Talk:Red fox/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm going to have to jump in and review this one, given the high importance to the dogs project. :) Plus my own general interest and happyness that an article in so many Wikis has got some love. I'll aim to get the review completed over the weekend. I'm looking forward to reading it. The only thing that is slightly disappointing immediately is that there isn't an image in the urban foxes subsection. Mainly because the section heading immediately brings forth thoughts of foxes ripping apart big bags and scattering rubbish everywhere. But there isn't anything on commons that suits. So I'm having a look on Flickr for anything that could be brought over and so far the only really good shots are perhaps one with two foxes on the roof of a shed, one where a fox is crossing a road - finally found one with a bin bag! I'll upload them onto commons and then post the thumbs here for you to look at so you can decide if they're worth adding to the section. The things I do when I could be properly reviewing your article, eh? ;) Miyagawa (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it, the big bag photo was actually a dog! I'll add the fox on the street image to the article. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up this review! Sasata (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I haven't forgotten about this, but I do keep on getting distracted. I was about to say it was a good thing as the new GA in DYK rules meant I figured you could have put it through there once it passes... but then I noticed this had already been a DYK in 2004. :( Miyagawa (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can at least do the basic run through/checks and put the template out right now:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
All present and correct!

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
All sources appear perfectly suitable.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No problems there.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Review underway. Miyagawa (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I count 11 duplicate links. Miyagawa (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplinks removed. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution: Good use of the illustration due to the close proximity of the two species. However you don't need to link to Rüppell's fox in the image caption as it is linked in the article (especially as it is very much nearby the image).

Unlinked. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Build: "Vixens have three pairs of teats" - given the next half of the sentence, would it be better to say "normally have..."?

Done. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senses: I think the plural of grouse is still grouse.

It seems that both forms are acceptable, per this. I don't know if one or the other is preferred in British English though. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social and territorial behaviour: The piped link to Spraying (animal behavior) is a little long - I'd reduce it down just to words "urine to mark their territories".

Done. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images: You might just want to double check whether you need the wikilinks in the image captions or not. Certainly in some places they won't be in the main article, but I'm sure they are in others.

I think duplicated wikilinks in captions are generally tolerable, but I've removed a few anyway. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting: I would suggest that you duplicate the cite from the quote onto the end of the first paragraph.

Done. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taming and domestication: You might want to work in a link to Domesticated silver fox.

It's already piped in "population of foxes" in the 2nd paragraph. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great article and a very interesting read. Considering the size, there really isn't a great deal of issues. It's 99.9% there with just a few tweaks required. Placing this one on hold and once those bits are cleared up then it'll be a straight forward pass. Miyagawa (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time to review this, it's much appreciated. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great - I did a double check on Grouse vs. Grouses and I've found both. So I think it's probably fine. I've updated the table above and I think this one now meets the criteria for a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]