Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cochineal

Cochineal[edit]

Previous discussion from July 2005 at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cochineal/archive1

This was previously a FAC, about eleven months ago. It seems to have come a long way since then; see [1]. It seems to be of high quality, and whilst I'm never entirely sure where the FA boundary lies, this is probably towards the right side of it. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very solid. Do we have any other entomology FAs to compare this to? WP:LEAD could still use a little tweaking to mirror the rest of the article in the level of detail in its summary. Also, there seems to be some Categories that actually belong to the Carmine article. Use of {{main}} under the Dye section to link to Carmine again might be helpful. Jkelly 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't find an insect article, but see Wikipedia:Featured_articles for FAs on animals, bacteria, etc. Rlevse 13:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice job. Themillofkeytone 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of it's my work, but thanks ;-) Shimgray | talk | 22:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I'm almost ready to support, but the British/American thing needs to be fixed--I see four instances of "color" and about 15 of "colour", and check the -ize vs. -ise thing too. Personally I'd prefer to see American usage here (since this seems to be more related to the western hemisphere), but just make it consistent. Also, a few more citations in the history section would be welcome. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fiddled the language (to br.eng., since I'm more comfortable with it and "colour" was pretty dominant), but I'm not sure about the history links. I'll see if I can find anything - I can spot a couple of possible details needing flagged. Shimgray | talk | 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that's a bit better cited now. Shimgray | talk | 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is a great article. Perhaps though the references, sources and external links could be better organized. External links usually aren't put in that form (normally just the links are included), so perhaps it might be better to just link to [2]. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: two redlinks in the taxobox, need to get rid of them. EamonnPKeane 10:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not every genus of insect needs its own article. A couple of redlinks of this type are OK I think. Matt Deres 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's consensus, then they shouldn't be linked at all. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]