Talk:Dromedary/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 20:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I will review! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The article seems in good shape with no major problems. The comments are suggestions to improve the article.

How nice to get such a friendly reviewer! I am on work right away!

comments

• Captions for images that aren't complete sentences should not end in any punctuation.

 Done. Missed some, thanks for reminding.

• "However, there is 10.3% of difference between the species found in a mitochondrial analysis." - should have citation

 Done.

• "Shiwalik Hills in India" - link says Himalayas with sub-ranges in India, Bhutan, Nepal etc. - so fossils have been only traced to the parts in India?

 Done. That is just to mark a location (in the source). I've removed it.

• "The dromedary has a possible origin from Arabia" - is there a better way of saying that?

What do you suggest? Can it be 'The dromedary possibly originated in Arabia'?

• Under "History", the phrase "these camels" refers to the Persian camels"?

 Done. No, dromedaries.

• "About a million feral camels are estimated to live in Australia,[23] descendants of domesticated camels that were released or ran away on their own." but in next section it says: "although the escaped population of Australian feral camels is estimated to number at least 300,000." - this seems inconsistent

I removed the second claim. Has no good source.

• Physical description section

(removed as I see you have addressed this)

• "The lungs are not lobed" - what does this mean?

 Done. Biological term, you know, they are parts of lung. I simplified it.

(will continue)

• Under "Ecology" it says: "During the breeding season males become very aggressive, sometimes snapping each other and wrestling, while defending the females with them. The male declares his success in the fight with the rival's head between his legs and body." Under "Behavior", it says: "They are not usually aggressive, except the rutting males. The males of the herd disallow their females from interaction with other bachelor males, by standing or walking between them and driving them away."

• shouldn't all the breeding behavior be in one place in the article? The info under "Ecology" and the subsection "Behavior" seen to cover the same territory. Could the sections be combined so that related info can be together?

or perhaps the behavior about camels relating to each other could be together, (breeding, aggressive etc.) and their behavior relating to other animals, people separated out in another paragraph or section.

No, not the second option. I think I should transfer the info in 'Ecology' to 'Behavior'. There is no need of mentioning it in 'Ecology'.

Any more comments, I am always read to resolve them!--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   Just issues mentioned in the comments above

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

   Great images and captions. Should not be periods after captions that aren't complete sentences. I removed some but there's one or two left

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Very interesting article. Well done! Will put on hold while you address my comments.

   I've made some copy edits that you are free to change.[1]

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I made a few more edits fixing minor issues and adding some wikilinks, which you are free to change.[2]

Reevaluation

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)