Talk:Capybara/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bastian (talk · contribs) 04:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start a review of this article shortly. Bastian (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is okay for the most part, some work may be needed.

Submitted article to the Guild of Copy Editors. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
The citation given in the "Fossil record and other species" section does not talk of any fossil records or other species.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
There seems to be a little bit of back and forth editing when looking at history. I will wait to see further.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Good job! Although I'm more of a reptile, especially venomous snakes guy, this was an interesting read. I think you passed the article which I worked on and nominated, the black mamba - I forget. Bastian (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few problems

Please look above for problems listed. I have not gone through the entire article yet, but I will finish reading it later on.

The first "individuals" is misspelled in this sentence: "... as 100 individauls but usually live in groups of around 20 individuals."

As I said, the prose (spelling, grammar, and punctuation is good for most part), but there is still some room for improvement.

Another problem so far is the citation given in the "Fossil record and other species" section - it says nothing about fossil records or other species. Bastian (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the subsection "Diet and predation" there is a contradiction in sources. You list "...four to six plant species making 75% of its diet." and listed this as a source. First, that source cannot be read as the lettering is way too small and so I as a reviewer cannot verify the number 75%. A second source claims "Only seven species represented 60% of the total diet:..." from here.

Another thing in the same section is this: "They will select the leaves of one species and disregard other species surrounding it.[16] Capybaras eat a greater variety of plants during the dry season as there are fewer plants available. While they eat grass during the wet season, they have to switch to reeds during the dry season as they are more abundant.[16]" - since all three sentences come from the same source, I would take out the first citation and just leave the one at the end right after "...more abundant" Bastian (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember to always read the GA review list above as I sometimes will leave comments up there, not just here. Bastian (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bits of improvements made are making the article look a lot better. Maybe add an "External links" section with a few links (3-5) of some general info pages from zoos, maybe links to a youtube video or two and you are pretty much good to go. Bastian (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few more problems. There are two different citation formats in the article--separate refs are used alongside inline complete citations. Many of the citations (I think these are recent additions) are not properly templated and use inconsistent, different date formats. Journal and newspaper titles are not properly rendered (at least one is abbreviated, and I've fixed "Latimes") and/or not wikilinked. Some refs say "downloaded," others "retrieved." This YouTube link is inappropriate in the first place, and certainly so in a GA. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]