Wikipedia:Peer review/Thylacine/archive1

Thylacine

I've just rewritten this article and intend to nominate it for FA soon, so any comments for improvements would be appreciated. Yomangani ^talk 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. One thing though, to my understanding quotes even small usually have a footnote, example quote from text: "wild beasts having claws like a Tyger". - Tutmosis 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, those reports are second hand quotes from the next inline cite; I'll have a look around and see if there a formula for attributing such info. Thanks (and "and" was right). Yomangani ^talk 17:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - very nice article! I made some minor changes - a typo, a {clear} template, since the last section was messing with the "See Also" header (on my screen). This is quite minor, but the years are wikilinked and should not be, per WP:DATE. Regarding the sentence "Most observations were made during the day whereas the Thylacine is naturally nocturnal, and those made in the 20th century were observations of a species already on the brink of extinction, so may have been atypical.", it's not clear to me why observing individuals of a species, whether it's on the brink of extinction or not, would give atypical results? One could not observe its pack behavior, maybe. Also, I might split that sentence into two (it's long). With "It is suggested that the Thylacine preferred...", could you avoid the "weasel words" by saying "The Thylacine probably preferred..."; you do have a reference for it, after all. With "Rock paintings... clearly show [that] Thylacines were hunted" - adding "that" is easier on the reader. Those are some random sentence observations - not meant to be thorough - but it reads well overall. Good luck, –Outriggr § 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. I fixed most of your suggestions. The observations in the 20th century could be abnormal behaviour because the dwindling numbers and external pressures may have forced it to adopt new behaviours - I've reworded it to hopefully make it clearer without running on too much. As for linked/unlinked years, I've given up. WP:DATE helpfully says "There is less agreement about links to years", so I just go with the prevailing wind on that issue - I'll unlink them if somebody objects at FAC (and then change them back when somebody else objects). Yomangani ^talk 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I know someone will object about linked years at FAC. Here, I'll do it for you, and I can guarantee you that no one will object. :) –Outriggr § 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with OUtriggr on the years, and I know Tony also doesn't link years. Sandy (Talk) 14:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]