Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bongo (antelope)/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Bongo (antelope)
This article has been cleaned-up a lot and worked on by many since it's last FA candidacy.
A thorough copy-edit has been performed along with many formatting & grammar issues fixed. Now that a peer review (as suggested by talk) has been submitted and changes made accordingly. This is one of the most in-depth resourses about the Bongo on the web.
Please comment on the article and improve it in any way to make this Wiki page the prime source for public Bongo information.
Previous FA candidacy comments
Please check thie article out. There's been much review. Please say what needs adding. Thanks Black Stripe 21:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object I suggest adding more details to the lead, using inline citations and using better grammar and formatting—basically a thorough copyedit. Slof 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object per Slof. Rlevse 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to peer review --Peta 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to peer review There is an impressive amount of effort that has gone into this by Black Stripe (I'm assuming here that the IP address that also did a lot of edits is the Black Stripe logged out). With a thorough copyedit and some work on the intro and citations and suchlike this is should do a lot better once resubmitted after peer review. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was me logged out. I'm new to this so I'm learning the protocols. Thanks for all your comments. I've tried to clean it up a bit based on what you've said. How should the lead be expanded? Please can someone help on the copyedit & peer review? Once cleaned up, I think it could be a great resourse for this topic on the net. Thanks so much guys! Black Stripe 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. Still has zero inline citations and the prose is, in my opinion, not approaching anything noteworthy. For an example, the first sentence of almost every paragraph or section looks like this: "As young males mature, they leave their maternal groups." This seems to follow a formula for "A B C, D E F." It's like a mini roller coaster at the beginning of every paragraph and it really disrupts the flow. Another example is here: "Bongos are herbivorous, like many other forest ungulates." Please refer to ]
- Oppose A two sentence lead, no inline citations, and 1-2 sentence paragraphs for starters. Although inline citations are not technically required as standard in Quadzilla99 21:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Copywriting for a less eyecrossing read would be in order. The lack of inline citation is not acceptable in FA rated articles. Style is short paragraphs without noticable flow and needs reconstruction for lack of a better term. Tirronan 00:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC) It looks like much of the article has been rewriten and I withdraw my comments on writing style. I however will not recommend this until it is inline cited. Tirronan 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to User:JHMM13 many of the objections have been addressed. Work still in progress. Thanks for the comments. Please can some one help on the inline citations? Thanks.
- In response to all those with objections have been contacted and in many cases addressed. Still, the inline citations require doing. Please can someone help with those? Thanks, Black Stripe 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.