Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goldcrest/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:27, 27 December 2010 [1].

Goldcrest[edit]

Goldcrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last of the three European kinglets to appear here, and I hope I've learned enough from the first two to avoid major problems. As the only kinglet to be common in English speaking countries, it rejoices in improbable folk names, like "woodcock pilot", "herring spink" or "tot o'er seas". Read to the end to find out why (offer of the week). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image is probably best in the "Taxonomy" section. It would break up the the indented list of subspecies if it was on the left. Using a mirror image can be mooted; nevertheless, I am not enthusiastic about this sort of modification. Snowman (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Regulus regulus 60North cropped.jpg: I think that there is not enough space above head, and that the image cropping should be better than this. If the image was narrower, then the bird would appear bigger in the infobox at the standard infobox width. Snowman (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shall I have a go at re-cropping it? Snowman (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox image cropped to square now shown. Snowman (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is in the "Category:National symbols of Luxembourg" and this is not explained in the article. A discussion theme was started about this on the talk page some time ago, but the discussion has not been advanced recently. Snowman (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no RS to suggest that it really is a national symbol of Luxembourg, removed from text at the outset, but forgot the cat, that's gone now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be worth updating the discussion on talk page to reduce potential confusion. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recall a lengthy account of hundreds of migrating birds dying at a lighthouse (I think twice per year at migration time) by a lighthouse keeper in an autobiographic book, whose title and author, and the species of bird, I have long since forgotten. Overnight hundreds of birds perch on the lighthouse and hundreds fly around and around the lighthouse overnight with the rotating light beam, and that lighthouse keepers find hundreds of dead birds on the ground in the morning. I think that lighthouses are not such a safe-haven for migrating birds as is indicated in the article. Is there anything about lighthouses disturbing migrating birds or confusing their senses that enables them to find their way. Snowman (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said they are disorientated - if the conditions are such that they can't navigate normally, they have little alternative but to head for the light. I can't see that I've suggested that it's a safe haven (although it could help bird make landfall), just that the light attracts them. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had another look at the caption and I find it misleading in what it misses out, because it does not say that lighthouses cause the deaths of hundreds of migrating birds and that the light can disrupt normal bird migration (by the stars or moon or whatever). Snowman (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "On foggy or overcast nights". What about clear nights? Snowman (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • it says on foggy or overcast nights, so no stars or moon. I'm not aware of a problem in good conditions. Although there can be large scale deaths, it's not invariable the case. The caption is specifically about the Goldcrests, and none of the sources I found reported casualties of this species. I'm reluctant to make it vaguer by talking about migrating birds in general, rather than the species the article is about Jimfbleak - talk to me?
  • Caption includes "and other disorientated migrants", and I think these four words probably needs deleting. I think it means "and other disorientated migrating bird species", so it is a general statement which is probably inadequately explained in the short caption. Snowman (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you are getting at. I think disorientation needs mentioning, and it's unlikely that only goldcrests would be attracted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that your reasoning. There is more than one right way to think about this. Agree to differ. Snowman (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These lice move over the host's body drinking blood obtained by chewing the bird's skin." I do not find this clear. It is mentioned, and so I think it needs to include information that makes it more intuitively apparent, and not like a potential puzzle. Can more detail be added to this? How deep into the skin is the chewing? How big are the resulting skin sores? What anatomical parts do the lice use to chew skin? Do the lice also eat skin? Does the bird scratch the sores and perhaps make the sores bigger? I would have guessed that lice would have a specialized adaptation for piercing the skin and take blood more directly, so I think it needs double checking for accuracy. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's what the source says; there's very little about these lice out there, and in any case, I don't think that detail is necessary in an article about the bird (rather than the louse) I can't see that there is anything difficult about the idea that you bleed if you're chewed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference is about "Comparative effects of mites and lice on the reproductive success of rock doves (Columba livia)" and it might not be the best place to look for how lice obtain blood. How did the author's show that mites chewed bird skin? Did they use microscopes? Snowman (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent amendment. That sounds more like lice to me. Snowman (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they have enough fat reserves to reach the wintering areas." I think that this might be an oversimplification. What about other sources of metabolic energy besides fat? I understand that some migrating birds use gluconeogenesis to a remarkable extent when migrating to use proteins as an extra energy source, and to an extent far above that seen in human metabolism. I think that the extensive use of this pathway it is a special adoption in migrating birds, and I guess that it would be used to supplement the energy from fat or after the fat has run out to enable birds to migrate further than they would if they only used fat as an energy source. