Talk:Banded palm civet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 11:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Will do. AryKun (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Sorry for the delay in reviewing.
• This article has a lot of issues that I can see on a quick skim.
• The lead is far too short.  Working
• It relies far too much on the outdated account by Pocock, sources that old are usually only used for historical facts about taxonomy and for extinct species on Wikipedia.
• Classification has uncited statements. Done
• Doesn't actually provide much information about its systematics or evolution, especially considering that the paper it's cited to has quite a bit of detail.
• Doesn't mention morphological differences between the subspecies, and the distribution already given would be better in a list form.
• No info about breeding, except for one sentence in Description, oddly enough.
• Description is poorly put together and doesn't really have a coherent flow (most articles have size, general appearance, sexual dimorphism, and then age related differences)  Mostly fixed
• Very little information on habitat considering what's available in the literature.
• Distribution has too many statistics that should actually be in Conservation.  Done
• Half of Behaviour and ecology is just Pocock's account from 80 years ago, which is very outdated and should be replaced by more recent refs.  Partly done, but I don't see anything necessarily wrong about using Pocock's account, it's not like these things change quickly.
• Conservation also suffers from flow issues and just seems like a collection of random points with little connection between them.
• Found an image of what I presume is a cub, and this would be better for the infobox imo. Partly done
• Refs should italicise genus and specific names.  Done
• Indonesia WCS is not a scholarly source; fine at GA level, but would ideally be replaced by something better like a book or journal article.
• I'll hold this for now, but this requires a lot of elbow grease, so I'd recommend letting this fail and renominating after you've addressed the points raised above. AryKun (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

so I'd recommend letting this fail and renominating. That makes sense, I guess. My apologies. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

All right, I'll fail this; if you want to work on this article and renominate, Mantled howler is a good example of what to aim for. AryKun (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)