Talk:Bovidae/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 22:11, 3 April 2015 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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).	~~The classification section should be made into a list, maybe List of bovid genera? At any rate, it has no point in the article and on top of that, looks ugly.~~
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~Why so many images towards the end? There is no point of having fifty photos in the article! Please remove them.~~
	7. Overall assessment.	Nice article. Sorry I delayed, and I think its worth being a GA.

Gug, higher level taxon and species level articles always have lists of their members. Please look at other passed GAs before reviewing. In general, before reviewing an article, look at similar passed GAs and their reviews before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but what about the photos? I don't see need for all those photos in the article since some of them are just specific to a species. Gug01 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different issue, which I have no strong opinion about. My point was simply, that one needs to familiarise oneself with GA and FA precedents, to see what the norms are. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, I can try to "oversee" this review, and give suggestions, Gug. That should prepare for future reviews. For now, it is good to read the article thoroughly and bring up any issues you come across, point by point. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other Third paragraph in Introduction: Most bovids are polygynous, and males become sexually mature much after the females do.All bovids mate at least once a year, and smaller species may even mate twice. Spacing between sentences.

Hi Gug! My apologies for such a delay - had a problem with web connectivity. I have removed much of the photos - have retained only a few showing a few subfamilies. Sentence issue resolved. Let me know about any other issues. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Consisting of 143 extant species and 300 known extinct species, the family Bovidae consists of eight major subfamilies apart from the disputed Peleinae and Pantholopinae. The family evolved some 20 million years ago, in the early Miocene. I suggest hyperlinking extant since some readers may not understand the word. Also suggest the removal of "some" to say: The family evolved 20 million years ago.

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]