 | Fieldfare has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 13, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Fieldfare appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Untitled edit
Why does the paragraph, on the article page, refer to the Redwing and contain text nearly identical to text on the Redwing page, when this is the page for a different species, the Fieldfare? This needs to be corrected. BbGideon (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagreement edit
I added a para stating a difference of opinion about this birds conservation status. Not sure if this is helpful or confusing tho! Lonesometwin (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to modify your text. The RSPB status is only for the UK, at the extreme edge of the Fieldfare's breeding range. Only a handful of pairs breed so far south, but it's common and widespread across its main range. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Fieldfare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PumpkinSky (talk · contribs) 01:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- "Unusually for a thrush," sounds odd to me. PumpkinSky talk 02:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- Ref 10 needs a publisher parameter. PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- "lores" needs linked to Lore (anatomy).
- "There is a faint pale streak above the eye and the lores and under-eye" the two and's and two the's sounds awkward PumpkinSky talk 02:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 2 is a dead link. Is about.com a reliable source? Refs 3 and 5 need page numbers.
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Good quality and all free. PumpkinSky talk 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- English translation of Norwegian on commons would be nice. PumpkinSky talk 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Thank you for taking on this review. I have dealt with the points you raise above and also polished up the lead section a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed/amended the references you mention above with the exception of the "Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names".
I don't have a copy so do not have a page number.Now added, as Jimfbleak has kindly supplied page numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)- Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed/amended the references you mention above with the exception of the "Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names".