Jump to content

Talk:Fieldfare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
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)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
  1. 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)[reply]
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    Ref 2 is a dead link. Is about.com a reliable source? Refs 3 and 5 need page numbers.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
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)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]