Talk:African bush elephant/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Wolverine X-eye (talk · contribs) 12:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be making an effort to review this article. Nominator has contributed quite a bit to the text. I notice User:BhagyaMani has worked on this article as well, though not as recently. Working slowly through this. Reconrabbit 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: Done. ✿ WolveríneX-eye ✿ 15:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: What's the status of this review? ✿ WolveríneX-eye ✿ 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Prose

• Link species and process (anatomy) on first appearances?
  • Done
• Under optimal conditions where individuals are capable of reaching full growth potential, fully grown mature males are about 3.20 m (10.5 ft) tall at the shoulder and weigh 6.0 t (6.6 short tons) on average (with 90% of fully grown males under optimal conditions being between 3.04–3.36 m (10.0–11.0 ft) and 5.2–6.9 t (5.7–7.6 short tons)) while mature fully grown females are smaller at about 2.60 m (8 ft 6 in) tall at the shoulder and 3.0 t (3.3 short tons) in weight on average under optimal growth conditions (with 90% of fully grown females ranging between 2.47–2.73 m (8 ft 1 in – 8 ft 11 in) and 2.6–3.5 t (2.9–3.9 short tons) in optimal conditions). This is a run-on sentence that could be split, either separating male and female growth or optimal/non-optimal growth potential.
  • Done
• The use of ears for thermoregulation is mentioned in the lead/top paragraphs and "Description", but the "Thermoregulation" section under "Behavior and ecology" only discusses the skin. If warranted, the use of bending cracks in the skin could be incorporated to the lead paragraphs, and/or the use of ears for heat regulation can be moved or expanded upon under "Thermoregulation".
  • Went with the former
• Note 1: The populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe are listed in Appendix II for specific purposes. What does this mean?
  • Clarified

References

• Layout: No issues with layout. Noting here since it's in the external links: what is the National Geographic article doing there?
  • Removed
• Copyright violations: Nothing obvious noted yet. Will review after sources checked.
  • Noted

Spot checking

24 to review (~20%). Based on this revision:

• [2]c Y
• [2]g Y: I am only seeing "over half of the species’ range may extend beyond the boundaries of protected areas". The 70% figure is referring to the level of population reduction in these unprotected areas. If 70% of the range being unprotected is supported in the referenced Taylor 2009 then that would make sense.
  • Fixed
• [4] Y
• [8] Y Supports the text, though since this is a conclusion from a primary source there may be a question of undue weight (I can't see the citing literature for this work, so it may be better supported than I can immediately see).
• [16]a Y
• [21] Y
• [29] Y
• [37] Y Supports the statements regarding West and Central Africa.
• [40] Y "[...] marked tendency of the elephants to congregate into larger herds following substantial rainfall, and to disperse into smaller groups under dry conditions."
• [44] Y
• [51] Y got tripped up on the "US gallons" used in the article compared to the non-US gallons in this reference.
• [64] Y based on abstract
• [70] Y
• [75] Y
• [94] Y; there was also a follow-up study the next year related to this, though it was less reported on.
• [110] Y
• [116] Y IJTK is a reliable journal according to MIAR so no concerns about the Researchgate link.
• [118] Y Reasonable

Scope

• Broad: I find nothing that is obviously missing from this overview of a species. Y
• Narrow:
  • Would you consider it worthwhile/in scope to include a cladogram that goes down to the species level, adapted from African elephant#Phylogeny and evolution? Uncertain here since the see also note is already there.
    • I'm not good with cladograms so even if I wanted to include and adapt it to species level, I couldn't
      • I can work on this later. Reconrabbit 16:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
        • That would be great, thanks!
  • "Dentition" section or similar ought to mention ivory in some form (ivory is only discussed later in "Poaching" and "Cultural significance", but it would be useful to state what the ivory actually is- the whole tusk? or is there a better description of this on the page for ivory?)
    • Done

Stability

• Neutrality: Nothing to note as particularly NPOV-violating, though it's possible that the weight is skewed towards some primary research articles in places - difficult to avoid in the narrower details. Y
• Edit warring: There is the occasional vandalism because this is a highly viewed article, but that's all I can note. Y

Images

• License: All licenses for the photos used are appropriate for the article, but File:Shot elephant.jpg probably has the wrong published/photo taken date on its information page.
  • Replaced
• Relevance: Nearly all images are placed in proximity to sections where the depictions are relevant, though File:African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) drinking Kruger.jpg is placed under the subheading Musth where the relevance isn't clear (and there is already a fine photo for "Diet").
  • Removed

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed