Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Chough/archive1

Chough
I'm nominating this for Good Topic because it's a coherent set of three articles, the genus Pyrrhocorax and its only two species. Two GAs and an FA so far. if successful here, I'll work up Alpine Chough to FA and go for FT. This is my first attempt at GT, and the first from WP:BIRDS, so please be gentle with me!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - very nice topic. One issue though, you need to fix the topic name. The title parameter should match the piped lead - so in this case you should either have title=Pyrrhocorax and lead= Pyrrhocorax, or you should have title=Chough and lead= Chough, depending upon which of the two names you'd rather go with. This is the first genus topic and I hope that many more will follow, so very well done on getting in there early! rst20xx (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for comment and support, topic name changed to Chough - I should have realised.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a slight complication because "Chough" is used locally for the common name of the local species in some parts of the world. Would "Chough (genus)" or "Genus: Chough" be clearer? Snowman (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully looking at the topic box as a whole it should be apparent that the whole genus is being referred to in the lead's name. Further, the lead article, Chough, is not disambiguated to Chough (genus) or something so I don't see why it should need to be here. However if it's felt that the topic name should be made clearer then I think calling the topic "Pyrrhocorax" would be better than disambiguating Chough - rst20xx (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are two images permitted in the GAT template? Snowman (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, one only. You could glue multiple images together though, a la File:Radiohead.jpg. Though the current image already has both types of chough in it! rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Interesting topic. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support — Chris!  c t 00:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support (moral or otherwise as WP:Birds member :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support very neat topic -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all above - I'm amazed at the speed of response here compared to GAN or FAC  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Navbox on articles:
 * I presume that the new navbox at the bottom of all tree pages should look like the GAT table too. At the moment Chough, Alpine Chough, and Red-billed Chough are on the same box and it looks like they are all species. Snowman (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the case. I copied the navbox from an existing GT/FT, so I assume that it's as it should be. The navbox isn't restricted to GT/FT, it can be used to link any related topics at any assessment level, and therefore isn't intended to mimic the FTbox format. It's just that at GT/FT, it's strongly suggested that a navbox is used to link the articles in the topic.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I think the navbox could be amended to be clearer. I looked at another navbox and the fist one I looked at had a better structure, see Age of Empires. I think that it is potentially misleading that the common names for the genus and species are in the same box and the genus is repeated (with the scientific name) as the heading as well. Folowing the "Age of Empires" style, the heading would be "Chough" wikilinked (or "Genus: Chough") and the box would containe "Species: Red-winged Chough, Alpine Chough". Or perhaps there should be an extra column on the left for the taxa. the navbox could help the reader navigate to the genus and species better. It is not clear which is the genus and which are the species. In some parts of the world "Chough" would be used for the common name of the local species". I think that the current navbox is not fit for purpose. Snowman (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, navbox rewritten to separate genus and species, also Pyrrhocorax added parenthetically to remove any possible ambiguity. please feel free to tweak further if you wish  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Enormous improvements in navbox seen and I think that the new transcluded "chough navbox template" is neat. Snowman (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I see many more coming. Any plan on the next GTC thus far? I suggest working on more GTCs rather than taking this to FTC. Great job Jimfbleak and all others involved. - DSachan (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. This is new ground for the project, but a few possibilities have been identified on the project page. This had the advantage of being a small genus, so relatively easy to work up. Thanks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 23:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Very interesting articles. Well done!  The left orium  21:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)