Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halfbeak/archive1

Halfbeak

I think this is pretty good now. Lots of references, and some interesting science. Would be nice to see some ichthylogy feature articles, too.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not enough references. That's the first thing I check for. Add a few, and maybe submit it to GAC instead- I'm looking for something like 40, not 6. --01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What's "GAC" -- please don't use acronyms without explaining or linking them to whatever. Neale Monks 09:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch - acronyms. GAC stands for "Good Article Candidate" RN 09:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Added some more references. I think 40 is a bit over the top for a relatively simple article, but there are now 15 paper references and 11 online ones.

Object "Halfbeaks in aquaria" is unreferenced. RN 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ironic I hadn't done this -- a magazine published an article of mine on halfbeaks in aquaria just last year!

It is actually pretty good and reads like a real encyclopedia article. There are still some cites that need to be cleaned up but I'll try to get most of those. A couple more paragraphs might need a citation to be on the safe side which I'll mark as well. RN 05:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the empty references. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Lead seems too short, Notes section should use a smaller font (for example see Belton_House#Notes). Would be nice if the red Genera links could be fixed before this becomes FA. In the "Halfbeaks in aquaria" section, there are many references that should be put into <ref> form with the proper templates for formatting like the other notes that already exist. — Wackymacs 09:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done some of the genera, at least turned them into stubs. Will do the rest when I have the motivation. Flu getting the better of me now, I'm afraid! Neale Monks 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- All the ref-related stuff should be taken care of now. Basically what is left is the lead, whose subject I am unfortunately unfamiliar with. RN 10:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And Neale the lead is based off of WP:LEAD RN 10:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will go back and re-write it. Sick with flu at the moment, so not much else to do! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC) PS. RN -- thanks for your help; even if this doesn't become a feature article, it looks a lot better now![reply]

Comment This article is now a Good Article. All the flaws listed above have been fixed, I think, with the exception of the fact that some of the genera listed in the taxonomy box remain empty articles. So please, go back, look through the article, and see what needs work. Thanks! Neale Neale Monks 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]