Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review/Wood Thrush

Wood Thrush

I came across this page while researching for a school project, and I was shocked by how incomplete it was compared to some other sources I found, so I came back after I finished my project and rewrote almost all of the article. Here's what the page looked like before I expanded it. Anyway, I'd like some feedback on the current article. Peer review away. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing well. Lead needs to be a summary of contents - eg I stuck a one-liner about range. A couple more and then I'd stick the taxonomy stuff in a section just below. Have a look at American Goldfinch which has just passed GA and is well on the way to FA. Needs more refs at the bottom. If you do't know how to inline just stick 'em at the bottom and a few of us will help out.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - my problem is that I mainly used one reference, but since I suppose I'm making it my "pet project," as I find more sources, I'll add them. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 21:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are generally lots of interesting studies online. Check Google scholar somewhere along the way :)cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar? Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 23:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Google and click 'more' (after web/images etc.) - you'll see scholar. click thre and search away. Searching the main web is Ok too and usually gets alot of hits.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - how's the lead now? I poked at it a bit. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{MGo Blue} 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting there; all bits in lead should be expanded later in article - thus all the classification bit should be in a section. Have a look at Common Raven as well. After this I wouldn't worry too much about lead but concetnrate on referencing. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for the tips. I'll see about finding more taxo info. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's it now? I ran around finding other references, and adding more content. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better - link or define altricial. I italicised rather than quotation marked anting. Hvae alook at the cite format for refs and put as much info in them. There are not too many, try and diversify (i.e. get more) if possible. Just woke up so too bleary-eyed to copyedit at the moment.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just tweaked all the sources - check it out and tell me if that's what you meant by the cite format for refs. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; much better looking.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what more needs to be done to bring this article to GA status? My end goal is FA, of course, but small steps are good :) I've never really done this much to an article before, so just wondering. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recon it'd pass GA now, or with very minor tweaks.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blinks* So... should I nominate it? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does a bear **** in the woods?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's GA! So, what should I tackle now in order to aim for FA? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]