Talk:Black wildebeest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC) I'll take on this review. It looks an excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Good, see minor Comments
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead - see minor suggestions; layout ok; weasel: see minor comment; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Possibly strays into achievements of zoologists, see Comments
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All from Commons and licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	One or two minor Comments on captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This interesting and well-written article is clearly up to the standard required for GA. I hope you will develop it further to FA.

Comments

Lead:

close taxonomic relationship - it's in the same genus; maybe combine this with the mention of the 2 species. Done

almost completely exterminated - when? Done

introduced - where? Done

Body:

scientific name - not convinced this needs linking, or even saying really; can just say 'The b. w., Connochaetes gnou, ...

I feel this is a proper start, I have done so in most of my other articles. There is no problem with your suggestion, but I felt it appears clearer and proper as it is. What do you say? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not to worry

Maybe the etymology should be a subsection.

I don't think it would look good; I feel it looks nice mixed with the taxonomic details. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok

'exhibit sexual dimorphism' = 'are sexually dimorphic'; on the same topic 'has the ability to maintain' = 'can maintain'; 'shows well-developed orientation behaviour towards solar radiation' = 'often orients itself towards the sun', perhaps -- isn't that what's meant? probably others in article, please check.

Done as suggested, except for the last one - not sure if it is absolutely the same in meaning. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok

It has a bushy and dark-tipped mane: firstly, the paragraph is until then in the plural, so 'They have bushy manes...' would be better; and does the male have more mane than the female, given the dimorphism? If not, that's notable...

Done. Without any proper source, I don't think it's wise to conclude which has more mane. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok here, it seems surprising a source does not discuss this, probably will need sorting for FA

'flehmen (used by territorial bulls, as mentioned earlier)' - where? Best not to use cross-refs like this, they easily get broken; maybe say 'territorial bulls use the flehmen response to ...' or something of that sort Done
Biologist Richard Estes: Not sure this is right here. He has his own article, so discussions of him can go there; the focus here is on the species, and his name can go mainly or wholly in citations. BTW flehmen is again linked and discussed here, which is not earlier but later; suggest the mentions are merged. Done
caption 'Range map of the black wildebeest' - perhaps say something a little less obvious, like 'The black wildebeest's range is limited to South Africa' Done
'The main natural threats are .. carnivorous mammals'. Do they threaten the population? It seems to have coexisted with them for millions of years. Also, they've already been listed earlier.

I think sometimes repetition of facts is helpful; the reader can instantly remember the predators. And predators are generally threats to the prey, so nothing unusual here. Anyway, almost all sources concerned with this say this. Shouldn't we mention all kinds of threats? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, careful - we are talking threats of extinction, not danger to an individual animal. So no, there is no evidence that lions threaten wildebeest with extinction - or rather, do you know of any paper that claims this? I think not. So this needs fixing.

We can just say predators are a risk to them (instead of claiming "main natural threats", can we write something like predators and disease outbreaks are threats..."?) Or do you want the fact that predators are a threat to be removed completely? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a place in the article for predators, diseases and other risks, but it is not in "Threats and conservation", where the risk in question is extinction. I've removed the non-extinction risk sentence from this section, as the IUCN source is crystal clear on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'issued several stamps' - personally I find this fine, but wikignomes usually jump on 'several', thinking it means 'many'. Would be interesting to know how many and when, not that it's important. Could just say 'some' (or just 'stamps'). Done
caption '80 km/h' - please add mph also. Done

Thanks for starting the review. I have responded to each comment, and we shall discuss on a few of them as well. Is everything else fine in the article? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's ready now.