Talk:Barnardius zonarius/Draft

I do not claim expert knowledge in this particular subfield of biology myself, Kim is an outstanding expert in that. However, I have checked the accuracy of the references, and judge that this article in my view, given my general awareness of expected academic standards in biology, contains the type of information, in adequate depth and presented with appropriate care, that makes it a suitable candidate for approval.Gareth Leng 03:17, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Underlinked?

Ok, underlinked, any suggestions? Kim van der Linde 15:17, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

That is a little vague and the wording should probably be changed. It means nothing links to this article as opposed to the more intuititive interpretation of 'this article does not have enough links'. Chris Day (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Ok, clear. Another question, how to get this article approved? I have pretty much written this completely, and there is not much to be added aside from some pictures from withc I do not know I can transfer them from Wikipedia or not? Kim van der Linde 15:21, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

With respect to pictures I'd ask User:Stephen Ewen. With respect to approval, you'll need a biology editor. I am one, but I have no clue about taxonomy classification issues. I'll ask around. Once there is an editor willing to approve then the ToApprove template is activated by the editor adding their name to the metadata page (click on the orange M). You bring up a good point that there should be a way to flag articles that editors wish to see go up for approval. Are you an editor here yet? If so it would probably be OK for your to start the process. Just add your user name to the ToA Editor field in the metadata tempalte. i can help you with the other fields in that tempalte if you want to start it now. Chris Day (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Judging from your publications you should be an editor. You should apply, if not one already. Chris Day (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I refuse to become an editor because I dislike many of the basic policies, and I am not going to be responsible in any way for them. This article is more for me to see how the system works nowadays, and to see if it has eliminated the issues I had with it before. Kim van der Linde 15:36, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

That certainly explains why you are such an over qualified author. I'll see if there are any editors more qualified than myself to process it through approval. Chris Day (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! Kim van der Linde 15:44, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Image

I've placed an image but have requested a much better one I found be released under a Creative Commons license.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:10, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

good article

I think the article is very good - I would suggest that a reference to the potentially controversial statement "In Western Australia, the Ringneck competes for nesting space with the Rainbow Lorikeet, an introduced species. To protect the Ringneck, culls of the lorikeet are sanctioned by authorities in this region. Overall, though, the Ringneck is not a threatened species." be added before approval. I would REALLY like to see Stephen's better image as the one on display does not do the article justice.

Lee R. Berger 13:46, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

fixed. Kim van der Linde 13:58, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Related articles

Are there any related articles that we might be able to place and get rid of that red link ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:54, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Not ones that are not already linked from the text. Kim van der Linde 13:59, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

I was just thinking a bit more about the related articles and if you read CZ:Related_Articles it gives a better idea of the role of this page. I too was thinking of it as a See also type of page, but actually, even if the links appear in the article, we should still be housing the important ones on this subpage. Chris Day (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Look

Kim,

Do you think it might look better if the subspecies and colour variants under "description" had an * in front of them so they were separated and did not fall into one running paragraph?

Lee R. Berger 15:15, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree to a degree. The problem is that the current text, pieces of the description are covering two subspecies simultaneously. Thatb has to be split then. Another solution is to mege taxonomy and description.Kim van der Linde 12:59, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Boy do I know - I struggled with almost the exact thing when drafting Woolly lemur today - when I started I thought it would be simple but its not with the "different" species of Avahi. Its not the way I want it but its a similar taxonomic "writing" issue we are going to face a lot in the future when we are doing these species. Interesting problem.

Lee R. Berger 13:03, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

OK

OK my incompetence knows no bounds, I have tried to update the version to approve to the latest version. Lee's point is a fair one; I think that the para works fine as it is but if in later versions it is added to it would be better to do as he suggests. The redlinks are an irritation but as the articles don't eist yet it seems unreasonable to me to add a Related Articles subpage that is wholly speculative. Lets just get this done and reapprove swiftly when others are ready.Gareth Leng 12:40, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Is this the one you want? Chris Day (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

I noticed that Kim made another edit after Gareth changed the version, so he did do it right! --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:21, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

I am not a biology editor but for what its worth - I would vote for approval on this article now. Lee R. Berger

Yep, its going to happen when the coutdown finishes. There is clearly no objection. I just don't want to endorse it since I don't know too much about taxonomy. Chris Day (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2007 (CDT)