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the sources I found, including several not used in this article, talked in terms of fat reserves. As I understand it, gluconeogenesis also starts from fatty acids, so it's not contradictory, and how the fats are metabolised is beyond the scope of a bird article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is wrong. Gluconeogenesis includes generating glucose from protein. A quick intenet seach brought up some references; see this fairly randomly selected abstract as one example, which says "The use of protein during flight was demonstrated by high uric acid levels". Snowman (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, the linked article didn't make that clear; added that protein is used as a supplementary energy supply Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: copy edited amendment. Snowman (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • infobox image: I refer to User Jimfbleak's edit, which is not the infobox image, but is is in the same flickr photoset and could be the same bird. You said that one was "maybe first winter". There appears to be more about visualizing the colours of the crest, which makes it difficult to identify the birds as male or female. More details needed in article. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a bit more about the crest in "Description" The angle of the infobox bird makes it obvious that there in no hint of an orange centre, so definitely a female, a male would show some orange even when relaxed. The dull plumage is in accordance with it being a female. Whether it's an adult or first winter is difficult, but I've not speculated on the age Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clearer now. Do both male and female display their crests? Snowman (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. I can't find anything that says they do, but it would be less obvious, and less likely even if they did.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that it's like singing, they have the equipment, but not the hormones Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Subspecies section". I found this very unclear and even confusing. I think it needs a good copy-edit. For example: "The Canary Islands birds, sometimes called Tenerife Goldcrest, ..." - but Madeira is also in the Canaries and the kinglet there is called the Madeira Firecrest. I also find the treatment of the taxonomy of the Tenerife Goldcrest impossible to follow, despite concentrating on it for too long. The subspecies list is broken into two parts and I think that why this is should be made clearer. Perhaps the whole section needs to be unscrambled somewhat. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Madeira is a different archipelago, it's not anywhere near the Canaries, so no contradiction really. The subspecies are listed in two parts (as they were in the source), because the mainland ssp are relatively homogenous, whereas the isolated island forms have diverged much more. I've tweaked the Tenerife bit to hopefully make it clearer. The ssp are listed, as in the source, by the date they were described. I could list the mainland forms geographically from west to east, and put the three Azores and two Canaries forms together within the Macaronesian group. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not know the geography - excuse my ignorance. I think that explains why I did not understand parts of it. Other parts of it are still puzzling, but becoming a little clearer. Would it be worth showing a map focusing on the island ranges? I thought lists were put in phylogenetic order - I guess this could line-up the island species separately. It might be worth preceding with small changes and after a while you might have the inspiration to do a big re-organisation, if needed. Snowman (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've grouped the island species, and added Azores or Canary Islands as appropriate. I'm not keen on adding another two maps (it would need one for each group) there are articles for each of the island groups if people want to know the detailed geography, it would be just clutter here I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some further experimental edits based on the new sequence and I have preceded the three geographical zones with some text. Should the mya for colonisation of Azores be included for completion? Snowman (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "about 100,000 years ago" from same ref
  • "Breeds only on Tenerife/Azores/place": This could mean that the birds sometimes go to the other islands and go back to a specific island to breed. Would it be better to put "Found only on ....", which would imply that the birds stay on a particular island all the time? Snowman (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed variously to "Found only on.." (single islands) or "Resident on..." otherwise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... spreading eastwards from western São Miguel Island": On checking wiki pages on the Azores, it seems that this island is on the south-east of the Azores, so birds would need to spread in approximate north-west direction to reach the other islands, and definitely not an eastwards direction. What is meant by western Sao Migeuel? Snowman (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • well checked, I seem to have completely misread this first time around. Amended to reflect what the text says: basically the two easternmost islands were colonised first, which is more logical than what I put, and then the central and western subsequently from western Sao Miguel. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if a sub-section on phylogeography would help to tidy up the taxonomy section (it is only an idea - like on "New Zealand parrot" article). Do the Azores birds have a similar sort of appearance that can be added? The Canary Island birds already have a line summing up their common appearances. Snowman (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to leave a more detailed phylogeny until I do the family article (as with the NZ parrots) assuming there's enough info to do so. The Azores colonisation is so relatively recent that the birds look much like the European forms, they just haven't had time to become as distinctive as the Canary or Madeira Regulus species. Most of the research on relationships is based on vocalisations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... following the 1070/71 winter, ..."; so that is about 1000 years ago or is it a typo for a more recent century. Snowman (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was only 900 years out :( Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From: "The New Atlas of Beeding Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991" p. 352. isbn 0856610755. The European larch in listed with its most favoured foraging trees and it is listed first. This book says; "... Goldcrests prefer to forage in European larch, pine, spruce, and sycamore, and tend to avoid ..." This is referring to British and Irish birds, and I do not know how this compares to your references, but I think that it would be worth double checking. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rearranged to avoid differentiating conifers by species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you got anything on the layering of eggs in nests?, which is apparently an behavioural adaptation to minimise heat loss. