Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Alligator/archive1

American Alligator

• This an extremely well written article containing a high level of scientific and factual accuracy.
• It covers an interesting topic, which is particularly relevant in these troubled times
• It contains several outstanding images Ben Payton

• Object. No references. --Maitch 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object - no references, inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs), short sections (Anatomy can be expanded), years without full dates should not be linked per WP:MOSDATE; suggest peer review. AndyZ _t 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. You expose yourself by writing "extremely" in the nomination text. It's not badly written, but needs a little cleaning up:
  • Why the "However" and the "In addition" in the lead? Just remove them.
  • Weed out the redundant "alsos".
  • Delink the year-links, as per WP policy.
  • A few one-sentence paragraphs could easily be merged with their larger neighbours.
  • "Although the American alligator is secure, some related animals — such as several species of crocodiles and caimans — are still in trouble." "secure" needs a qualifier, and "endangered" is the usual term for "in trouble", isn't it?
  • "alligators face ambient temperature patterns unlike elsewhere in their range." Bad clause.
  • Provide metric equivalents for the 95% of the human race that doesn't use US measures.
  • One subsection hangs without a final stop.

It needs a 40-minute run-through by a copy-editor—preferably someone who's distant from the text. Don't fix just the points I've raised. Tony 02:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object a worthwhile subject, but it needs to use summary style and a read through of the manual of style would be beneficial to the major editors. There are no in text references, and I see that the article has not been to peer review, which is IMO an important first step.--MONGO 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object - As above, especially with regards to referencing. Additionally, sections of it are written as a "How to" guide, which wikipedia is not... in this case, "How not to get eaten", which as valuble as such advice can be, should not be written in this fashion. Rewrite it academically, not with a mind towards instructing a reader on what to do, but rather on informing a reader of what facts are. We wouldn't want to get in trouble because someone followed all the advice we wrote here and yet got eaten by an alligator anyway, would we? Fieari 05:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)