Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giraffe/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 21:47, 28 April 2012 [1].

Giraffe

[edit]

Giraffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giving this another try. It came close last time but had paraphasing issues which have now been corrected. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I did close it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I closed it. There is a step you have to take on the PR page itself also. --Laser brain (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness - pending source checks for paraphrasing or veering away from sources. I've looked at this article quite a few times that I don't feel up to spot-checking sources Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just so you know, I listed my biggest paraphasing concerns here. Laserbrain tought that they were good enough. LittleJerry (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead section, paragraph 1: "The giraffe is noted for its extremely long neck and legs and prominent horns." Is it really noted for "prominent horns"? I could see that statement applied to the rhinoceros, but not the giraffe. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead section, paragraph 2: "They prefer areas with plenty of acacia trees, which are important food sources, and can browse at heights that most other herbivores cannot reach." I don't think that the word "most" is required. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Males establish social hierarchies through "neckings"." Is "necking" a countable noun, with the plural "neckings"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. But you already reviewed the article. LittleJerry (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been significant changes since my last review. That's why I am reviewing it again. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", "G. c. angolensis": "One genetic study on Smoky giraffes suggests that the northern Namib Desert and Etosha National Park populations form a distinct subspecies." What are "Smoky giraffes"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have changed "Smoky giraffes" to "Namibian giraffes". The article already declares "Namibian giraffes" as a separate subspecies. Why not just delete the sentence and leave the reference? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean. It does not declare Namibian giraffes a seperate subspecies, the title states "Genetic structure of two populations of the Namibian giraffe, Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis [some subspecific name as Angolan giraffe]". Why on earth would I leave the reference without a sentence for it to source? LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that in the Wikipedia article, placement of G. c. angolensis in the "subspecies" section implicitly implies that it is a distinct subspecies. Therefore saying "this study shows that G. c. angolensis is a subspecies" is redundant. Most of the other subspecies use Pellow as the reference. G. c. angolensis does not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No the study suggests that certain populations of the Namibian giraffe may belong to their own subspecies. Not that the Namibian giraffe is its own subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. That wasn't clear to me before. I have adjusted the text slightly. By the way, can Pellow be used as a reference for G. c. angolensis? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", is it really necessary to add the disclosure "based on ISIS records" with every subspecies zoo population? An in-line citation is included for every statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You left it for the first entry, which is okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", last paragraph: "Although giraffes from these populations interbreed freely in captivity, suggesting that they are subspecific populations, a 2007 study published in BMC Biology has suggested that there may be at least six species of giraffe that are reproductively isolated and do not interbreed." The paragraph is already referenced to the BMC article. Perhaps delete "a 2007 study published in BMC Biology has suggested that"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. the first part is not sourced to the study. 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The text now reads "A 2007 study published in BMC Biology has suggested that at least six of of these subspecies—the West African, Rothchild's, reticulated, Maasai, Angolan and South African giraffes—may in fact be separate species as they are reproductively isolated and do not interbreed, even though no natural obstacles, such as mountain ranges or impassable rivers, block their mutual access." I'm not convinced that this is the appropriate conclusion from the reference. I would appreciate other comments about this, especially from anyone with expert knowledge and/or affiliation with WikiProject Mammals. (In WikiProject Medicine, this type of article would be considered a primary source.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, changed it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From "Appearance and anatomy", paragraph 1: "Giraffes are capable of seeing in color." Perhaps "Giraffes have color vision"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Thats too close to the source. Can we please not focus on minor things like this? LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't become frustrated. The FA standard is deliberately high and I am trying to help you achieve it here.
The word "capable" implies that the giraffe can choose to do this. How about "Giraffes see in color"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From "Appearance and anatomy", paragraph 2: "There are at least eleven main aromatic chemicals in the fur." Does "aromatic" in this context refer to "aromaticity"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. This line was here before I came on to build the article to GA. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have added a wikilink. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From "Appearance and anatomy", subsection "Neck", paragraph 2: "The point of articulation between the cervical and thoracic vertebrae of giraffes is shifted to lie between the first and second thoracic vertebrae (T1 and T2), rather than between the seventh cervical vertebra (C7) and T1, as in most other ruminants." In most other ruminants, is the main articulation between T1 and T2 or between C7 and T1? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C7 and T1 for other ruminants. It says so clearly. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say so clearly. The presence of the second comma implies that "other ruminants" refers to the first part of the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The textbook "Mammal Anatomy: An Illustrated Guide" by Marshall Cavendish has quite a bit more info available about the giraffe's anatomy. I can go about adding this, if you think it would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. I got rid of it as a source because of too many errors in it. We have enought RS. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame. There is a lot of anatomical information in Mammal Anatomy that could be added. The only error that I found was the description of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which is commonly misunderstood in the literature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article covers all the major anatomical features. LittleJerry (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information in "Mammal Anatomy" that is not currently in the article:-