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, do you have ref for this behaviour in Goldcrests? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short line added. Snowman (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to my book the male makes the second nest. Do your references agree with this? Snowman (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say, although it has to be the case since the female does nearly all the incubation. I've found my copy of The Atlas, added male nest building, and also the overnight fat loss Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the drawing of the nest a good likeness? It might be accurate, but it seems to be shown with rather a broad open top. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldcrest nests are shallower and wider cups than those of Firecrest. The drawing appears consistent with this and this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. So is the text wrong?: "The Goldcrest's nest is a well-insulated cup-shaped structure built in three layers with a small entrance hole at the top". Snowman (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BWP dscription seems at odds with the Simms and Coward books, and the images. Removed "with a small entrance hole at the top" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find this reference; "Morris, Francis Orpen (1853). A Natural History of the Nests and Eggs of British Birds: volume 3. pp. 273–282." The book appears to end at the index and that starts at page 201. See book pdf. Snowman (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what happened there, volume and pages both wrong, now corrected, my apologies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the drawing of the nest should have an author for verification. The current source appears to be a sales website and I could not find where this website got this picture from. Snowman (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a requirement to have an author, there are many paintings and photos by unknown authors on Wikipedia. The only point of knowing the author is to verify (in the UK) that it's more than 70 years after death, or, if artist not known, after publication. The site says Guaranteed Over 153 years old...(not dated but c1852), so it's inconceivable that it's in copyright (especially if the artist isn't known), unless you are suggesting that the vendors are incompetent and/or fraudulent. It looks Victorian too, but even if it was a modern reproduction, it would meet PD-art. I assume that the photo on the website is taken by the vendors, so it isn't surprising that you can't find it elsewhere, Tineye found nothing either. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I am not suggesting that the people responsible for the sales website are incompetent or fraudulent. Their website seems to me to be good and serves its purpose in the retail market. Nevertheless, I have noticed that several references from good websites have not being thought suitable to be used in an FA. If it helps, I have found another illustration, which shows a Goldcrests' nest suspended from branches of a fir tree; see File:A Natural History of the Nests and Eggs of British Birds -Goldcrest -plate 132.jpg. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • , fine there's no doubt with that one, so I've replaced the old. I'm tempted to crop out the egg, since there is a photo of an egg in the same section, and it would reduced the amount of empty space, what do you think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Modified version cropped to a square now shown. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the smallest bird in Europe I think that readers might be fascinated with sizes, and I think it may be an omission that the dimension of the nest are not included. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • unfortunately, Simms doesn't give the size, although he does for Firecrest, and I can't find it elsewhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a measurement in the on-line book in the pages preceding the illustration of the birds nest. Snowman (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One bird built its nest just 1.0 m (3 ft) above ..." - the text says that both female and male make the first nest. Looks easy to fix. Probably would be better something like; "One pair made their nest ....", although, the text says that the male makes the second nest alone. Snowman (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
amended Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tight sitter" - jargon. "interspecific territoriality" - jargon. "non-animal" - can this be expressed as a positive something or is it ok as it is?. "The flight is distinctive; it is lighter than that of even the smaller ..." - What is "lighter flight"? "Firecrests forage more often while standing" - Can foraging be done while standing still? Snowman (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought "tight sitter" was obvious, especially with the text that follows, but please remove if you think it's too difficult. interspecific changed to "territorial conflicts between species" I put non-animal because "plant" didn't sound right if you're talking about sap. changed standing to "on foot". I thught the light flight was obvious, but clearly not, so removed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should winter survival be included under the "Status" sub-heading? With all the thermodynamics in the "Feeding" section there might be enough for a separate subheading about "Winter survival" on this tiny bird. The "Feeding" section seems to long to me. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the mechanism bit a subsection, left the effects of a hard winter in "Status" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "landed on the rigging of herring boats"; presumably the birds were resting during migration. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added migrating Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression: I have edited the article and I edit bird pages, which may be a conflict of interest; nevertheless, I think I have been objective. I have a niggling doubt that further copy-editing is needed to this relatively newly expanded page and I hope that new reviewers will have a look at the page. I think that the article is probably nearly at FA status and I think that it will be ready for FA status, after a few more reviewers have had a say. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I see that further copy-editing and checking has been done. I think the article has reached FA status. Snowman (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and extensive input in improving this article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: In general the sources look of appropriately high quality. I have just a few issues:-

  • The Pliny and Aristotle citations are incomplete. Are these English translations? If so, by whom, when published? etc.
