Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barn Swallow

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:32, 7 December 2007.

Barn Swallow

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it already has GA status, and since then has been improved with additional material, including a map, and has been to Peer review. I've followed all the helpful suggestions made there. It's my first attempt at FA, so I'm sure there must be something I've missed, but I can't see it myself, so here goes! Jimfbleak (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request/suggestion-kindly expand the habitat section. it seems to a stub section. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've added detail on altitude, more preferred winter habitats, roosting sites. I can't find anything else of significance on the web or my books that amounts to more than eg lists of more buildings. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support professionally written, interesting subject matter, citations throughout and complemented with pictures. Great job --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment with response pending~~ I printed myself a copy of the article and began to give it a copydedit. I only got to Behavior before I had to stop, but other than some typos and grammer stuff it looks pretty good so far. I only had two suggestions. First, could you put some more citations in? Unless I'm missing something, each of the long paragraphs I read should of had more than one source and I did notice some facts are less obvious to the reader than others and therefore should be cited. Also, could you rewrite the first sentence in the fourth parapraph of the introduction? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Thanks for the tweaks. I've rewritten the clunky para as you suggest. I'm not sure what you mean about the citations, a previous editor at GA said that if all the info in a para was from one source, a single ref at the end would do. Do I in fact need to reference each factual sentence? I've been through again, and I can't spot an obvious example where the source has changed in a para (other than in the intro) without referencing, so help would be welcome. The long descriptions of the bird and the eggs/incubation are single source. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving for a trip this weekend in an hour, but I will finish reviewing when I get back. The main place that I would place cites would be in the description paragraphs, but if all the info did come from a single source then it is fine. Thanks for your quick response. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished reading through the rest of the article. Excellent job, this is most definately one of the best bird or even animal articles on Wikipedia. That said, I made a few changes to the text and have a few questions. However, they are not enough to prevent a support, but I still would like them adressed:

In habitat and range, the information (specifically the elevations) seem to be centered on Europe. Could you find other data to expand this section to fully cover the entire range of the species?

At the end of the fourth paragraph in Breeding, what is m²? Could you write this out better and give the English unit equivilant?

In the first paragraph of Status, could you give the English units for the km²?

What is the point of the first sentence of In culture? It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the section.

With that said, great job on the article and good luck on obtaining FA status. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done rejigged altitude with birdlife source, converted area units, rejigged Gilbert White to show relevance. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can find no specific problems. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think it is very well written. I like it. It tells everything. The pictures are great! :=) Basketball110 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have some doubt that a tattoo parlor can be treated as a reliable source. Circeus 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I realise that there is a problem there. The tattoo story is widespread on the web, but almost by definition, it's difficult to find a really sound source. I'll try again, if I can't find anything stronger, should I take it out? Seems a pity to do so. Jimfbleak 07:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done ref from the Maritime Museum of British Columbia Jimfbleak 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thorough and well-illustrated. MeegsC | Talk 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I tweaked a couple of things to remove a few commas but a sound FA I feel.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 6 December 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.