Talk:Gyrfalcon/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to withdraw this article for further work, since it's quite a long way off the standard. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds for bird GA and FA articles that might help you. If you think you can address the problems in a reasonable time, I'll continue with the review and provide more detailed comments. First, some major issues

Much of the text is completely unreferenced. For GA and FA, effectively anything other than the lead needs a reference
The references are a mess. You need to distinguish between the texts you have used as sources "Cited texts" and those you haven't used "Bibliography"
Many of the refs and ELs are bare https, need formatting, see the bird FAs, GAs. Each source should have a separate ref ( not Helbig et al. (1994), Wink et al. (1998), Wink et al. (2004), Nittinger et al. (2005))
There are errors in the other refs, see BirdLife International (BLI) ref as one example
The lead does not summarise the article, entire sections receive no mention
Capitalisation of species is inconsistent. Note that it is project policy that all bird species are fully capped, so Gyrfalcon, Golden Eagle etc
Article name should not appear in image captions
Needs a copyedit eg The Gyrfalcon has long associated with humans, who have found them

I'll give you some time to sort out the main issues, if you wish to continue with the nom, but I don't want to put a lot of time into minor issues until I'm confident that this is going to run Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a partial clean up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: bibliography/cited texts – I don't think that's right, unless things are done differently on WP Birds articles (and unless you guys use a different definition of 'bibliography' - list of texts referred to in an article :P). AGK 14:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making was that there should be some differentiation between texts used as references, and those (Birdlife, Royal Alberta) that aren't. The exact headings aren't important bibliography + Further reading would be fine. Unless those two refs are going to be used. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, 'further reading' is what I too would use. I'll fork to a separate section those texts that are presently in 'bibliography' but that are not cited. AGK 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]