  • Hooves: up to 6 inches across in males; up to 4 inches across in females
  • Unlike okapi, the hooves do not have scent glands
  • Neck vertebrae have opisthocoelous joints
  • Each cervical vertebra is over 11 inches long
  • Unusually small brain, 1.5 pounds, possibly to reduce the energy required to perfuse it
  • High heart rate: 150 beats/minute
  • Oesophageal muscles are strong to allow regurgitation (rumination) of food
  • Like other ruminants, the giraffe's stomach has four chambers
  • Small liver
  • No gall bladder
  • Intestines are up to 280 feet long
  • Born feet first
  • Males reach sexual maturity at seven years, females at four years

Errors in "Mammal Anatomy":-

  • Diagram shows pink tongue
  • Left recurrent laryngeal nerve
  • Rapid respiratory rate

Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the last sentence of the "Internal systems" subsection: "The digestive system of the giraffe has a smaller ratio of small to large intestine than that of domestic cattle." seems to have been tacked on to the end of the paragraph about the cardiovascular system. The info in Mammal Anatomy could be used to expand the gastrointestinal text, and used to create a new paragraph. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From "Appearance and anatomy", subsection "Internal systems", paragraph 1: "These factors increase the resistance to airflow which gives the animal a slow respiratory rate." I removed the comment about respiratory rate, but you re-inserted it. Mitchell's introduction presents conflicting information in preceding literature. However the study itself goes on to say "these data confirm that allometric respiratory rates for mammals in general and giraffes are similar. The average resting RR that we calculated for the giraffes of the range of body masses in our sample was 10.1 ± 1.5 b.p.m (range 8.3 for the largest giraffe and 14.6 for the smallest)." Also, during exertion, the giraffe's respiratory rate increases while the tidal volume does not. Interestingly, Mammal Anatomy quotes a high respiratory rate. [Disclosure: I am a pulmonologist] Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Birthing and parental care", paragraph 1: "both amniotic sac and umbilical cord usually break when the newborn falls to the ground." Surely the amniotic sac breaks before the newborn falls? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that information was there before but I learned though personal contact with Mitchell that it was wrong. (e. g. the brain, respiratory rate). The other stuff you mentioned (gall bladder ect) is minor as it was also true of other herbivores. I only included stuff unique to the giraffe. "Oesophageal muscles are strong to allow regurgitation (rumination) of food", of course it would! Its a ruminant! I've judged the Mammal anatomy book to be a low quality source. It doesn't even give an author, just the Marshall Cavendish Corporation. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've have found some of the other information in the other sources. I added in the information on the glands, feet-first birth, hoof size intestine length and sexual maturity. Skinner and Smithers (1990) give the giraffe heart beat rate as 85±15 beats per minute. I don't know how to translate that. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the new information.
The giraffe's oesophageal muscles are unusually strong, more so than other ruminants, because of the height of the neck that food must be raised.
The author in Mammal Anatomy is given at the end of the chapter: Steven Swaby. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support. I have read through the whole article again. It is well-written and comprehensive in scope. All text is referenced to good quality sources. The illustrations are appropriately used and freely available from Wikimedia Commons.

A few minor points concern me, although they are not significant enough to oppose:-

  • I would appreciate other opinions regarding the last paragraph of "Taxonomy and subspecies", subsection "Subspecies".
  • All of the subspecies are referenced to Pellow ("Giraffe and Okapi") except G. c. angolensis and G. c. giraffa.
  • The NASA Quest reference link (Gonzales, "Why giraffes don't faint") doesn't seem to be working at the moment
  • The phylogram in "Taxonomy and evolution" is rather complicated.
  • The subspecies population numbers quoted in "Taxonomy and evolution" appear to imply a low estimate (as opposed to an average estimate).

