Talk:Elephant/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice detailed article... would love reviewing this. My comments, will have more later:

Lead ✓ Pass

• The three images seem to spoil the appearance. I advise to use a picture of African bush elephant or Asian elephant (because the other is already shown in Taxonomy) in the infobox, just as two other family articles Rhinoceros and Giraffidae do.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added the infobox as well, it looks perfect now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Mention after the first line in lead that Gray described the family and when.

I don't think this is needed since this centered on the living species and not Elephantidae family overall. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• The lead could be summarised. Exclude or shorten the parts after you give the ranges in the first paragraph, you have it in the rest of the article. Some parts are repeated, which mustn't be. You could keep the most relevant parts, as the lead is getting too long.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy ✓ Pass

• In the first line, ";" can be replaced by hyphen, as - The three extant elephant species - the African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana), the African forest elephant (L. cyclotis) and the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus)- all belong to the family Elephantidae and the order Proboscidea.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is Mammuthus the direct ancestor of elephants? You imply so, and if it is then mention it before the lines about DNA studies. The reader mayn't understand.

No. As the evolution article states. Loxodonta branched off before Mammuthus' and Elephas

• Link 'cloned', 'embryo', 'described', 'separated', 'speciation'.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• From east to west, Asian elephants vary in color and amount of depigmentation; those further west are darker and have more depigmented patches, while further east they are lighter and have less depigmentation This seems a part of physical description mostly, and though I see you mean to describe the species, it really should be in 'Anatomy and morphology' section. I think it can be reworded - Asian elephants vary in color and amount of depigmentation geographically.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• 'Hybrids' says about Motty only. Could use {{main article|Motty}}.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Anatomy and morphology ✓ Pass

• Spelling mistake, degress - degrees

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• The proboscis, or trunk rather be The trunk, or proboscis as the section is named 'Trunk'.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Behavior and life history ✓ Pass

• Something is wrong with [[File:Asian Elephant in Corbett National Park.jpg]], didn't appear on my browser.

Removed the image, the article is already full of these anyway. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Link 'estrous'

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the info about sexual maturity should be given to the reader before coming to the mating.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Could have a line of explanation about alloparenting.

Done LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Females are sexually mature by the age of 9 years and can come into estrus estrus-estrous

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• What is the lifespan under captivity?

Made chances apparently some do live as long of those in the wild. LittleJerry (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to mention this, with an appropriate source, of course. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservation issues ✓ Pass

• In 1989, the African elephant ... (making trade of them illegal) Did their listing made the trade of elephants illegal or do you mean their trade is illegal? Could be made into another sentence.

Yes it made their trade illegal. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed the brackets. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Elephants and humans ✓ Pass

• However, they were not used as much as horse-drawn chariots by both the Pandava and Kaurava Should be Pandavas and Kauravas.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• ...used in theMauryan army space needed.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• ...trunk waying or route. tracing Up to 54% ... - ...route-tracing...

Done LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• During the 10th century better say AD or BC.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• As characters, elephants are relegated largely to children's stories Related, not relegated (which means distancing away)

The text is say that elephant characters are used only in childern's stories. Hence "relegated" (To assign to a particular class or category).

• The story of the blind men and an elephant... - The story of the "Blind men and an elephant"...

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes ✓ Pass

• Author of ref 1 is Douglas Harper

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• No need of linking the article in ref 8, PMC already given

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep journal article titles in one case, either sentence or title case. Same with book titles.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Italics for scientific names in refs 11, 14, 20, 100.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Capitalization needed in ref 22

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Rest is well, awaiting your replies. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite satisfactory. Only an issue or two left (in bold letters). Anyway, I don't expect more problems after two GA reviews already! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

the elephant can bring good fortune to people who belive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erutas1 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Beast of burden section

The section on Beast of burden needs to be re-written, e.g. elephants have an 'in-built memory'! I would re-write this myself, but I do not have access to the cited sources and therefore do not understand what the authors were trying to communicate.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't. I'll make sure it matches the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean 'Beasts of burden' section or the whole 'Elephants and humans'? I can't do much about this, for I too can't access the sources. Anyway, bult-in would do. LittleJerry, I found you have made many spelling and capitalization mistakes here and there, mostly in this section. I hope you are careful about it afterwards. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any mistakes. If you found them then just correct them. I also don't see why this should be re-written. Just let me get this copyedited after this is done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It is these two sentences in particular I believe need changing. "Elephants can be trained to respond to over 30 commands, although they do not always listen and sometimes come up with their own ideas on how to perform a task. Elephants have advantages over vehicles in that they can work in relatively deep water, require less maintenance, need only vegetation as fuel, and have a built-in memory." They are un-encyclopaedic and spoil what is otherwise a very good article__DrChrissy (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest? LittleJerry (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes. Are they better? LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have done some rewording for the first line, surely that would look encyclopaedic. Do you have an idea how to rewrite the second sentence? LittleJerry, once this issue is over I shall promote this as a GA. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is how I would write the sentences. "Elephants can be trained to respond to over 30 commands. They are valued as working animals over mechanised tools because they can work in relatively deep water, require relatively little maintenance, need only vegetation and water as fuel, and can be trained to memorize specific tasks."__DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good-thanks.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, this issue too is resolved. So we can have a formal WIAGA review:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Good, descriptive.

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Strong, reliable sources.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): All about elephants here.

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Fine, matching-with-the-topic images!

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

Congratulations! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)