Talk:Silver fox (animal)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• This nomination seems premature, it has many unsourced paragraphs, and the lead is too short. Please address these issues before I review further. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Also, since this is not a taxon, it should not have a taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Iainstein (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I am one of the students which has been editing this article to get it to good article status. We based our edits based on the last good article reviewer. I would like to know which paragraphs you believe do not have sources, as to my knowledge, there is at least one citation per paragraph. Do you have any suggestions for improving the lead? As far as the taxobox is concerned, while it is not necessary as this is not a separate taxon, we believe that it still useful information for those that are unfamiliar with the taxonomy of this species of fox. Abuatois (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If a paragraph ends without a citation, it is unsourced. Take a look throughout, there are many such cases. One example could be the first paragraph under "range". Same for "Domestication", etc. It also seems much information here is about ref foxes in general, so it does not belong here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• No work being done here, so I'll have to fail it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)