I raised the latter two points in the previous FAC; the consensus was that they were unimportant.

I have tried to spotcheck some of the sources, but I am having difficulty extracting the relevant points from the textbooks. I hope that someone else can assist with reference spotchecking. Otherwise, I'll have another go at this next week. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I replaced the cite for the astronaut line. As for #2, the book does list G. c. angolensis but calls it the "Southern African Giraffe". G. c. giraffa is not mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference checks:-

1. Grubb, "Giraffa camelopardalis". Fine.

3. Online Etymology Dictionary, "Giraffe". The reference doesn't include the Arabic text. Also, it uses the word "zarafa" rather than "al-zirafah".

5. A Latin Dictionary. Fine.

6. A Greek-English Lexicon. The reference doesn't actually say that the Latin word is derived from Romanization of the Greek word.

10. Linnaeus, "Systema naturae". It is not clear from the reference that this actually describes the giraffe.

13. Brown, "Extensive population genetic structure in the giraffe". Fine.

15. Al Ain Zoo. Fine.

16. UAE Interact. Fine.

18. Brenneman, "Genetic structure of two populations of the Namibian giraffe, Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis"". Fine.

20. Fennessy, "Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. rothschildi". The reference does not say that G. c. rothschildi may be found in South Sudan. It says "The population is potentially close to meeting the population threshold for Critically Endangered under criterion C, depending on the number of individuals, if any, that survive in south Sudan."

Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Fixed,put arabic text in parathesis.

