Talk:Red panda/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I will make some straightforward changes as I go, but please revert me if you feel I have inadvertently changed the meaning. I will place queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I have worked on alot of bio articles and have been trying to get them to conform - I will tweak a bit (mainly to get a nice balance of sections and subsections, and show some succinct headings). Check edit summaries for reasons as I go.

.. the Procyonidae (raccoons) + Mustelidae (weasels) - I presume you want to say something like "a close-knit group comprising both the Procyonidae (raccoons) + Mustelidae (weasels)" ? Anyway, should be in a prose format.

..more dramatic facial markings - I know what you mean. "dramatic" sounds a bit odd, I'd go with "pronounced" or something similar (?)

I really need to get to sleep now as it has just gone 1 am here (Sydney) - one thing that needs buffing is the lead. Have a look at WP:LEAD and also some other animal articles of a similar size to get an idea. The most salient points as a brif summary should be included, so someone skimming might look at it and be (slightly) satisfied. I'll be back in several hours. g'night. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Edits

I am doing a couple of token edits that I can manage quickly just to show I am paying attention. "Trichotomy" as applied to the superfamily does not seem to line up with what is chown in the caniformia chart, so rather than trying to mess with it, and since each is a "family", I have just listed the otehr families in mustelidae. I hope this works. I will work on the intro later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donlammers (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool - I will strike as done, and place more queries as I go too. I am also thinking about FAC for you, so trying to catapult the article quality-wise in that direction (always nice to see these articles on the front page hehehe). There are a stack of bird articles and not so many mammal ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done an initial edit expansion of the intro. I will work on it a bit more tomorrow but I have to sign off for now. Feel free to comment more on that. I don't think I stomped on any of the changes you made. I was planning to go through GA to peer review to FA. The last time someone tried FA for this article it wasn't even close to being ready, so I was taking it a bit conservatively. Obviously, any comments will help, not to mention advice on the process since I haven't done this before. Donlammers (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of rewriting and expanding on the lead. I think I have most of the salient points shown, but have not actually gone through and made a listing from the article to make sure I have. I also went through and italicized all the scientific names I could find. That's all for now. Will keep at it until it's approved, but I still have to keep at my day job too. Donlammers (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, family names are not italicised...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Is it just Genus and Species that are italicized then? I looked at the style guide for this and it said Genus was italicized, then looked at a couple of articles where my results seemed to be equivocal for items above Genus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donlammers (talk • contribs) 12:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer?

I think I have pretty much covered the basics in the intro. Hopefully I didn't overdo it. A couple of questions:

"the Red Panda" vs. "Red Pandas"... Do we need to be consistent htere, or is a bit of variation OK? If we should be consistent, my personal preference is to use "Red Pandas", but is there a WikiProject preference? Either way, I can go through and fix.

In general it is a good idea to stick to singular unless there is a good reason otherwise (eg talking about a pair or group), i.e. singular if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and "singularized." I did leave some plural where I thought it made more sense. Donlammers (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear whether I should be using citations in the intro. The implication is to minimize them in the intro, but I can add some from the main text if that's better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donlammers (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, one of the vexed questions of wikipedia. Ultimately, everything in the lead should be covered in more detail elsewhere in the article (and with an inline reference in the latter place) - however, it is considered prudent to inline ref more challengeable claims in hte lead as well as the body of the text. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added one citation -- for the classification -- since it has been highly variable over the years. Donlammers (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You didn't overdo it on the lead, nice work. Yes we're getting closer. You might find User:Tony1/How to improve your writing interesting too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It looks like in general the recommendations for passive vs. active are backwards from my day job (tech writing), where active voice is highly preferred. I also need to watch for short choppy sentences (or fragments), which we use a lot in technical writing (often in lists, which are also discouraged here). Different types of writing, different styles I need to get familiar with. Thanks for the help. I was intending to let the article mostly sit for a bit before trying for anything beyond GA, as I feel I have my head too far in the details to see the forest. It helps to have an outside view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donlammers (talk • contribs) 12:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too find GA a good 'way station' for a breather before climbing the Everest of FAC. I think it is still best to use active tense, but I do flip sometimes if it makes a sentence much simpler (eg a second/subsequent clause relates to whatever noun is in latter half of sentence)

I am helping my mother move house currently so am taking my time with this, but we're getting there. I'll keep posting stuff here and the GA criteria soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc.:

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Images need WP:ALT text.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

I think we've achieved a good 'waystation' and it passes criteria. I will pop some notes for further improvement on the main talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]