Talk:Quagga/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

Introduction This article is rather well-written, but it could have used a good copyedit, preferably by fresh eyes: there were occasional prose issues, mainly just little things like "The pattern of the quagga was unique among equids", when it hadn't been established that the coat pattern was being discussed. The sort of errors that are easy to miss if you've been working on the article a while. It also occasionally lapsed into present tense, when it meant past tense, e.g. saying the quagga is the most southern-living species of zebra, when the quagga is extinct, and therefore can't be described as living anywhere. Also, a bit of poor handling of uncertainty, e.g. "The quagga may have been 257 cm (8.43 ft) long and stood 125–135 cm (4.10–4.43 ft) tall", which reads a bit oddly (I've changed it to "is believed to have been").

Likewise, "The quagga was hunted by early Dutch settlers from the 1600s, and later by their descendants the Afrikaners, who thought the animals were easy to find and kill." - "thought" reads rather oddly in that sentence, and is implied if left out anyway.

All really little things, easily fixed, and they have been; I only mention them because it may be useful for the next good article candidate you do.

Things that still need fixing One thing I couldn't fix, which, even if I don't consider it quite big enough to block GA status, I would suggest fixing, is this paragraph:

“

On the basis of some accounts and photographs, it has been suggested that the stripes were light, contrary to the configuration in other zebras. But it has been pointed out that this is an optical illusion, and that the base colour of the head, shoulders, and other parts was a creamy white, which is what gives this impression when seen between the actual dark stripes, typical of zebras. However, embryological evidence supports zebra being dark coloured with white as an addition.

”

While not bad, it'd be good to try a little harder to link the facts together. Of course, you may be trying to avoid Original research, but there's ways to do that, such as saying something like "X states this was an optical illusion; however, embryological evidence states that, in fact, all species of zebras begin dark coloured, with the white being an addition."

Citations

These are generally quite good, though a little more precision would be recommended if you're going to FA, for example:

“

Living in the very southern end of the plains zebra's range, the quagga possibly had a thick winter coat that moulted each year. Its skull was described as having a straight profile and a concave distema,^[1] and as being relatively broad, with a narrow occiput. The 2004 morphological study found that the skeletal features of Burchell's zebra and the quagga overlapped, and that they were impossible to distinguish. Some specimens also appeared to be intermediate between the two in striping. The female specimens used in the study were larger than the males on average.^[2] Like other plains zebras, the quagga did not have a dewlap on its neck, as is present on the mountain zebra.^[3]

”

Arguably, there should be a citation after the word "occiput", even though I'm pretty sure it's the 2004 morphological study described immediately thereafter. Referencing before moving on to the next major fact helps if someone starts rearranging the text, an advantage on Wikipedia.

Accuracy

The statement that "The technology to use recovered DNA for breeding does not exist" (at the end of the article) is misleading. While the intent is likely to say that one cannot put the recovered DNA into a gamete and use it for breeding that way, it's completely possible to compare DNA of the population being bred for similarity to the DNA recovered from the historical quaggas. I'd suggest rewriting this.

How about cloning instead of breeding? FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Despite the few issues, this easily passes GA. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, some of the language issues may be due to two editors working on it simultaneously, I and Little Jerry. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. As I said, they're the sort of little, minor things that are easy to miss if you've been working on something a while. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. We still have plenty of time. LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kingdon, J. (1988). East African Mammals: An Atlas of Evolution in Africa, Volume 3, Part B: Large Mammals. University of Chicago Press. p. 139. ISBN 0226437221.
^ Cite error: The named reference Hippotigris was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Azzaroli was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Kingdon-1] Kingdon, J. (1988). East African Mammals: An Atlas of Evolution in Africa, Volume 3, Part B: Large Mammals. University of Chicago Press. p. 139. ISBN 0226437221.

[Hippotigris-2] Cite error: The named reference Hippotigris was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Azzaroli-3] Cite error: The named reference Azzaroli was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]