Talk:Bobo (gorilla)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DRosenbach (talk · contribs) 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin this review shortly. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the bit about where his body parts went and how his skull was lost and later found belongs in the text of the article and not in the introduction. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"While at the zoo, Bobo never forgot about the Lowmans, instantly recognizing any of them when they came to visit." (Third paragraph of Life) -- this seems a bit overdone. Even if Bobo were a person, this would be deemed unencyclopedic as mere conjecture -- and I'd say the fact that he's a non-human primate makes it even more dubious to be speculating as to the degree of his emotional and psychological states of recollection. Perhaps this sentence could be rewritten to demonstrate greater reserve, perhaps merely mentioning how it appeared that Bobo recognized the Lowmans, not to mention that this entire assertion remains unreferenced. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know the source makes specific reference to this, but perhaps softening the comment about Bobo never having mated with Fifi is in order. I'd suggest that the standards of Wikipedia are higher than than of the paper you are quoting -- did they have continuous feed closed circuit television to review whether they had ever mated? Or was this mere speculation because Fifi never conceived? Was she a virgin and they re-examined her at the time of Bobo's death? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Although Fifi remained with Bobo until his death, they never mated, which perplexed zookeepers and the media who followed them." The pronoun them seems at first ambiguous because the last defined noun is zookeepers -- were the media following the gorillas or the zookeepers? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the autopsy report shows Bobo to have died of a pulmonary embolism, why is there controversy surrounding the cause of death? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the Burke owns the remains to the present day." Is this an appropriate way to refer to the facility? Seems very informal and perhaps bordering on silly. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly after the remains were transferred to the Burke Museum, a University of Washington graduate student discovered that Bobo's head was missing." Because this is in a new section on Head controversy, it's out of the timeline of the narrative and it's confusing when the head was noticed to be missing and when it got to the Burke Museum -- perhaps put in a date or mention that this was during the initial post-mortem transfer of organs, etc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Then in 1981 Spencer allowed David Humphries, a writer for the Seattle Weekly, to take a picture of Bobo's skull." This sentence should be restructured -- as it stands, the Then in 1981... makes it seems like this is a contiguous event to the previous one, when really, it seems to have just been the next step in the timeline but totally disconnected to the events surrounding the search for the missing skull. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"However, when asked by Humphries, Spencer refused to give the skull to the Burke. After Spencer's death in 2006, his employees decided to reunite Bobo's skull with the rest of the skeleton,[4] and after some negotiating, the skull was given to the Burke in 2007." Again -- continued informal reference to the Museum as "the Burke." And was the skull gifted, sold? Let's be more specific with the "giving." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delayed response; I'm the GA nominator. I was on a wikibreak for a while and didn't think to check this page for a while after returning. I'll get to work on your recommendations/feedback as I have time. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned?

Despite another month and a half, there have been no edits on the article and no action taken on the review despite the nominator's 450+ Wikipedia edits since September 28. Under the circumstances, I think it may be time to close the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article hasn't been touched since the review, so failing. Wizardman 04:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]