  • replaced with a translation of Pliny, and a book which repeats the story and refers it back to Pliny and Aristotle. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 65 (Doubleday): The cited sentence is "In English, the association between the Goldcrest and Eurasian Wren was reinforced by the kinglet's old name of 'Gold-crested Wren'". The source gives a list of names, of which 'Gold-crested Wren' is one, but the list does not seem to confirm the association between the Goldcrest and Eurasian Wren.
  • The only point I was trying to make was that, just as the Greek names had been confusingly similar, so the old names in English were also similar. Changed to less dogmatic "may have been" I can take that sentence out if you disagree Jimfbleak - talk to me? 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General point: Many of the sources are long or longish articles with online versions stretching to 10–20 pages. It would be most helpful if, for the purposes of verification, citations could be to specific pages rather than to ranges.
  • In the case of journals, it's standard practice to give the full length of the article within the journal. I'm reluctant to take wikipedia referencing to yet another level of OTT by departing from this. In any case, I think it's necessary to read the articles in full to understand the claimed facts. In books, I normally give the exact page(s), except, as in the Baker, Simms and Snow references, the information is in a chapter or section devoted to the Goldcrest. I think it's better then to give the chapter range rather than have a plethora of references to individual, but contiguous, pages Jimfbleak - talk to me? 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm not sure that I entirely agree that it should be a requirement to read the whole article to check a single fact. I accept that it normal WP practice to cite whole articles, but these ones are fairly long, and the paging is available. However, this is not a sticking point, more a personal preference. Other responses all fine. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave current as is, but I'll bear in mind in future FACs if a single page ref is more appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looking good. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 22:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments (moral or otherwise as WP:birds member) belatedly reading through it now. Queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is similar in structure to a warbler.. - eeks, sounds like architecture. " It is similar in build to a warbler" sounds better to me, or " It is similar in body shape/form to a warbler"
The Goldcrest breeds in well-grown lowland and mountain coniferous woodlands,... - "well-grown" means "mature" here I take it? The latter sounds more natural to me...

I read Snowman's concerns and tried to see what could be twaeked prose-wise but nothing else really jumped out at me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please clarify - Does user Casliber think that the article has reached FA standard? Snowman (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, I did not notice that the prior section was connected. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - comprehensive enough and well written. Would be much more complete if the following references are reviewed. Shyamal (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deignan, HG (1954) On the nomenclature of the Himalayan Goldcrests. Bull. British Ornithologists' Club 74(9):103-104.
    • Vaurie, C (1955): Remarks on the nomenclature of the Himalayan races of Regulus regulus. Bull. British Ornithologists' Club 75(8):99-101.
    • Meinertzhagen, R; Meinertzhagen,AC (1926): [Descriptions of eight new subspecies from the Himalayas and Kashmir] Bull. British Ornithologists' Club 46(305):96-101.
    • Deignan,HG (1956): A final word on the nomenclature of the Himalayan Goldcrests. Bull. British Ornithologists' Club 76(6):106.
  • Thanks for review, copy edits, extra refs and support. I don't think that BBOC have put any of these on line (I couldn't find them). The limited references to these old papers suggests they are more background info than anything critical (which you would expect to be covered by Rasmussen), unless you have a better idea of the content. Nevertheless, I'll see if I can get hold of them, but given the proximity of Christmas, that may not be feasible until after this FAC has concluded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately my access to academic databases is nil at the moment. Check with User:Ucucha who has helped with BBOC in the past. Shyamal (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And BBOC are closed until January 11! Given the probable non-critical nature of these refs, it shouldn't hold up FAC — I found lots of other oldish refs that I just didn't need to use because supplanted by later work. If FAC is delayed, I'll have to consider withdrawing since I'm very busy from mid-January. Thanks for suggesting Ucucha, I'll see what he can do. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha can't access before then either. Just wait and see whether this becomes an issue Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can postpone it, it certainly is not a blocker under the FA criteria. Shyamal (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to check on that in January. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Goldcrest/archive1&oldid=1078800157"