Talk:Cox's sandpiper
 | Cox's sandpiper was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Failed GA
editThis article failed the GA noms due to lack of inline citations. I would also suggest adding an infobox to the article. Tarret 20:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at Template:Taxobox for the appropriate infobox to use. Also, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds, which has guidelines for article structure and taxobox use. Good luck. Neil916 (Talk) 00:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Good article nomination failed
editAfter thorough review, I have decided to fail this article for the following reasons:
1. The writing is often confusing, as noted by the banner still present in the article. Before I would pass this article, this banner would have to be removed and all "clarify" notations would also need to be addressed. I feel as though this article presumes too much knowledge of ornithology on the part of the reader. The description of the bird's appearance is very confusing, especially without a photograph for reference. Other parts of the writing are difficult to follow, for example: "Juvenile Cox's Sandpipers are known from only two individuals, one from Massachusetts (Grant, 1987; [5] Kasprzyk et. al., 1987; [6] Vickery et. al., 1987, [7] and Buckley, 1988). [2] and one from Japan". When I first read this sentence, I had trouble deciding whether the "individuals" were sandpipers or the people who discovered the juveniles.
2. This article has instances of deviation from the Wikipedia Manual of Style. For example, ampersands are not appropriate in subject headings. Another example: why are there quotation marks around Cooper's Sandpiper in that heading, when none appear in the text? This seems to be explained above, but this large heading shouldn't be confusing to the reader who only reads that paragraph. Furthermore, citations are required only when they are necessary; this statement: "in 1982, Shane Parker formally described the bird as a new species (Parker 1982)." is redundant. Omit the parenthetical reference, and simply use the superscript link to the reference listed at the end of the article. I would also recommend a thorough use of Wikilinks, which seem to be used sparingly thoughout the article.
3. Certain parts of the article are stubs. "Pattern of records in Australia" for example, is too short to deserve its own subheading. This makes it look as though the article is being stretched to fill space, without adequately addressing the information.
4. I feel as though this article isn't broad enough in its coverage. After reading this article, I wondered why I should care about this hybrid bird, and why it mattered. I also feel as though the lack of any section on its behavior or inter-species interactions is problematic.
5. The lack of any images at all is unfortunate, and while not grounds alone for failure, with the other concerns listed above, it weighs heavily.
I commend the efforts by the editors on this article, and I encourage them to continue to improve it and renominate it for good article status in the future. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 06:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)