Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cochineal/archive1

Cochineal

I would like to self-nominate this article because it's balanced and informative. The article provides interesting facts from arround the globe, so it should be interesting to read. DariusMazeika 12:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• refer to peer review mild object Support This is a good start at an article toward featrued quality, but: 1) Cite your sources in a References section. 2) The lead section is inadequate for an article of this length. 3) The article lacks the Taxobox that is used on other articles about animals. slambo 13:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks better, thanks for making the changes so quickly. On the references, they should be formatted as is shown on the page linked above, especially important for online references is the date that they were accessed. Some editors like to see inline citations (like are described in Wikipedia:Footnote3), but I'm still indifferent to footnoting. The lead is better, but the article body now needs more information about the species to be comprehensive. A good comparison for other animal articles is Island Fox which was promoted to featured status about a month or so ago. slambo 15:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have introduced the changes proposed for the lead section and the references into the article. Comment again, please. Thank you. DariusMazeika 21:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Steady improvement, thanks. I've only skimmed it this morning; I'll re-read it later today and reconsider. slambo 11:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Just re-read the article, upgrading my vote to Support. Well done! slambo 02:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I've just adjusted the reference system and given it a good copyedit, it has potential but is not ready yet. Going over it thoroughly there is still room for expansion particularly in the section where the life cycle is described, more could be added to the usage too. There is a mix of metric and imperial measurements. The exact range of catci (seems to eat cacti from two genera, but there is only list of species for 1) needs to be researched and included. There are lots of red links, and quite a few blue ones that link to substandard articles, like carmic acid, which redirects to carmine and they're not the same thing but they are both relevant to the article. Also the cost of cochineal compared to the artifical dyes seems relevant but is not mentioned--nixie 01:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Lifecycle & usage have been expanded, details like pricing, current markets and normalised list of species added. DariusMazeika 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comments 1) Actual images would be better over drawings of the insect. 2) I think the biology section could be expanded. 3) The history section makes no mention of the pigments cochineal replaced. Circeus 12:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for comments. I am going to improve the article after a weekend - on Monday-Tuesday. DariusMazeika 10:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The article improved according to comments 2) and 3). Currently I was unsuccessful in finding a free macro photo of the insect for 1). New images are on the page, a macro images are expected, too. DariusMazeika 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It could be improved, of course, but I'd say it's good enough for FA status already. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Mild support I'm just a little concerned about the second paragraph being where it is; I'm thinking maybe it should be in the Dye--History section instead of where it is. Does anyone agree with me on that? --JB Adder | Talk 23:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason why I have put this paragraph on top, is because it describes what the rest article is about: not only the biology and the dye (as the first paragraph suggests), but also the farming, history and current market, like the second one does. DariusMazeika 07:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. Now that I know that, I'll give my full support. --JB Adder | Talk 07:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)