Talk:Quoll

message: If not, then the article should be changed. --Ettrig (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where should I change the article. Which part is wrong.. Tasmania is off the coast of Australia. So it is like New Guinea. --Savetheoceans (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The text under Habitat says the quolls were found all over the two land masses. According to your answer this excludes Tasmania. But quolls both were and are on Tasmania. Also: This text lacks references. --Ettrig (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Tasmania part of the Australian land mass? 

message: Hey everyone. I just finished with most of the peer review. The reason I say most of the peer review is because at first I changed everything, but looking back, I decided that, in my opinion, the old way was better. For example, I saw no reason to take out mentions of the threats from the conservation section. I thought that it helped link the two, and make the article a better read. Also, when told to differentiate more between Australia and Tasmania, I did, but the article in my mind became choppy. Lastly, a suggestion to separate the article even more for each of the 6 species of quoll worried me. The peer review said I was being general, but I thought that this article was meant to be general, and that if you wanted specification, one could go to the other articles for a particular species. Then again, I am just a teenage girl, so I don't want to seem like I know everything. I am proud of my work, and I think that might cloud my judgement on what needs to change. If anyone would like to explain how these would make it better, or make the changes themselves, go right ahead. This is a learning experience and I am just beginning to understand Wikipedia. Thanks! --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be best to handle comments in the following order: Read, Understand, Evaluate, Change. Change should come last, after you have come to the conclusion that the change is a good one. Wikipedia is to be driven by consensus. In some cases it takes time and discussion to reach consensus. Only in rare cases should the final decision be made by vote. In Wikipedia itself, almost no person has particular authority to decide what is right. (But in your case I suppose the teacher has some authority over what you do in Wikipedia.) As for Australia/Tasmania, I did not ask for differentiation. Australia is a landmass. I asked whether Tasmania is considered part of that land mass. This depends on the meaning of landmass. Because English is not my mother tongue and because I have never lived in an English-speaking country, I am sometimes unsure of the precise meaning of common English words. In this case I felt that the word landmass can only refer to contiguous land and would therefore exclude Tasmania. But we wanted to say that the quolls occur on New Guinea, Australia and Tasmania. I think it would be quite OK to say that the quolls are indigenous to Australia and New Guinea. There is no need to use the word land mass. --Ettrig (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I was wrong about Australia. Here is a better solution. (But again: use your own judgment.) The quolls are indigenous to Australia. (Check the wikilink!) --Ettrig (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That WP:Easter egg is definitely to be avoided. Better to say the continent of Australia. And while I'm here Savetheoceans, you asked me earlier whether I thought the article was ready for GA, and I think it is. Bear in mind that it can easily take a week or more before a reviewer shows up, so you've got plenty of time to continue buffing up the article in the meantime. Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no! Yes, "continent of Australia" is better. No, Australia only, linking to Australia (continent), is not an easter egg. The continent is one of two equally valid meanings. --Ettrig (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it my ego? 

message: You might want to take a look at the article River martin and the two articles about the species. These articles form a Good topic, menaing all three articles are classified as Good and as relating well to each other. Maybe this gives some ideas on what to put in the genus and species articles, respectively. --Ettrig (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance genus/species 

message: Regarding its reintroduction onto the mainland last year, as mentioned later in this article and in the Eastern Quoll article, should the parts of this article which describe as being extinct on the mainland be adjusted to note that they were considered extinct on the mainland, past tense? Or something to that effect.Frond Dishlock (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Quoll