Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Island Fox

Island Fox

Partial self-nom. Well-written, stable, comprehensive article about a unique species. jengod 22:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I like the article, but it's pretty short . . . --Scimitar 18:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now it's excellent. Support. --Scimitar 13:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I would like to see more details of population levels. Also, please cite sources for individual assertions. I like the writing style. --Theo (Talk) 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  nixie's changes address my main objection but the footnotes still need attention. They should be numbered to match the superscripted tags in the body of the article. --Theo (Talk) 12:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Its Wikipedia:Footnote3 and saves pointless duplication in the refernce list. --nixie 13:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the article is a bit short. Areas for expansion include the lead which should summarise the content of the article, physical description (are there visual diffences between males and females, metric conversions for height and mass, size comparison with other foxes), the differences between the subspecies could be further described, a map showing where each subspecies occurs would also be a good addition. What methods are being used for recovery? Is there a standard odering for sections for animal articles, Blue Whale has a more logical sequence of its sections. Anything that has been discovered from research should be propperly referenced.--nixie 02:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I've worked through a bunch of my objections, mostly because I like foxes.--nixie 07:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object The "notes" need numbers, which match the numbers used in the text, otherwise the reader can't tell which note is being referred to. Paul August ☎ 20:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • All you have to do is click on them. Gah, there are no direct cites, there is no set reference standard, it is clear where the information came from. That referece template is also used on other featured artciles and is particularly appropriate for science articles--nixie 22:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For how to use the "ref" and "note" templates, the way they were intended to be used, and how to organize the "Reference" and "Notes" sections see, for example, Gangtok below. The "ref" and "note" templates are designed to occur in pairs, and typically they have matching numbers, and each member of the pair links to the other. And the "note" template instances are expected to be collected together in a numbered list in a "Notes" section, in the same order as it's associated "ref". The way they have been used in this article, there are multiple "ref" templates associated with a single "note template, and the "note" templates are a bulleted list. This means for example that there is no way to tell, for a bit of noted text, which "note" it is associated with (linking on the bracketed superscripted numbers jump to the correct section but you can't tell which entry there it is associated with) and backlinks generated by the "note" template (Indicated by the "^" symbols), don't work correctly. This article is also confusing "references" with notes. There should be a "References" section giving complete bibliographic information (e.g. Smith, John The Big Book, So and So publishers, (2005) ISBN 12345678) for each source cited. Then if you want to further granularize your source citation you can have inline-citations of the references listed in the "References" section using parenthetical citations (e.g. Smith pp. 34-36) or use footnotes or endnotes, typically indicated by small font superscripted numbers in the text, and referring to a matching numbered note in a "Notes" section. The note can then be some explanatory text, or a citation (e.g. Smith pp. 34-36). Paul August ☎ 05:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Switched to footnote4. --nixie 06:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Paul August ☎ 13:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Support- well-written article now with good footnote formatting! Flcelloguy Give me a note! ^Desk 02:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A model for other species pages. --Wetman 02:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)