cite a certain key source, but you'd be in a better position than me to judge whether that had happened. I made a few small fixes, please double-check. Hope these thoughts are helpful! J Milburn ( talk) 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: You just reverted an anonymous editor and claimed that "We should not add (sic) unless the source does." Why do you claim this? If the original source contains a misspelling, surely "[sic]" would be appropriate? Josh Milburn ( talk) 13:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Could this animal be connected to an ostrich??? Nana kobina ghanaba ( talk) 16:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Red rail is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2016. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be uncertainty over whether the Red Rail and the Rodrigues Rail should be kept in the same genus, Aphanapteryx, or in separate ones. The latest sources I have, authored by Anthony Cheke and Julian Hume, prefer to keep them separate, but literature not much older unites them. What to do? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Doctree ( talk · contribs) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Definitely will be a Good Article. Reviewer(s) are fixing a couple of minor problems rather than sending it back for a rewrite.
Requested an additional look from a Project BIRDS assessor. Hoping some others will take a look and provide constructive comments. Potential for Featured Article? DocTree ( talk) 19:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. I think that MOS indicates that it would be better to paraphrase long quotations. Also it is in an old form of English and may not be readily understood all around the English speaking world. Snowman ( talk) 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, per your request on my talk page, I'm going take a look through the article and jot down anything that could do with tweaking.
All in all, very nice. If you current FAC is anything to go by, this should sail through once the tweaks are made. My usual disclaimer: The articles only real flaw would be a failure to cite a certain key source, but you'd be in a better position than me to judge whether that had happened. I made a few small fixes, please double-check. Hope these thoughts are helpful! J Milburn ( talk) 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: You just reverted an anonymous editor and claimed that "We should not add (sic) unless the source does." Why do you claim this? If the original source contains a misspelling, surely "[sic]" would be appropriate? Josh Milburn ( talk) 13:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Could this animal be connected to an ostrich??? Nana kobina ghanaba ( talk) 16:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)