Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Réunion Ibis/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:04, 16 January 2013 editJimfbleak (talk | contribs)Administrators174,449 edits Réunion Ibis: s← Previous edit Revision as of 22:31, 17 January 2013 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,962 edits Réunion Ibis: O for nowNext edit →
Line 18: Line 18:
*'''Images''' are fine; all PD. A few are not Commons-safe, but they are uploaded locally and appropriately tagged. ] (]) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC) *'''Images''' are fine; all PD. A few are not Commons-safe, but they are uploaded locally and appropriately tagged. ] (]) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I made a couple of , please check <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>] - </b></font></font><font face="arial"><font color="green">]</font></font> 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC) *'''Support''' I made a couple of , please check <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>] - </b></font></font><font face="arial"><font color="green">]</font></font> 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

==== Review by SandyGeorgia ====
'''Oppose''' for now, expect to strike, multiple
# The '''Réunion Ibis''' (''Threskiornis solitarius'') is ... if the Threskiornis solitarius is an alternate name, it should be both bolded and italicized.
# Images are facing off the page ... I believe the intent of the MOS guideline applies to both animals and people ... please juggle images so animals aren't looking off the page.
# In the mid 19th century, ... missing hyphen, pls review throughout.
# An alternate name is mentioned in the second paragraph; is it not possible to get that mentioned sooner?
# The taxonomic history of the Réunion Ibis is very convoluted, ... is there a difference between "very convoluted" and "convoluted"? Please check for redundancy.
# It has been claimed that Bertrand-François Mahé de La Bourdonnais sent a "Solitaire" to France ... weasly ... by whom?
Just random checks, I stopped there, the article is not in bad shape, but some additional prose review would be helpful. ] (]) 22:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:31, 17 January 2013

Réunion Ibis

Réunion Ibis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added practically all known info about, most PD images, and presented all controversies relating to the bird, and it has also been copyedited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

I think all these issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia

Oppose for now, expect to strike, multiple

  1. The Réunion Ibis (Threskiornis solitarius) is ... if the Threskiornis solitarius is an alternate name, it should be both bolded and italicized.
  2. Images are facing off the page ... I believe the intent of the MOS guideline applies to both animals and people ... please juggle images so animals aren't looking off the page.
  3. In the mid 19th century, ... missing hyphen, pls review throughout.
  4. An alternate name is mentioned in the second paragraph; is it not possible to get that mentioned sooner?
  5. The taxonomic history of the Réunion Ibis is very convoluted, ... is there a difference between "very convoluted" and "convoluted"? Please check for redundancy.
  6. It has been claimed that Bertrand-François Mahé de La Bourdonnais sent a "Solitaire" to France ... weasly ... by whom?

Just random checks, I stopped there, the article is not in bad shape, but some additional prose review would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)