Talk:Nilgai/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 14:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Will need a bit of time to read through. Will post my comments soon. Shyamal (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking up this review! It has been a while since I worked on this, and I have learnt a lot since then. I will copyedit it a bit. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Lead
- neelghae or nilgau - I am not convinced that these names should be included the lead (or bolded as they are not incoming links either) - they sound like bad English transcriptions.
- Removed
- The phonetic transcription does not look right (I believe it should be /ni:lga:ɪ/)
- I got it from the Merriam Webster dictionary. I am not sure about these pronunciations, though.
- verified that, will check if there is a suitable Hindi-English dictionary alternative.
- Structure
- A lot of the etymology is actually taxonomy - could be reorganized and is better located after the taxonomic introduction
- Should I shift the first para of Etymology to the Taxonomy section and make it the 2nd para there?
- I have tried to reduce some of the confusion by changing the section headings and moving some paras. Please see if this is acceptable.
- Thanks, that looks better. But the part in Taxonomy as of now, The generic name Boselaphus...and kamelos ("camel"), seems to belong more to Etymology. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Taxonomy = the naming of taxa (which implicitly includes an element of etymology). An alternative is to merge the current etymology as a last part of the taxonomy section - after all taxonomy does not mean just the Latin binomial but also the folk taxonomic nomenclature. Shyamal (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I get it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have tried to reduce some of the confusion by changing the section headings and moving some paras. Please see if this is acceptable.
- Some of the content in "Interaction with human beings" seem to be more suited for "Threats and conservation"
- I see, you mean the 20th century hunting and crop damage? I am confused how to separate them out, could you please help? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Content and sourcing
- "Coyotes and dholes generally attack juveniles" - I think it is worth separating the situation in India and the situation in introduced areas should not be a priority.
- I am not sure what you mean. I try to identify local predators by their location wherever possible, but here I am not sure if this is the situation in the wild or in captivity.
- Coyotes do not occur in India. Shyamal (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, "coyote" is not mentioned, it focuses on the situation in India. Someone else may have added it, removed for now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Coyotes do not occur in India. Shyamal (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- tubular tuft, pennant - I am unable to find a reliable source for calling this "tubular" it is a small tuft of hair along the dewlap ridge. Again unable to see a technical reference using the word "pennant" for this. (The most likely scenario appears to be misspelling of hair pendant as used in some old descriptions (example 12)
- Switched to pendant. I wonder how "tubular" came in, removed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have made several edits, please check if there is anything badly messed up in the process. Shyamal (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have checked them, they have indeed improved the article. Thanks a lot. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Review
- Overall this passes GA criteria. For FA, this needs to improve on structure and include more on diseases, parasites and cover several other aspects in ecology. There is a lot more to incorporate in cultural relations as well apart from the politics of renaming it.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Thank you. I will remember those points if I plan an FAC for this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)