Talk:Chimpanzee/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 22:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 22:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

First comment, after initial run-through for spelling etc: you need to decide whether the article is in English or American spelling. At present we have BrE "behaviour", "centre", "fibres", "localised", "neighbouring", "oestrus", "recognisable", "recognised", "specialised", "vocalising" alongside AmE "analyzing", "favorite", "gray", "maneuvering", "neighbors". Either is fine, of course, but it should be one or the other throughout. More tomorrow. – Tim riley talk 23:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed to UK English. LittleJerry (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Detailed comments

An impressive article. A few points on the prose and sourcing:

• "The English name 'chimpanzee' is first recorded in 1738" – this statement could do with a citation. (The OED confirms the date).
• "members of the Pan clade" – we haven't had the word "clade" before: a link or explanation would be helpful to the non-expert.
• "which likely evolved independently" – if the text is to be in BrE I'd replace "likely" with "probably": this is from The Guardian's style guide, which I find helpful: "In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as "they will likely win the game" sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well."
• "Among males is generally a dominance hierarchy" – I had to go back and read this again to get the meaning: a "there" before "is" would make it more immediately clear.
• "This is likely due to the chimp's fission-fusion society" – as for the earlier "likely"
• "During aggressive encounters, displays are preferred over attacks." – can one prefer over rather than prefer to?
• "However, other forms of mating exist" – This is the fourth "however" (of five) and one does begin to notice the repetition. More often than not one can lose the word, improving the flow of the prose without damaging the sense. I don't press the point, but you may like to consider.
• "When submitting to a conspecific" – another term the non-expert reader may need help with
• "the numbers 1 through 9" – 1 to 9 in BrE
• "Despite the lack of complexity, forethought and skill are seen in making these tools and should be considered such." – not sure quite what this means: what should be considered what?
• "Animal rights groups have urged a stop to such acts, considering it abusive." – plural noun with singular pronoun.
• "In 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classified all chimpanzees, both wild and captive, as endangered" – unclear why the national body of only one country is mentioned
• "While deforestation rates are low in western Central Africa, selective logging may take place" – I'd be careful with using "while" to mean "although": at first reading this seems to mean that logging may take place only while the rates are low, which isn't what you mean.

Fixed all the above. Chiswick Chap, can you deal with the references? LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The changes made address my comments completely and satisfactorily. Just the references to go and we can proceed to promotion to GA. Tim riley talk 22:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• References

• Citations 37 and 49 seem to be two separate, and slightly differently worded, references to the same source document: one would expect an "a" "b" type listing, as for ref 120.
• Citation 38 (to Goodall, pg. 232) isn't set out as all other references to Goodall are.
• Citations 39 and 45 point to the same source, like 37 and 49, mentioned above.
• St.Fleur – has a space after the full stop in the cited source
• Citation 91 – this unsubstantiated assertion is a pretty woolly reference, especially for a whole paragraph. Can nothing more verifiable be found?

All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Those are all my quibbles. Tim riley talk 08:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

GA checklist

1. A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A top-notch article. A pleasure to read and to review. Clearly meets all the GA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 18:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks from the nominators, Tim! Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)