Talk:Banteng/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a night-time walk in East Java using binoculars to gather more light so as to spot Banteng in an inky-black nature reserve ... so I better review this one! Their white socks were about the most visible part! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It would be helpful to label and wikilink at least the root node of the cladogram, and possibly some of the other nodes too. Are we in Bos or Bovini or Bovinae ...?

Added more nodes for clarity + links. Sainsf (t⋆c) 10:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be useful to wikilink all the species names in the cladogram. It appears that Bison is paraphyletic?

You mean the scientific names? The common names are already linked.

OK.

In fact it might be helpful to show some wider relationships ... Bovidae, node for Aegodontia (e.g. pic of Springbok), node for Bovinae/Boodontia with maybe just one member of Tragelaphini, (e.g. pic of Tragelaphus angasi) for context.

Won't it be better to stick to how far the study goes in showing relations? I have gone up to Bovinae and the cladogram seems large enough.

Yes, it's big enough. I've labelled Bovini to match Boselaphini, certainly clearer. Now it seems that Bos is paraphyletic as you have the Yak sister to American bison, but I guess that's not our concern here (though it should probably be mentioned, actually).

It is apparent but would it be fine to add it if the source does not explicitly say so? Sainsf (t · c) 11:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we were adding random extra species it would be No but since these are the major groups which are very well attested I think it's fine - we're not changing the tree, just labelling its parts. If you mean the paraphyly then I think it's weird the source doesn't mention it but it's a matter for the article on Bos not here.

"cattle-like bovid" - but it is actually farmed as cattle in Sumatra etc, so this description is contradictory. Zebu, too, are called "humped cattle", and Sanga and other breeds seem to be hybrids of B. taurus x B. indicus but they're certainly cattle too. Perhaps best to say something along the lines of "similar to Western domestic cattle, Bos taurus," given the rich scope for confusion here.

Right. Fixed these throughout the article (replaced with taurine cattle).

Maybe gloss "dhole" (Asian wild dog).

Not much info about predators, added "Asian wild dog".

Function of the white rump patch (the navigation in the dark theory seems good to me!); white rump flashes are often (other spp.) honest signals to predators that they've been detected (and their prey is running away). But I doubt there's been much research on that in this case.

Right, I found just two sources for this. This paper [1] is interesting, but does not really say anything more that we can use here.

"8,000–10,000 domesticated banteng occur in Australia" - perhaps "feral" would be closer to the mark given they've gone wilder than the goats of Llandudno.

Right, my bad!

You say the Aussie banteng are considered vermin, then go on to explain how useful they are...

Oops, I meant to show both sides of the story, but the vermin thing is not broadly discussed in most sources. I just found one and added more on their demerits, it should look balanced now.

"Domesticated banteng have been hybridised with different types of cattle." They are a type of cattle, see above.

Fixed

Well, overall there's very little wrong with this article. It's appropriately structured, cited, and illustrated, and nicely written. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking my third GA nom in a row :D Your feedback has just motivated me to work on tough articles like this one, it had a lot of material to cover and I was worried I won't do it right. I'll get to these in a day or two :) Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 10:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All comments have been addressed. Sainsf (t⋆c) 10:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we're all done, I guess. Nice work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]