User talk:Duckhunter92/Template/Sandbox

Status/Target
This is FA criteria from WP:FA?
 * 1) It is—
 * 2) *[[Image:Red x.svg|15px]](a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
 * 3) *[[Image:Red x.svg|15px]](b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;
 * 4) *[[Image:Red x.svg|15px]](c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
 * 5) *(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
 * 6) *(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
 * 7) It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
 * 8) *(a)[[Image:Red x.svg|15px]] a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
 * 9) *(b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and
 * 10) *(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
 * 11) Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * 12) Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Good criteria from WP:GOOD A good article is— 1) Well written:
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|15px]](a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|15px]](b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|15px]](a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|15px]](b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons and
 * (c) it contains no original research.

3) Broad in its coverage:
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|15px]](a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|15px]](b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. 5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute 6) Illustrated, if possible, by images
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

This is a check list for GA and FA, it is updated by me, which means nothing :-), this is how it possibly would be reviewed in a GA or FA review now, a means that it would fail that section a  means that it might pass that section and if I have not marked it at all I'm not sure or have not had enough time to check. I will try to keep this updated as you update the page. (you should also know that I have not been active in any GA or FA reviews for a long time, and the standard normaly goes up all the time so I might give a more positive review that a real review would). If you wonder why I have said fail for a specific section ask, but I leave it up to you to figure out what for now. --Stefan talk 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Update 19 November:


 * well-written: It need sereious copy editing to get the the state of well-written, sit down and read one section at a time and improve the language, now it feels like it is just a lot of sentences stuck together.
 * comprehensive: I think that you need sections like taxonomy, see todays FA Greater Crested Tern for ideas, I also think you need a section importance to humans and at least a mention about its conservation status.
 * factually accurate: I think you need to go through the whole article and add citation at a few more places, again see todays FA for an idea.
 * Lead: You need to improve the lead, it will not even pass GA standard today.

Specific comments:
 * consistent citations: Not sure what this means, but in general I think you need to add more argument to the citations, now you have links with no extra info like http://www.sdnhm.org/kids/sharks/shore-to-sea/mako.html, it needs info about who wrote it, when it was retreived and so on.
 * Images: not sure if this really is a requirement for FA, but it have been a issue before, you should try to find 2-3 more pictures.


 * The picture is overlapping text, move it further down so that it does not overlap with the other pictures to the right or use some of the other formatting tricks that exists.


 * Remove the section Distinguishing characteristics and insert that datat into the text instead.


 * remove the section in popular culture, I do not think anyone in GA/FA review will like it.

This is my comments for now. --Stefan talk 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * after auto review, go through the whole article and use convert for all units.