Talk:Nilgai/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 14:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Will need a bit of time to read through. Will post my comments soon. Shyamal (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review! It has been a while since I worked on this, and I have learnt a lot since then. I will copyedit it a bit. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• neelghae or nilgau - I am not convinced that these names should be included the lead (or bolded as they are not incoming links either) - they sound like bad English transcriptions.

Removed

• The phonetic transcription does not look right (I believe it should be /ni:lga:ɪ/)

I got it from the Merriam Webster dictionary. I am not sure about these pronunciations, though.

verified that, will check if there is a suitable Hindi-English dictionary alternative.

Structure

• A lot of the etymology is actually taxonomy - could be reorganized and is better located after the taxonomic introduction

Should I shift the first para of Etymology to the Taxonomy section and make it the 2nd para there?

I have tried to reduce some of the confusion by changing the section headings and moving some paras. Please see if this is acceptable.

Thanks, that looks better. But the part in Taxonomy as of now, The generic name Boselaphus...and kamelos ("camel"), seems to belong more to Etymology. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy = the naming of taxa (which implicitly includes an element of etymology). An alternative is to merge the current etymology as a last part of the taxonomy section - after all taxonomy does not mean just the Latin binomial but also the folk taxonomic nomenclature. Shyamal (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I get it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Some of the content in "Interaction with human beings" seem to be more suited for "Threats and conservation"

I see, you mean the 20th century hunting and crop damage? I am confused how to separate them out, could you please help? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Content and sourcing

• "Coyotes and dholes generally attack juveniles" - I think it is worth separating the situation in India and the situation in introduced areas should not be a priority.

I am not sure what you mean. I try to identify local predators by their location wherever possible, but here I am not sure if this is the situation in the wild or in captivity.

Coyotes do not occur in India. Shyamal (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the source, "coyote" is not mentioned, it focuses on the situation in India. Someone else may have added it, removed for now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• tubular tuft, pennant - I am unable to find a reliable source for calling this "tubular" it is a small tuft of hair along the dewlap ridge. Again unable to see a technical reference using the word "pennant" for this. (The most likely scenario appears to be misspelling of hair pendant as used in some old descriptions (example 12)

Switched to pendant. I wonder how "tubular" came in, removed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have made several edits, please check if there is anything badly messed up in the process. Shyamal (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have checked them, they have indeed improved the article. Thanks a lot. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Review

• Overall this passes GA criteria. For FA, this needs to improve on structure and include more on diseases, parasites and cover several other aspects in ecology. There is a lot more to incorporate in cultural relations as well apart from the politics of renaming it.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you. I will remember those points if I plan an FAC for this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)