Talk:Quoll/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Right, I'll begin reviewing and jot notes below - looks promising: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Some reorganising is in order....

this sentence " Early English settlers referred to quolls as "native cats", "native polecats", or "spotted marten". " is about what the critters were called and is best off in taxonomy not description, and would slot in well after the last sentence in the taxonomy section. In fact, up until the late 1970s, all the books called them native cats, until there was a swing back to calling them quolls. Would be great to get this history of names into the article. I might try and hunt something myself...

Now here is an article which I like as it goes into greater detail than what we have which is scattered about the web. Note that the alternate name Mustela quoll which is proposed and rejected by the authors is less interesting than the lengthy discussion on the etymology and early discussion by settlers. added - the species name disputed we can add to the individual species it's relevant to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

aha! it was David Fleay who was instrumental in resurrecting the term! Now he's an iconic figure in wildlife conservation etc. here so this is very interesting. A fascinating book this, not sure if folks outside Oz can see it on google books...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

in a similar vein "Quolls are carnivorous marsupials." is about behaviour, not description, and so should be moved there.

I'd reorganise the taxonomy section so that the " The name Dasyurus means "hairy-tail"..." is the first sentence - have the naming and name first, then relationships to other critters, then species, then common names.

The section called Habitat is actually about Distribution and habitat and should be renamed thus.

The caption "The quoll's range" - erm, there are more than one quoll so the apostrophe goes.........where? ;)

Ditto at "The quoll's diet is dominated by medium-sized mammals..."

A 2008 study of the pouches of spotted-tail quolls... (this is the alternate name for which species?)

I suspect there will be some anatomical information about what features the critters have in common skeleton-wise, and what distinguishes or allies them to their relatives. I'll have a nose around and ask. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

a bookmark of a paper on genetic study of Dasyuridae - as it is an Australian journal - easy for me to get fulltext of this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC) now added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is important to get. I can get the fulltext of this and add if you don't have access to get it. But right now am tired and need to sleep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I would love full access to this article. Thanks :) Savetheoceans (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OK - I can't attach files to the "email user" option. If you email me I can reply with the file attached. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Emailing you would be great. But I don't have your email address and I could not find it on your talk page, this may just be an oversight on my part. Thanks Savetheoceans (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Go to User:Casliber and in the frame on the left of the screen you'll see a Toolbox, one of the the options of which is to "email this user". Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus! Just emailed him. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sent now - don't get too bogged down in the middle bits as it is very heavy going, but the conclusions are interesting. If you feel lost with it I'll have a go at tweaking :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just as a word of encouragement, you're really lucky to get Casliber as your reviewer. He's far more demanding than the average GA reviewer would be, but if he passes it you can be pretty sure that it's top notch. Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Aww, gee thanks Malleus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am more than thankful that he is my reviewer. I will have a look at the article today. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So, I've begun reading the article, but I can't figure out where I should put this in the article. Should I write the information in habitat, behaviour, or description? Thanks Savetheoceans (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What I would do is combine the list of species info and have it only once - in taxonomy. Then I'd add the material to habitat and behaviour. Have a go and I'll review and fine-tune afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It becomes tricky in some of these parent articles (i.e. of genus rather than species) about how much info to include etc. I'll have a think about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• "There are more than one quoll"? The subject is the genus, not individual quolls, hence "the quoll's diet" and "the quoll's range" is correct. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think it depends on context (i.e. singular as a group defining noun, or plural as shorthand for (the six species of) quoll). The one in the description section...nevermind I think we can ditch that one....the one in diet comes after two sentences talking about larger quolls and smaller quolls, so I reckon that one looks odd as a singular. The one in reproduction I agree goes best as singular. The one next to "cane toad" I am iffy about - it is not a threat to the majority of species whose range isn't anywhere near the toad, so doesn't go well there - I'd specifiy the species it is threatening (as long as the source does) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of the editing suggestions and for editing the article. I think that I have fixed most of the edit suggestions. I am a bit confused about what you want me to do concerning the David Fleay. Do you want me to do research? What information are you looking to be added to the article? Thanks again --Savetheoceans (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I was giving you first dibs on adding it, but never mind as I am more familiar with the material, so will add soonish. added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks! I am really happy with the amount of work that we've put into the article since nomination. Its starting to look really good. Thank you for reviewing it! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Free time has been patchy - back later today (Oz time) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries! There is no rush. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, here's a tricky bit - one thing you try and do is to not mention bits twice if you don't need to - see this edit where I found you'd mentioned the number of species twice in the lead, so I removed one. There is a remaining issue in that the list of the six species is listed out twice in the article and it'd be great if we could remove one - this can be maddening. This is avery common problem in articles with groups of critters in them.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

are you talking about the species being repeated in the lead and in the taxonomy??? Because if you are, maybe we could keep both in as I believe that they are important content to their specific subtitles... Savetheoceans (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No no, I mean combining the lists that are in (1) taxonomy, and (2) distribution and habitat - I'd place a more comprehensive profile of the species in taxonomy and make more of a paragraph in distribution and habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So I did my best to take out a list.. I hope it makes sense... Would you mind striking through what has been discussed and done so that I know whats done? Thanks Savetheoceans (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Errrr, sorry I realise I wasn't clear above - I meant to keep a list (profile) of the species in taxonomy and make a para of all species distribution and habitat in distribution and habitat. Oops. I'll strike as much as possible above...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I put the list back in. Is it all better now? Savetheoceans (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting there (sorry, been a very busy couple of days!) - I will show you what I mean. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, have a look now and see what you think. Also note some questions at Talk:Quoll#More_comments, which I think are valid. The tiger and eastern quolls co-occur - I do recall seeing a paper documenting that they have different niches (one is much bigger and hence they have some diferences in prey) somehwere which I think would be good to add. WIll see if I can find it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Any information you find is valuable to the article. On that note, my teacher is looking at the article you emailed to me, as it was a bit too scientific in its vocabulary for me to understand completely.

I will be happy to address all of the concerns as soon as possible. Sorry I have been away for Thanksgiving, where internet connection was spotty at best! I will start editing tonight! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I hate to seem pushy, but I would just like to reiterate that I was hoping that we could get this article to GA before Christmas. I am working on this for a school project, and quality is most important, but it would also be nice to show my teacher that my article made it to the prestigious position of GA. I apologize if you feel that I am rushing you. Thanks :) Savetheoceans (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Right then, marking time...

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:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - I rejigged the diet myself as it was a bit tricky, it sorta covers the same material that I was going to hunt down anyway so I think we're over the line for GA status. Have a look at how I rejigged it. Anyway, there we go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WoooHOOOOOO!!! yay GA! Awesome! Thanks so much for being such a helpful GA reviewer. I love the new diet stuff! :) :) :) ;) 21:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheoceans (talk • contribs)