Talk:Bluebuck/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will review now, sorry for letting you wait for so long! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a image labled "Late 1700s illustration by Robert Jacob Gordon, possibly showing the Paris skin", but this guy is not mentioned in the text (neither is the image).

I won't be able to edit until Sunday, but that info is in the 1992 source I think, in case... FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, he is just one of several people who illustrated the various skins, so I made a general note... But do you mean you would want a source in the caption? FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. No, I just think that people (like me) may get confused, since the text might come across like a thorough account of historical depictions. A general note that there are several skin-based illustrations from the 1700s would be great. Alternatively, what about adding "one of several skin illustrations of the late 1700s" to the image caption? However, this is only a very minor point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence in my earlier edit t. As for the caption, since there are already several 18th century images in the article based on specimens, I think it would be stating the obvious? FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 1974 palaeoanthropologist Richard G. Klein showed that the bluebuck and roan antelope occurred sympatrically on the coastal plain of the southwestern Cape from Oakhurst to Uniondale during the early Holocene, supporting their separate status. – I do not understand the argument, why does this mean they are separate genera? More information might be helpful here.

Only separate species (opposed to mere subspecies), not genera. Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more to come later --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will try to get to these soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He also suggested that the length of the bluebuck's hair and the morphology of its horns formed a link between antelopes and goat. – "Goats" instead of "goat"? Can this be formulated more precisely? Does he infer that antelopes and goats are closely related because of this feature?

He wrote This is the species which, from the length of its hair and form of the horns, connects this genus with that of the Goat. He is not very clear what connection they have, so we simply wrote "link". Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think the problem is that this information is within the "Description" section, so the reader will expect facts about the appearance of the animal. To be a useful fact, this information is way to inaccurate. It is of course interesting from a historical point of view, so what about transforming it as a quotation?

Would like to know FunkMonk's idea on this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, personally I think the goat part could be removed... Or if anything, it might be more relevant in the taxonomy section? FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in keeping it, but if Jens Lallensack wants it out of Description then the best place for it is in Taxonomy. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

from the western coast (fossils from the western coast dating to this period are scarce but have been recorded from the southern coast). – The western and eastern coast of what? It could be more precisely stated which geographical regions are referred to.

We are talking only about South Africa in this section, so the coast refers to the coast of that country. The source does not name geographical locations significant enough to mention. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. There is still a small language issue: "fossils from the western coast dating to this period are scarce but have been recorded from the southern coast" – Fossils from the western coast have been recorded from the southern coast?

Whoops, fixed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as low sea levels facilitated migrations for large mammals – This is difficult to imagine, more precise information on the paleogeography would be helpful here. Were the animals migrating from one plain to the other along the coast, which both populations being separated due to sea level rise and some kind of barrier in between?

How does this look? [1] Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, this is an excellent article, and very nicely written, I hope to see this at FAC soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will get to these later today. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 00:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.