# Talk:Sebright chicken

Nice work. I notice, for what it's worth, a reference and extensive quote from Observations upon the Instinct of Animals appears here – scroll down the page to item 186. .. dave souza, talk 09:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE allows a great deal of choice in style of citation, while consistency within an article is generally valued. There are two not quite compatible templates for references, as shown at WP:CIT. Thanks to this tool, it's easy to generate the {{cite book}} type templates, as used in the article. However, the Template:Citation templates have the advantage of working very well with Harvard referencing using Template:Harvard citation no brackets, and I've taken the liberty of adding Darwin (1859) references using that format which allows a link to the relevant page in the Notes section, and if you click on "Darwin" it links down to the relevant reference below. If we want to standardise on one system or the other, I'm willing to help out with changes once the preferred system is agreed. .. dave souza, talk 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation dave, sorry I missed it until now. To me, the referencing system looks standardized enough for my tastes. I'm going to nominate it for GA presently, so please do chime in. VanTucky 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The requirements for a Good Article are as follows:
1. It is well written. In this respect: 

Overall, the article is well written.
There’s a very slight problem with the appendices’ headings per the [[WP::Mos#Section_management|MOS]].  The section titled “Notes” is actually the “References” section as these are the in-line citations used throughout the article.  The current “References” section should actually be the “Further Reading” or “Bibliography” section.  This should not take long to fix.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: 

Yes.  There are plenty of references following any statement that requires verification.
The citation format seems to be consistent throughout the article.
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: 

Yes.  This article does a good job of covering broad amount of information.
Additional sections that I think would be useful would perhaps be a section describing any major variations of the breed (if any exist).
Is there any behavior unique to this breed?  If so, its inclusion would also be useful.
4. Does the article maintain Neutrality?

Yes
5. It is stable.  In this respect, it:

Yes.  However, the article has only been in existence for less than a month.
6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.  In this respect: 

Four illustrations are included and they do aid in the understanding of the article.
They all are either appropriately licensed for inclusion in WP or have been released into the public domain.
In conclusion, with the article as it now stands, I am going to place this article on hold until the above minor issues are addressed.  will381796 (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a few comments. First off, what the MOS section you linked to says is that the standard order is "See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Bibliography), and External links". Footnotes are for in-line citations (like they are now), and References is for references that you make notes to. The current References section is not further reading, they are references. Neither is hard and fast, and you can have references in footnotes. See the FA-class Domestic sheep for an example. Second, the only two variations in the breed (Golden and Silver colors) are discuss in the Characteristics section, and the only variation between the two is in color, so it's not really enough to make a whole new pair of sections. Last, any behavioral traits unique the breed are discussed in Characteristics as well. VanTucky 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm just used to in-line citations being listed in a references section.  I'm going to go ahead and pass this. will381796 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A new infobox {{Infobox Chickenbreed}} has been created for chicken articles.  If you see anywhere it needs improved please contact User:Stepshep.  If it meets your criteria it is requested you add it to this article's page for standardization. Thanks! §hep  •  ¡Talk to me! 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Link added to this article closely related.--Cacucho (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)