I came across this page while researching for a school project, and I was shocked by how incomplete it was compared to some other sources I found, so I came back after I finished my project and rewrote almost all of the article.
Here's what the page looked like before I expanded it. Anyway, I'd like some feedback on the current article. Peer review away.
CorvuscoronoidesContributionsMGo Blue17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Doing well. Lead needs to be a summary of contents - eg I stuck a one-liner about range. A couple more and then I'd stick the taxonomy stuff in a section just below. Have a look at
American Goldfinch which has just passed GA and is well on the way to FA. Needs more refs at the bottom. If you do't know how to inline just stick 'em at the bottom and a few of us will help out.cheers,
Cas Liber |
talk |
contribs21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Go to Google and click 'more' (after web/images etc.) - you'll see scholar. click thre and search away. Searching the main web is Ok too and usually gets alot of hits.cheers,
Cas Liber |
talk |
contribs23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Getting there; all bits in lead should be expanded later in article - thus all the classification bit should be in a section. Have a look at
Common Raven as well. After this I wouldn't worry too much about lead but concetnrate on referencing. cheers,
Cas Liber |
talk |
contribs23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Looking better - link or define altricial. I italicised rather than quotation marked anting. Hvae alook at the cite format for refs and put as much info in them. There are not too many, try and diversify (i.e. get more) if possible. Just woke up so too bleary-eyed to copyedit at the moment.cheers,
Casliber (
talk·contribs)
20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Question - what more needs to be done to bring this article to GA status? My end goal is FA, of course, but small steps are good :) I've never really done this much to an article before, so just wondering. Cheers,
Corvuscoronoides21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I came across this page while researching for a school project, and I was shocked by how incomplete it was compared to some other sources I found, so I came back after I finished my project and rewrote almost all of the article.
Here's what the page looked like before I expanded it. Anyway, I'd like some feedback on the current article. Peer review away.
CorvuscoronoidesContributionsMGo Blue17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Doing well. Lead needs to be a summary of contents - eg I stuck a one-liner about range. A couple more and then I'd stick the taxonomy stuff in a section just below. Have a look at
American Goldfinch which has just passed GA and is well on the way to FA. Needs more refs at the bottom. If you do't know how to inline just stick 'em at the bottom and a few of us will help out.cheers,
Cas Liber |
talk |
contribs21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Go to Google and click 'more' (after web/images etc.) - you'll see scholar. click thre and search away. Searching the main web is Ok too and usually gets alot of hits.cheers,
Cas Liber |
talk |
contribs23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Getting there; all bits in lead should be expanded later in article - thus all the classification bit should be in a section. Have a look at
Common Raven as well. After this I wouldn't worry too much about lead but concetnrate on referencing. cheers,
Cas Liber |
talk |
contribs23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Looking better - link or define altricial. I italicised rather than quotation marked anting. Hvae alook at the cite format for refs and put as much info in them. There are not too many, try and diversify (i.e. get more) if possible. Just woke up so too bleary-eyed to copyedit at the moment.cheers,
Casliber (
talk·contribs)
20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Question - what more needs to be done to bring this article to GA status? My end goal is FA, of course, but small steps are good :) I've never really done this much to an article before, so just wondering. Cheers,
Corvuscoronoides21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply