Wikipedia:Featured article review/Marginated Tortoise/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 00:02, 20 March 2008.
Review commentary
[edit]This article was promoted way back in 2004. The most glaring issue is inline citations. They are practically nonexistent in several sections, and although sources are provided in a references section, it can't be identified which source cites which statement. Furthermore, the prose seems more like a pet-caring guide, rather than the "professional standard" in the FAC. The prose is occasionally confusing to read, such as in the "Systematics" section, and short, one-sentence paragraphs chop up the prose. Overall, I believe that the article does not meet the current standards for FA. bibliomaniac15 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'd think it needs:
#. a description
- . expand on taxonomy, what and how named
- . habitat notes in the distrib. and hab. section. Where does it live ?
- . fix lead
- . big copyedit
- . judicious pruning of images and promotions of commons.
- . notes on how common it is in cultivation and about cultivation, not a how-to guide.
Not insignificant Bit worse than I thought, but doable. Luckily is a well-demarkated article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, comprehensiveness, and prose. Joelito (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per criterion 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. Also a large amount of short sentences that are simply bulleted together. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove (sigh) - the nub is that the information required to bring this up to par will be in books more than online. Oh well, sometime in the future...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.