Wikipedia:Peer review/Giant eland/archive1

Giant eland

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it an FA, as I have put many efforts into it and it is a GA too. I welcome any useful comments and suggestions which can help me with this article.

Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yomangani's comments

In no particular order or claim at comprehensiveness.

• The taxonomy/etymology and differentiation between the subspecies is poor:
  • " There are two subspecies: T. d. derbianus and T. d. gigas, which have different conservation statuses." followed two paragraphs later by "Its population is decreasing but it is still classified as "Least Concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)." This is inconsistent.

    Yes, this is relevant. I corrected it by deleting the first part, 'which have different conservation statuses', and rewrote it as 'The subspecies have been listed with different conservation statuses by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).' in the last line. Fine now?

  • "The name 'giant eland' indicates the subspecies T. d. gigas." - that might be where the "giant" came from but the term "giant eland" encompasses both subspecies.

    This is a confusing statement. Actually I got it from the MSW3 source, but I have removed this now.

  • "The giant eland was first introduced in 1847 by John Edward Gray, a British zoologist, who called it Boselaphus derbianus." Introduced where? Do you mean the name "giant eland" was introduced? Do you mean "first described"? It was already claimed that was "first acclimated to England between 1835 and 1851" ("acclimated" is an odd word choice too, and the structure of the paragraph on Lord Derby could do with being reversed as we don't get a clue as to its etymological relevance until the end)

    I mean 'first described'. I think I have rewritten it suitably in the article now. I changed 'acclimated' to 'introduced'. Yes, it was introduced into England at that time, but then the people did not know what antelope it was.

    It was in England for 12 years unidentified or misidentified? Did Grey describe it from Derby's original specimen? Yomangani^talk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Why are the etymology and taxonomy sections separated by the "Physical description" section? - this isn't a logical structure and breaks the flow

    I have kept the 'Taxonomy' part after 'Etymology' now.

  • The identification of the subspecies as "eastern" and "western" isn't made until near the end of the taxonomy section when we've already had a few mentions of the subspecies. Introduce this in the lead or use the scientific names rather "eastern" and "western" in subsequent sections.
  • "... which correspond to the two recognized subspecies, the western giant eland (T. d. derbianus) and the eastern giant eland (T. d. gigas). " This repeats the information already given in the Taxonomy Subspecies subsection.

    Corrected now.

• "Its actual sighting was in 1862, when William W. Reade, a British historian, explorer, and philosopher, visited Senegambia." - This makes no sense when viewed in the context of the preceding sentence and the second paragraph of the "Etymology" section

  This thing was not so relevant or properly supported. I have removed it.

• The "Parasites" section could probably be wrapped into other sections or at least moved lower in the structure

  Wrapped into 'Physical description'.

• "Savanna(h)" is spelt inconsistently in the lead and body.

  Changed to savanna everywhere.

• In the "Genetics and evolution" section you switch to calling it the derby eland. I'd remain consistent in calling it the giant eland, but if you do swap it should be "Lord Derby eland" as established in the lead. You also identify the animal in the infobox picture as western derby eland which is of no use to the infobox viewer.

  I have rewrote it as 'Giant eland'. Do you mean the caption should be changed or totally removed?

  I removed the caption. Yomangani^talk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Regular" should probably be "frequent" in regard to their water requirement (but see the next comment).

  Other sources write it as 'regular', I think it should be 'regular' only.

  Regular isn't that helpful in identifying how often they need to drink as its interpretation is too subjective. The appearance of Halley's Comet is regular but buses departing regularly might be leaving every couple of minutes. According to the discussion of the adaptations for desert survival they do not require a water supply, regular or irregular. It appears they prefer habitats where drinking water is available but it is not a requirement. Yomangani^talk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• "They need regular intake of water in their diet." The rest of the paragraph is devoted to the ways they avoid requiring water and in the "Uses" section this is cited as an advantage they have over domestic cattle. They may need a regular intake of water, but it seems they need less water than most animals of comparable size and habits, so perhaps you should stress this aspect rather than their requirement for a water supply.

  I have wrapped it into a sentence. I believe this will make the reader clear on this aspect.

• The paragraph on herding behaviour isn't clear. First they form herds, then the males are alone, then there are subgroups of males and females and juveniles

  I have changed the order of the sentences. Seems proper to me now.

• I think you occasionally need a definite article in front of "giant eland" when referring to it in the singular, as both the singular and plural are the same "As many other animals do, giant eland is also known to scrape mineral lick sites with the help of horns to loosen soil." (also, this sentence seems out of place in current position too, as the rest of the paragraph is concerned with herding behaviour)

  I think this should be plural. According to you, where should this statement be placed?

