Talk:Bitis parviocula: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Jaap Winius |
imported>Howard Arvi Hughes m (Checklist) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{checklist | |||
| abc = Bitis parviocula | |||
| cat1 = Biology | |||
| cat2 = | |||
| cat3 = | |||
| cat_check = n | |||
| status = 4 | |||
| underlinked = n | |||
| cleanup = y | |||
| by = - [[User:Rilson Versuri|Versuri]] 14:33, 30 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
}} | |||
==My formatting (now all reverted)== | ==My formatting (now all reverted)== | ||
My problems were: | My problems were: |
Revision as of 13:33, 30 March 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Biology Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | External article: from another source, with little change |
Underlinked article? | No |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | - Versuri 14:33, 30 March 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
My formatting (now all reverted)
My problems were:
- To place a "common names" line before the article rather than in the article looks very odd.
- To use abbreviations rather than full names of unites is less clear for potential users (as is omitting a link to the relevant article).
- To leave in Wikipedia templates that simply show up as red "template" signs is surely undesirable.
- Why have something in "see also" which is already in the article? --Peter J. King 09:50, 13 February 2007 (CST)
See my answer on your talk page. --Jaap Winius 12:21, 13 February 2007 (CST)
Categories:
- Biology Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Biology Advanced Articles
- Biology Nonstub Articles
- Biology Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Biology Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Biology Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Biology Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Biology External Articles
- Biology Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Biology Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup