Talk:Sitatunga/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 14:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I propose to take on this review. My first impression of the article is good and I will make a detailed reading shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

First reading

• The sentence that starts "However, according to Article 50.1.1 ..." is confusing, and I am unsure what "that" refers to.

Fixed

• "Hence, Speke was recognised as the correct authority" - if that is the case, why does the article give Sclater as the authority?

Fixed

• You mention the "kéwel" and later the "bushbuck" and most people won't know these are the same. Perhaps it would be best to stick to one, and perhaps you could give the scientific name of each animal the first time they are mentioned and wikilink them.

Done

• Is the nyala the same as the mountain nyala?

No. They are two different species.

• What does the tribe Strepsicerotini consist of?

Added.

• "However, these factors might not be much reliable" --> "However, these factors may not be reliable".

Done.

• Having stated "There is a chevron between the eyes of the males", it is unclear whether the rest of the paragraph refers to males only or to both sexes.

Fixed

• "...and allows the animal to have an advantage over slimy and muddy vegetation." - There's an unwanted "and" here, and I'm not sure what you mean by having an advantage.

Fixed

• The last paragraph of the Description section states several facts that would fit better in other parts of the section.

Do you refer to the parts on sexual dimorphism and glands? A few suggestions would help.

The paragraph gives the impression of some facts you had forgotten to mention so you tacked them on at the end. The horns are so fundamental that I would include them in the first paragraph. The pasterns and hooves could go in paragraph 3 where you are talking about the hooves, and I'm not sure about the scent glands. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. I put the glands in with the coat description; that is what I generally do. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• The image caption "Sitatunga submerged in water" does not agree with the description of the animal submerged in water.

Fixed

• The word "Saiwa" appears in the Diet section, and needs some explanation, unless you put the Distribution section before the Ecology and behaviour section, as I usually do.

Fixed

• "The rutting male approaches the male in a lower bending posture," - I think you mean approaches the female.

Oh, what a blooper!

• "The calf takes time to master the specialised gait of the sitatunga, and as a result keeps falling inside the water." - I don't understand this.

As the specialised gait of the sitatunga enables it to walk in water and prevents it from falling into it entirely. Should I try to clarify this a bit in the article?

Yes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Males, and even some females, have been observed to leave their herds even before reaching sexual maturity due to intrasexual competition." - This seems curious because earlier the article says that the animal is mainly solitary.

Fixed. Larger groups may also be formed.

• Your list of countries where the sitatunga occurs is in alphabetical order, but would be better if the countries were more logically arranged.

Could you please suggest what can be a logical arrangement? I am in a habit of putting them alphabetically in all my articles, so this is a new idea to me.

I'll leave it to your discretion, but I start at one end of the range and work my way towards the other. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. There could be no order more logical. However, your method is a bit difficult here, because if you see the political map of Africa then you will realise that there can be no exact "end"s of the range - it is a weird shape and the order can not be very clear. Still, a rough order would be : Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Ghana, Benin, Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon ,Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Central African Republic, South Sudan, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe Mozambique, Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda (from western Africa into southern Africa to eastern Africa). Should I add it? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Looking back now at the lead, I think it makes a good job of summarising the rest of the article. Well done!

Thanks!

• There are a number of places where I think the phraseology awkward but I propose to do a bit of copyediting when you have dealt with the points I mention above.

Sure; I have responded to all the points above. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 18:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up, at Talk:Dibatag/GA1 I found several instances of close paraphrasing and almost identical wording to the source cited. Thought I'd mention it so that could be checked here too. Thanks! delldot ∇. 00:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, delldot Thanks to you both for your comments, I shall soon reply to them all. Delldot is right; given my close but, honestly, unintentional tendency to paraphrase, I will go through as many articles I have improved to check for such copyright issues. Please give me a few days, I am a bit busy but I believe the task would have been done by the end of this week or only a bit more.(that is for all those articles, the two presently nominated shall be dealt with first). I won't repeat this folly in my future works. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That's OK. No rush. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed all the points raised, and have dealt with both possible and apparent instances of paraphrasing in this article. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 18:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

GA criteria

• The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
• The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
• The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
• The article is neutral.
• The article is stable.
• The images are relevant, have suitable captions and are properly licensed.

• Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I have looked closely at your copyedits, got a lot to learn from them. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)