Talk:Tragelaphini/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

Generally there aren't supposed to be refs in the lead since it's supposed to be a summary of the article
Shouldn't Genetics and hybridization be under Systematics?
in the future be more liberal with wikilinks
also in the future, watch out for sentence fragments and typos
The last sentence of the first paragraph in the Etymology section needs a ref
don't put a period in the |title= parameter for the refs

User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Tragelaphini has diverged from their closet sister taxon for the last 15 to 18 million years," needs to change to either, "Tragelaphini diverged from their sister taxon 15 to 18 million years ago," or, "Tragelaphini has been separate from its sister taxon for the last 15 to 18 million years," and here the sister taxon is defined as Bovini, right? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to use "the," you missed it a couple times User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the future: when you define a species, you can abbreviate it from thereon. Like you said "...have described Pheraios chryssomallos", so now you can refer to it later in the article as "P. chryssomallos"
When you state an obscure location (like Olduvai Gorge), even when you wikilink it, at least name the country it's in User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you first bring up a species using its common name, as you should (like the nyala), be sure to follow it up with the binomial name
"...they have undergone faunal turnovers and adapting to new environments" when writing a sentence, keep it in the same tense, so it should read "..they have undergone faunal turnovers and have adapted to new environments," or "they underwent faunal turnovers by adapting to new environments" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pick up later. Try fixing the grammar and syntax in the rest of the article. Also it has extremely sciencey words and terms and stuff, so try simplifying or explain further while you're copyediting User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lusotitan

GA reviews are generally one on one to my understanding, but I'd like to butt in just to note that Dunkleosterus77 isn't entirely correct regarded references in the lead. It's not required, but saying "there's no supposed to be" implies it's discouraged, which isn't true. To quote WP:LEADCITE:

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

Therefore, as I understand it, it comes down to editor preference whether or not they should be there. I trend towards including, I find the idea they shouldn't be there rather silly, but saying there's a wrong or right way to do it isn't correct. Lusotitan 20:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

well alright I guess User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 4444hhhh

Thank you User:Dunkleosteus77 for taking the time in reviewing the article as well as providing some excellent feedback. I pretty much will take these into consideration, and have nothing else to say about using refs in the lead as User:Lusotitan pretty much said everything. The only thing I will mention is the comment about Genetics and hybridization be under Systematics. Isn't genetics/hybridization more in align with natural history, as to my understanding other wikiarticles that talk about genetics and hybrids usually keep it separate from systematic. Grant it does go indepth about the evolution of chromosomes, but it does not flow well with the systematic section.--4444hhhh (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

now that I read the section (I just read the header), you got a point. I just did a gloss-over so I'll do a more in-depth review tomorrow User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Where does this review stand at the moment? This page hasn't been posted to since late November. Dunkleosteus77, are you waiting for something to be done by nominator 4444hhhh, or are they waiting for you to post more? I see that the grammar/syntax work you requested has not been done (a request to the Guild of Copy Editors would have been completed before now). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

after the holiday season’s over I’ll continue User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any word on this? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been waiting for him/her to respond before I keep going. I’ll give it a week before I close this review User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@4444hhhh: You still committed to this article or should I just go ahead and close it? It's no problem really, I just gotta know User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: Hey sorry for the lack of activity here, been busy with work as well as help clean out/improve other articles on my spare time. I am still committed to it, just will be very slow as mentioned.--4444hhhh (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, there is slow, and then there is inaction. The only edit to the article I see from 4444hhhh since this nomination opened three months ago changed a hyphen to an en dash. Dunkleosteus77, I think it's probably time to close this review. You can always offer to do a new review should 4444hhhh address all the issues raised and then renominate the article at that time, if you wish to. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]