6. Fixed.

13. Fixed. Dagg 1971 confirms the Linnaeus classification.

20. Yes, but thats because the country of South Sudan didn't exist then. Any I changed it to "Its presence in South Sudan is uncertain" but I don't see why saying it "may be found in South Sudan" isn't good enough. This seems like a minot nitpick to me. LittleJerry (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"May be found in South Sudan" could be interpreted as "Is found in South Sudan". Thanks for changing it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, we have a problem here. You changed it to "south Sudan", but the south of Sudan is different now than it was in 2010. So that change certainly isn't helpful. Nageh (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see what you mean. I have changed it back. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two comments (for now):
Section Legs, locomotion and posture: Are old giraffes still able to lie down, or do they sleep standing? Can they have non-REM sleep while standing like horses?
Section Internal systems, second sentence. Do you want to say "This difference is larger in the giraffe...", or is the nerve longer, and if there are two of them (left and right) why is the singular being used? And if you do refer to the left nerve, why do you first say "nerve" and then "left nerve" in the same sentence? :)
Nageh (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. As for sleeping, The sources I have available say that giraffes sleep lying down. LittleJerry (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's not looking good when you say you did your research but I have some feeling about this and start looking on my own for a paper on Giraffe sleep behavior, and find this: Behavioural sleep in the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) in a zoological garden.. Nageh (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No way! FAs are supposed to be our best articles. A little bit more effort on your side is requested. When do giraffes sleep standing and when lying? I am pretty sure you can phrase the sentence as "Giraffes can sleep standing but need to lie down, curled up and with their head resting on their rump or hind legs, to enter REM sleep." I'm not gonna do the research (now). Nageh (talk)
I don't have access to the entire article. The abstract only states that they sleep lying down more often on some nights and standing on other nights. The details of a study are not important for the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one problem is that you didn't do the necessary research. The other problem is that adding such little details can improve the article tremendously in terms of quality. There is a qualitative difference between saying "sometimes they sleep standing and sometimes they sleep lying" and "they may sleep standing but need to lay down for REM sleep, a period of sleep necessary at least twice a day [say]." If you don't do the research I will do it but I probably won't be able to support the article. Nageh (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't fault somebody for not having access to a certain paper. I've collected major sources on the subject (Kingdon, Estes, Dagg, ect) and none of them discuss how often they sleep standing vs lying. Perhaps its not that important.LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added in that they mostly sleep lying down but old ones do sleep standing up. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is good. I have added another one to stress that the peculiar position where the head rests on the hip appears only in "deep sleep" phases, and is not a general indicator for sleep phases as had been believed in some earlier studies. Btw, in case you are interested in the paper, I have requested it at the Resource Request here. I will continue reviewing the article. Nageh (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have referenced Langman, V. A. (1977). "Cow-calf relationships in giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis giraffa)" four times. You cite it when stating "The bond a mother shares with her calf lasts until her next calving." However, according to the information that I have the bond may be a weak one except for the first few days although strong bonds lasting until the next calving have also observed. Can you verify this? Nageh (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, put that it can last that long. Langman seems to have studied them in depth. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, based on the paper lying in front of me, a suckling time of 13 months is at the upper end, and most calfs are weaned after approximately one month. Nageh (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, give two given extremes for weanings. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded these changes a bit, and removed what seemed like redundancy. The meaning is in line in what sources I have, so it should be ok. Check nonetheless. Nageh (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Scientists have tried to mimic the properties of giraffe skin when developing suits for astronauts and fighter pilots." I have reasons to be skeptical about this statement, especially when it comes from a biologist. Pressure suits were developed before it was discovered that biology had invented the same mechanism way earlier. I will see what I can find about it. Nageh (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the giraffe has been studied so extensively afterwards that the statement probably is true nonetheless, even when the pressure suit had been originally invented earlier. I'll leave it at that. Nageh (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Etymology section states that zarafa is perhaps from African origin. However, several sources (e.g., [2]) state that serafe is being mentioned in the Koran, meaning roughly "the lovely one". Nageh (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don't know about the reliability of these sources. Nageh (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is a problem or a contradiction. There have been other Middle Eastern spellings of the word. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there is a translation for it it indicates that the word is of Arab origin. Which is what some of these sources claim. Nageh (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I have found a good reference that defeats this claim. I will link it.Wasn't that good. Nageh (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, funny. I have checked a couple of French sources, which I consider more reliable on this aspect due to their Arab influence, and they pretty conclusively state that its original Arab meaning possibly was "moving with rapidness" or "exceeding measurements", though the word probably has Egyptian origin. So the current text is pretty fine, actually. I will link one French source, which is discussing the etymology more extensively. Nageh (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidering. Those books are way too old. I'll leave it at that. Nageh (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The giraffe can reach a sprint speed of up to 60 km/h (37 mph)." ...over short distances. There is an anecdote about this in this book, but maybe you have a better reference? Nageh (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nageh (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. "A giraffe's skull is filled with sinuses.", ...lowering its weight. This may be obvious but I think it is important to point out. I do not recall in which paper I read that, maybe you have a proper source.
Done LittleJerry (talk)
2. "The liver is small and compact." I was going to add: "A gall-bladder may or may not be present.". This seems to be controversial. The most recent source I could find was on pubmed, referenced from this book, but I don't have full-text access. Do you have access?
I'm afraid I don't have access/ LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on which original paper other authors cite a gallbladder either is not present, sometimes present, or always present! :) I have summarized what can be said about it, using three of the best references I could find. Nageh (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. It may be important to point out that acacia are an important source of calcium for the giraffe, necessary for its considerable growth rate. I recall having seen a full paper on this but I need to check my sources. – Done.
Nageh (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support. I cannot find any obvious omissions in content, and the overall presentation is fine, hence I am willing to give a preliminary support vote. However, I suggest that another copy edit run by an independent reviewer is done, some phrases seem a bit stiff. Nageh (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC closer may interpret this as a support. Nageh (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good. I am pleased to see that the lead summarizes all of the main sections of the article. However, there is some clunky phrasing which needs to be addressed: I am now satisfied with the phrasing in the lead.

