Jump to content

Talk:Springbok/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my previous work on similar articles this problem did not arise with lengthy leads. Nevertheless I have cut out a large portion. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now, generally, the length of the intros should correspond to the length of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this. I will try to respond as soon as possible to all comments. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found some unused pictures that show interesting behaviour, which could maybe be used somewhere: Fighting:[2] Herding:[3] Predation:[4]
Looked them up. They all look good under the Ecology and Behaviour section, but I think it's best to use just one to avoid clumsiness. If so then I guess the herding picture would be the best, since it is a major topic in this section. Your say? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd think a picture of fighting males (there are other photos that show this as well) would be the most interesting, but it's your call. It's harder to imagine them fighting, than just duplicating them in your mind, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done :D ! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates and authors for subspecies?
Gosh, missed them out! Fixed
  • I think the MOS says bold should only be used in some specific literary cases outside the intro, so it appears the bolding under taxonomy should be removed.
I have this habit since I worked on Giant eland, and it even survived the FAC. I have continued this through several GAs as well without objections to it. I feel it gives a good emphasis as it is, but if the MoS is strictly against this then I guess I shall have to drop this practice. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, ok, here's the guidelines in question:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess all have forgotten that little line in the MoS! Well I am gonna abide by it from now. Thanks for letting me know. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was first described by" Perhaps mention he considered it as part of an existing genus, and mention who gave it its own genus and when?
Sorry I don't have access to any information about this. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find anything... FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear Zimmermann originally placed it in the genus Antilope, and that Sundevall placed it in its own genus in 1847, this info is already in the taxobox, but would be hard to understand for the lay reader if not stated explicitly in the text. May seem like useless detail, but now the article implies that Zimmermann originally placed it in its own genus, which is incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have often found synonyms too confusing to go upon. Couldn't say Zimmermann took the genus Antilope exactly without a better source, and I really can not find even a bit about this. Moreover I don't find anything that could relate the blackbuck (A. cervicapra) and springbok taxonomically so that they could have once shared a genus. But I guess it would be well enough for now to add something like "Sundevall placed the species in its own genus Antidorcas in 1847"?
If you have a sources that lists the synonyms, that should be enough to cite those statements.[6] As for early taxonomists grouping unrelated animals in the same genus, that was pretty much the norm back then, hehe... Seems the genus Antilope was a wastebasket taxon, like felis was as well... FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am no expert on this, thanks for telling me. Added. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the gallery of springbok varieties, maybe it would be nice if "Three springbok varieties" was written at the top, above the images?
Nice idea. Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some copy editing as I went along.
Thanks! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same paragraph you say "and horns are present in both sexes." and then "and both sexes having horns." One should be enough.
Corrected. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to the normal-coloured springboks there are also pure black and pure white forms." I think this would read better if you describe the normal colouration before mentioning there are other varieties.
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What produces these varieties, is it random, or linked to subspecies?
Could not find any source supporting such relation. Might be random. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, there seem to be captive groups consisting entirely of either kind:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I found a line like this from Kingdon's book : "Dark and pale morphs have been selected on some South African farms." I guess artificial selection is involved in this, though why they might have taken up this task is still a mystery to me. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps worth a mention? FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, added. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Males have thick horns about 35–49 cm (14–19 in) long, while those of females are thinner and shorter than those of males. In the subspecies A. m. marsupialis, 'females have horns shorter and thinner than males, with horns only 60-70 percent as long as those of males. Horns have a girth of 71 and 83 mm (2.8 and 3.3 in) at the base and thinning to 56 and 65 mm (2.2 and 2.6 in) towards the tip. In the other two subspecies there is no significant difference between the horns of both sexes." There seems to be some contradiction here. First you make a general statement that the horns are different. Then you repeat it for a single subspecies, and then you say the other subspecies don't have differences. Which is it?
Fixed Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Group size and distance from roads and bushes were found to have major influence on vigilance, more among grazers than among browsers." Are both groups springboks? Could be clarified, because it is only explained further below that springboks both browse and graze.
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While pronking, the springbok repeatedly leaps" and "The most accepted theory for stotting". Perhaps you should choose which term you want to use repeatedly for consistency.
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "summed up to a number in complete disagreement with East's estimate. Based on these figures the total population in southern Africa was estimated at approximately 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 animals." Are the numbers that are in disagreement those mentioned by the end of the section, or is it some kid of compromise between the two? Seems a bit unclear.
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro refers to it as an " antelope-gazelle", but later the article states it is not a gazelle. How can it be both an antelope and a gazelle?
Oh, some defective legacy. Corrected. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Springbok/GA1&oldid=1136232006"