Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Crag martins/archive1

4 articles

This is a self-contained genus topic nominated for FT. The articles share a common layout and navbox section, and I think it's ready to run Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a book, not sure how to add it to the FTbox Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support—great work, appears to meet all criteria. I've made small tweaks in the sectioning of two of the articles for consistency. (I reviewed several of these articles at GAN and FAC.) Ucucha 08:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the book move and your support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The range map of the Rock Martin looks like it has been drawn with a bit of a shaky pen, and I would not like to see it go out in the FT book like that. This map does not look like a finished product. Snowman (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map was redrawn twice at FAC to correct geographical inaccuracies, even though it's not a requirement to have maps for FA. I don't understand your comment. Ranges of African species are poorly known and no bird distribution is sharply defined anyway, apart from island endemics. Are you suggesting that the map should should have neat lines or curves for its borders? If so, that doesn't reflect reality. Unless you can explain where the map is inaccurate, I've no intention of doing a fourth version. Since maps are not a GA or FT requirement, I could alternatively delete all the maps from the four articles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edges of the green range on the map for the Rock Martin are not consistent. Some of the edges are straight and some of the edges are shaky, and I think that this inconsistency makes it look like an unfinished product. Even if the presence of maps are not a requirement, I think that when maps are included they should be well done. Snowman (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll wait for further comments, and remove the maps if your viewpoint is supported by others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the maps would be a bad idea; the article is better off with a slightly shaky map than with no map at all. The map might be better with some of the edges a little more straight, but at the resolution used in the article the shaky edges are hardly even visible. Ucucha 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a set in a potential FT, I think that maps should have a consistent style and that shaky edges in one of the maps can be avoided. I would agree that removing the maps is not a viable option. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away for a few days, I'll deal with any further comments on my return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at the range maps; I really cannot see what the problem is. Any range map is going to have irregular or 'shaky' lines. Maybe range maps should have fuzzy edges to indicate uncertainty or short-term fluctuations, but that is a more general question that this FTC assessment need not address. I feel that, as an FT, it's ready to roll. Maias (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My view of the map issue exactly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The borders within the Rock Martin range map are not consistent - in some areas the borders are shaky and elsewhere in the same map they are not shaky. I do not think that this can be explained away by any of the explanations I have read in this review so far. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only straight bit I can see is along the Namibian border - presumably explained by lack of information regarding the distribution in western Botswana. We know that range maps can never be perfect; they depend on information available. They may appear inconsistent if such information varies in fineness of detail or reliability across the range. As I said, I fail to see a problem. If you have better information, please amend the map accordingly. Simply making the edge there 'shaky' to look like the other edges seems to be taking an aesthetic consideration to a ridiculous extreme. Maias (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My observations are on the presentation of the map, which looks does not look like a finished product. Snowman (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we give this a rest? You keep making the same point over and over again. I've said that I'm not going to do the map a fourth time, you haven't identified any inaccuracy, unlike a constructive earlier reviewer, it's not a criterion even to have a map, and to redraw for artistic reasons is arguably WP:OR by synthesis. If you're not prepared to support, fine, just don't keep going over and over the same issue, you've made your point Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it fulfills the criteria. Maias (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support—contained topic, comprehensive, high-quality. I would like to see the lead article brought to WP:FAC as it doesn't appear far away from featured quality, but that isn't currently a requirement for featured topic status. –Grondemar 21:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I might try to get them all to FA eventually Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Grondemar sums up my feelings. Want feedback on one of them to go next to FAC or have a bit of a breather...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as above with regard to more FAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]