Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Snow leopard/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.
Snow leopard edit
I have had a good look at this article and I feel it meets the Featured Article criteria. Its great to read, too. Daniel10 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. Daniel, have you checked with any of the regular editors of the article to inquire whether they think it's ready for FAC? See also is not "see also", the article is undercited, and it's most certainly not yet comprehensive. Please consider submitting articles to peer review for a run-through before coming to FAC. Sandy (Talk) 15:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentNice start, but try peer review first.Sumoeagle179 16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From looking at the article, "snow leopard" is not always capitalized; thus I think the article should be moved to Snow leopard. -- Kicking222 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have moved it.--Rmky87 19:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That screwed the FAC and the peer review links on the talk page - I wish people would doublecheck those things when doing moves :-) - and, Yomangani (talk · contribs) explained something to me once about capitalization on animal and species names that went right over my head - someone needs to ask a biology person before I fix the links on the FAC and peer review. Sandy (Talk) 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a query for Yomangani. Sandy (Talk) 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't too strict on this, it's up to the associated WikiProject (if there is one) - see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalization_of_common_names_of_species - mammals are mostly capitalised, but it appears that cats currently are a little confused. I'd take the FA jaguar as a model here (sentence case). Anyway, the only thing that is insisted upon is consistency, so it should be in the same case throughout and if it is referred to as "snow leopard" the article the title should be "Snow leopard" rather than "Snow Leopard". Yomanganitalk 23:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a query for Yomangani. Sandy (Talk) 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That screwed the FAC and the peer review links on the talk page - I wish people would doublecheck those things when doing moves :-) - and, Yomangani (talk · contribs) explained something to me once about capitalization on animal and species names that went right over my head - someone needs to ask a biology person before I fix the links on the FAC and peer review. Sandy (Talk) 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - undercited, not comprehensive, conservation section is listy, postage stamp images probably can't be claimed as fair use. Have a look at jaguar for some pointers on a big cat FA. Suggest withdrawing and attempting to get some input from peer review or from the Cats WikiProject first. Yomanganitalk 23:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank's for the advice. Daniel10 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - it needs some citations, and I just slapped on another citation tag. Also, note that the lead should be more a summary of the article, rather than introducing material that is never taken up in the body of the article. Thus, the lead should be slightly longer (maybe three paras), but so should the body, which should say more about (at least) the cat/big cat/roar thing. It also needed a bit of copyediting, but I've done what I could do quickly. All that said, it's a nice article on an interesting topic so I hope some of these things can be fixed and I can support it next time. Metamagician3000 08:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong object - I've worked on this article a fair bit, & by no means is it anywhere near FA status. As per all the above, this article should never have been nominated. Spawn Man 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Object Great topic, but simply too much wrong right now. First of all, make the introduction something a general reader could take away if that was all they read in the article. For an article on an organism to devote the lead paragraph almost entirely to taxonomy is pointless, you have to put the animal in context first, tell the reader what is us, lead up to taxonomic issues, a separate section, although it may be mentioned briefly in the introduction. Put the animal in its range, in its family (or order), in its historical range, give its size, its diet as its a carnivore, and its conservation status, and information about its scientific and common name, if it is straightforward. Make it a living breathing eating hunting animal wandering in its range for the reader, first. Then develop all these ideas in some logical order within the article, then bring in the taxonomy. KP Botany 00:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object looks like it is headed in the right direction but by no means is it FA material. There is obvious work that needs done. — Arjun 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.