  • "Its specific name refers to its [...] patches of color on a light background, which bear a vague resemblance to a leopard's spots." The background of what? At no point does this sentence mention fur. Suggested rephrasing: "Its specific name refers to its camel-like face and the patches of color on its fur, which bear a vague resemblance to a leopard's spots."
  • "The giraffe is noted for its extremely long neck and legs and unusual horns." Yikes, never ever ever use the "this and this and this" construction. Possible rephrasing: "The giraffe is noted for its extremely long neck and legs, as well as its unusual horns."
  • "They prefer areas with plenty of acacia trees, which are important food sources, and can browse at heights that most other herbivores cannot reach." This seems to be a very roundabout way of discussing their diet. Better would be: "Their primary food source is acacia leaves, which they can browse at heights that most other herbivores cannot reach."
  • "While adults are nearly invulnerable to predation" The literal definition of "invulnerable" is "incapable of being wounded". With that in mind, the highlighted phrase is quite misleading, as it wrongly implies that it is not possible to hurt an adult giraffe. It also leaves the reader wondering why the adult giraffe is not predated upon. Height? Speed? The horns? The ability to kick would-be predators in the face?
    "Giraffes, mostly calves, are preyed on by lions, leopards, spotted hyenas and wild dogs." This solves the previous issue, but this phrasing implies that some adults are preyed upon, whereas the previous phrasing implied that that never happened. In a sense, this phrasing is almost contradictory to the previous one, and it leads me to wonder where these "facts" are being pulled from. Source? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the section on mortality. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now why the phrasings that have been used to summarize this section have been contradictory—the Mortality section itself is inconsistent: "Healthy adult giraffes are usually not at risk of predation" contradicts "Adult giraffes can fall prey to lions if the cats can make them fall over." This needs to be addressed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave it a try and improved both wording and organization of that paragraph. I'm a bit concerned about the phrase "if the cats can make them fall over". I know that you tried to avoid copying the source, which says "if the cats can bring them down", but does this really have the same meaning? "Make them fall" brings up a picture where they literally fall, i.e., cannot maintain their balance, which isn't what the source seems to imply. Any suggestions for improvement? Nageh (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bringing down" and "getting to fall over" may not mean exactly the same thing but think of the situation we have here. When it comes to hunting giraffes, the only way to bring them down is to get them to fall over. The source says "...lions are able to kill even bulls if they can get them down..." LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose your right. They could possibly hold on their legs and force them to keel or something. Anyway, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Giraffes commonly gather in aggregations that usually disband every few hours." Very mysterious sentence. It's not clear to me why "commonly" and "usually" are both used in the same sentence. It is also not made clear why this behavior occurs.
    The first issue was addressed, the second issue was not. Why do they gather, or why do they disband? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because most have no strong social bonds. This is explained in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:LEAD, "the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." The current version of the sentence in question, "They gather together in loose aggregations.", is somewhat concerning in this regard. The purpose and significance of this statement is not at all clear. A much better sentence would be something like "Adult giraffes do not have strong social bonds, though they do gather in loose aggregations because of [insert reason here]." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional source spot-checks, at LittleJerry's request.
  • Ref 31, OK
    • Article text: "The giraffe can reach a sprint speed of up to 60 km/h"
    • Source text: Data graph supports 60 km/h
  • Ref 40(a), OK
    • Article text: "This advantage is real, as giraffes can and do feed up to 4.5 m (15 ft) high, while even quite large competitors, such as kudu, can only feed up to about 2 m (6 ft 7 in) high."
    • Source text: Data graph supports measurements and contrast
  • Ref 51(b), OK
    • Article text: "The number of giraffes in a group range up to 32 individuals."
    • Source text: "One hundred and eight male, 39 female, and 94 mixed groups were found (Table 1), with group sizes ranging from one to 32." --Laser brain (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing reference checks:-

55. Leuthold, "Social organization and behaviour of giraffe in Tsavo East National Park".

The reference states: "Calves commonly formed crèche groups.... They continued sucking up to 13 months and remained associated with their mothers for another 2–5 months."

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Social life and breeding habits", paragraph 1: "The most stable giraffe groups are those made of mothers and their young,[54] which can last weeks or months.[55]" How about changing this to "The most stable giraffe groups are those made of mothers and their young,[54] which can last several months.[55]"

Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The actual paper does state that they last weeks to months. LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mother and calf bonds are not necessarily the same as calving groups. The text states Often two to four females with calves were associated over weeks or even months. LittleJerry (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Is the image review from the previous FA still valid? Have there been any changes? Graham Colm (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly. The only new image added since them was File:Giraffe koure niger 2006.jpg. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Giraffe/archive4&oldid=1088823546"