Talk:Northern Pintail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Birds (Rated FA-Class) Birds Portal Northern Pintail is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit Major taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae WikiProject Indonesia (Rated FA-Class) Northern Pintail is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template. How you can help: Discussion board FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal WikiProject Southeast Asia (Rated FA-Class)   This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Southeast Asia-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. FA This article has been rated as FA on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) WikiProject Australia  Portal Northern Pintail is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Northern Pintail 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed January 23, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

||||action1oldid=185097762 |||||action2oldid=185943734 ||

Contents 1 Breeding male 2 Copyedit Review Notes 3 Good Article review 4 consistency

[edit] Breeding male

The article says "The breeding male is unmistakable." but it doesn't describe how the male is unmistakable. Please describe the physical characteristics of the breeding male. --psyphyre 00:15, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

So what about dafila acuta? Peter Scott would be disappointed at its omission JMcC 09:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit Review Notes

I just gave the article a copyedit, and while I won't review it for GA, I have a few sentences and such that I thought could be clarified:

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead needs to be rewritten.

Under Description, next to last paragraph, could you elaborate on "with slightly swept-back wings"?

Third paragraph of Threats, should you clarify what quarry species means for us non-hunting folks?

And in Taxonomy, what precisely is Stephens 1824? I don't see it referenced again in the article.

Other than this, I think it looks pretty good. Obviously, go over my copyediting to make sure I didn't accidentaly change the meaning of something. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all makes sense, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me now. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I did notice that you chose not to include a section of cultural significance this time, but it's certainly not a sufficient reason to claim the article is lacking broadness. Some people dislike them anyway.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   You bird folks are getting too good, I hardly have anything to complain about ;). I made some structural and image adjustments myself quickly, but the prose and referencing definitely meets GA standards. Congratulations! VanTucky 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] consistency

The use of in in. and inches is inconsistent. Same comment for other abbreviations of units. Randomblue (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

fixed Jimfbleak (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)