Talk:Pudu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I am reading through now and am making straightforward changes as I go. Please revert any where I inadevertently change the meaning. Queries below. Also, don't automatically do what I suggest - if you think otherwise please say so and we can discuss. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoneI changed "Physical appearance" to "description". As an adjective, "physical" is redundant. Remove the word and the intended meaning is unchanged. I also changed to "description" as that is the word used on many many other bio articles. Conformity where possible is a good thing.

DoneYou'd want to explain or bluelink "dew claws"

DoneI am presuming Andes fox = Andean fox, but you might want to check that. Also, there will be a species page for whatever the Magellan fox is more commonly known as.

Doneheart stroke now redirects to stroke, but I am not sure that is what is meant.

Donefearful instinct ...hmmm, sounds odd, maybe "cautious nature" or something similar (?)

DoneAustral - heck, I live in the southern hemisphere and have never used that word in my life :) - why not just say "southern hemisphere"?

DoneThis article is useful as well for taxonomy. generally we have a taxonomy section high up which allows us to list species and who described them and what the critters are related to.

DoneI also had to rejig the article a little - it is about a genus which has two species (not subspecies) which needed to be streamlined.

While our input was encouraged, I honestly don't know half as much about Wikipedia as you do so I think it would be in the article's best interest to take your word for it on the improvements. My only concern is whether or not the Ellevano Lodge source should be deemed unreliable--it merely reflects what many other 'reliable' sources repeat. We as a group really appreciate your review.Lisa Anne93 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good work so far. I have just tweaked a couple of things - such as fixing another subspecies --> species tweak. Final read-through. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be tricky writing about a subject which has two sub-entities. In this case, one has to manage discussing Pudus globally versus the two separate species. An issue here is I don't get a sense of whether both species are equally threatened or is one more than the other. Casliber (talk · contribs)

For instance, is there a breeding program for the northern species or only the southern? Done Also, international sounds cool, some more info on this would be good - who coordinates it - Bristol zoo?

Agree the Ellevano Lodge is not great - substituting these once better sources come is good, though I have also used them in the interim in the past.

I added some information to clarify that both species seem to be equally threatened since they both have the same status by the IUCN Red List. I also added the organization behind the captive breeding program. I only found a couple vague mentions of some kind of 'conservation program' for the Northern pudus on rather sketchy websites--not too reliable. The southern appear to be the more popular-to-conserve species while the northern are found in a couple zoos. I feel the Ellevano Lodge is substanstial enough for GA, but if we move on to work for FA we'll definitly add another source should it come along. Are we fit for GA yet? :)Lisa Anne93 (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in hte middle of some RL things, a little bit more tinkling tonight in a few hours' time (I am in Sydney) and it will pass I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Images need WP:ALT text.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

We're there for GA, for FA the alt text should go in.--Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]