Talk:Bat-eared fox/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 16:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 10:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other canids, it is relatively small. – What does "relatively small" mean? I would provide a concrete number here, too.
In general, the text could be more accessible. Consequently link technical terms, and explain when important: dental formula, generic name, specific name, sister, clade, gray agouti (no idea what that is), disjoined range (I believe the correct term here is actually "disjunct distribution"), kit --> kitten and link
Explain the term "basal", possibly using a bracket.
A cladogram would be a very helpful addition
"Otocyon megalotis virgatus (Cabrera, 1910) Rothschild, 1902" – How is it possible that a taxon has two authors?
There are no confirmed observations in Zambia. – Why mention this particular country, when there are many more where this applies?
they have not been observed drinking from free-standing water.[4] Water constitutes a critical resource during lactation.[24] – Needs context. How can water be a critical resource when they never drink?
Section "Fossils":
- In the major heading you called it "Evolution"; stick to one.
- However, the generic distinction between Prototocyon and the extant Otocyon is doubtful. – When Prototocyon may belong to Otocyon, how can you make a statement like "fossil records of Otocyon indicate it first appeared in the middle Pleistocene", which implies that Prototocyon is separate?
- Are there any fossils of the species itself? If so, they are the most obvious thing to mention in a section called "Fossils".
giving its grizzled appearance, appearing more buff on the sides – can't follow here
reduced in shearing surface formation – can't follow
The bat-eared fox is an old species that was widely distributed in the Pleistocene era. – If so, we need to hear more about fossils and previous distribution in the "Fossil" section.
alters the bite force – means what? Increase or decrease?
Most info in the "Dentition" section is not about dentition.
Conservation threats – That section should either be "Conservation" or "Threats", but not both words together. Also, it needs to state what the conservation status is, to start with. And when called "Conservation", it should state what conservation measures have been adopted.
Info on predators and deseases are missing.
So much for now, I might have some more later, and I still need to look at sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Robinson, Stephanie. – Source not accessible, and there is no information what this source is supposed to be.
Please check for duplicate references. "Animal diversity web" is duplicated at least three times.
What makes "Animal diversity web" a high-quality reliable source, when it is written by college students? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did spot checks on the section "Fossils", and it doesn't look good:
- the generic distinction between Prototocyon and the extant Otocyon is doubtful – This is precisely the wording of the source, hence clearly copyright violation.
- Fossils of an extinct fox-like canine known as Otocyon recki – The first four words again are exactly as in the source (close paraphrasing). The part "fox-like canine" differs but does not make any sense: If it is a species of Otocyon, it would be a fox, not a "fox-like canine".

Closing note: I have to fail this for now. The article does not seem to be well-prepared for GAN. There are prose issues, some sections seem vague and lacking, and I just keep finding too many issues if I look longer. A section on interactions with humans (culture etc) is also needed (there is a little bit on that in the "conservation", but that section is just some facts put together, its not great. Most critically, the spotchecks revealed not only close paraphrasing but clear copyright violation in at least one section. I am sorry, but this is simply not a GA, yet. What I suggest to do is to start with the "Mammalian species" article, which is a great source, see what to add from that/how it compares to the text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.