Talk:Chacma baboon

Chacma baboon has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 5, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Primates Mid‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Angola / Mozambique / South Africa / Zambia Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Angola (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mozambique (assessed as Mid-importance).
	South Africa portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Zambia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Zambia (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chacma baboon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A clear and elegantly written article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead ~~is too short to summarize article adequately.~~:ok. Layout: ok. Weasel: ok. Fiction: n/a. List: n/a.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Ref format ok. Some authors are Surname, name and others vice versa. It would be nice to have this tidied up but it's not a GA criterion.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Article is well cited. A couple of paras in 'Conservation' don't have refs, might be best to find some. Chacma baboon#Distribution and subspecies needs a ref too.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Basically ok; there are a few uncited claims (see above) eg canine teeth longer than lion's. Might be best to ref those.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Interesting and informative coverage on anatomy, distribution, behavior, status.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Well focused. No irrelevant material, no rabbit holes. Behavior is covered more than other topics but to a reasonable degree.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Encylopedic tone.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	A fair amount of recent development but no sign of editwarring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images from Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well chosen and relevant images. Could be scope for one or two more, e.g. showing Dominance behavior.
	7. Overall assessment.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chacma baboon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811215937/http://www.baboonsonline.org/bru/ to http://www.baboonsonline.org/bru/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]