  Mineral licking is an aspect of diet. Yomangani^talk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Expressions of anger are not typically observed" - is there any evidence for anger as an emotion of antelopes?

  No, I mean they have never been seen exhibiting anger.

  I mean that anger is not an emotion of antelopes, so there is no reason to mention its absence. Yomangani^talk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• It needs a copy edit - there are a lot of areas where the prose could be tightened or the sentence structure is awkward. One example only: "It has many uninhabited habitats that are not expected to be occupied for human settlement"

  How can it get a copyedit?

  There are copyeditors around but I think you need to address some of the points of structure and research before approaching one. Yomangani^talk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Threats and Conservation" repeats much of the substance of "Populations"

  Do you think the two sections could be merged? (See the last but one comment)

  I think "Habit and Distribution" and "Populations" could be merged, but "Threats and Conservation" should probably remain as a separate section with some information swapped between the two sections (for example, rinderpest is a threat, so the discussion of this may fit better under threats than under distribution and the areas where the giant eland is now extirpated belong under distribution rather than conservation). Yomangani^talk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• The "Uses" section needs reworking so it describes what uses they are put to rather than just the qualities that would make them suitable for use. "Eland's milk has about triple the fat content and twice the protein of a dairy cow's milk" is very interesting but it isn't a use unless somebody is distributing it. "Moreover, its docility and profitable characteristics have made it a target of domestication in Africa and Russia and has also resulted in excessive hunting." What is this "Moreover" referring to? Also, if it is of "Least Concern" what makes the hunting excessive? (coupled with "Giant eland are alert and wary, making them difficult to approach and observe or to hunt" this sentence doesn't make much sense anyway).

  Will wait till it is copyedited.

   Done I have corrected much. The fact about the milk should remain, it focuses on what makes the giant eland's milk better than that of domestic cattle. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  It should only remain if there some evidence that it is being used (or is proposed) as a substitute for the milk of domestic cattle. If diary farming of giant eland is impractical then the properties of the milk are immaterial in this section. Yomangani^talk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Elands can survive in the scarcity of water, a great advantage over domestic cattle." - we were told earlier that they needed a constant supply of water.
• "They inhabit places near hilly or rocky landscapes and those with water sources nearby" According to this they live in places "near" hilly or rocky landscapes. Is that right? You've already said "Giant elands live in the broad-leafed savanna, woodlands and glades". Is "places near hilly or rocky landscapes" a subsection of that?

  They also inhabit places near hilly or rocky landscapes.

• "The elands are adapted to live in deserts", "The giant eland is adapted to these broad-leafed, deciduous Isoberlinia woodlands". Is the first sentence referring to common elands or is the giant eland adapted to live in forests and deserts?

  Giant eland's adaptations help t to exist in deserts. Forests are its natural habitat.

• "Science author Jonathan Kingdon had thought the giant elands lived only in woodlands of Isoberlinia doka, an African hardwood tree." That must have been a fairly odd idea in the context of the rest of this section which says they live in places near hilly or rocky landscapes and those with water sources nearby, broad-leafed savanna, woodlands and glades, and forests as well as on the fringes of deserts. Something isn't right with the description of their habitat - it's either much too broad or much too narrow.

  As you said, it requires copyediting.

  This isn't a copyediting problem, it is one of marshalling information from the sources. The giant eland's habitat can not be described both as highly restricted and varied. The copyeditor would not be able to judge which information was valid without doing extensive background reading. Yomangani^talk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Giant elands live in the broad-leafed savanna, woodlands and glades of central and western Africa". The second part of that sentence is redundant because of the Populations section later on.

  See next comment.

• The information on the population in the "Habitat and Distribution" section seems to clash with the information in the "Populations" section which raises the question as to why the two sections exist independently - details on where the populations are found is their distribution.

  Reading this one, I again think of merging this section and 'Populations'.

  I think that would be wise. Yomangani^talk 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• "One calf is born per birth, and it remains with its mother for six months.[18] Lactation can last for four to five months, after which the young eland might join a group of other juveniles." If it stays with its mother for six months it can't join a group of juveniles after four or five months. Also "One calf is born per birth" is clunky, presumably you mean that the pregnant female carries a single calf. Yomangani^talk 15:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  Corrected now.

Thanks for peer-reviewing. Please address some interrogative comments I left, they would be very helpful. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)