Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Springbok/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2016 [1].

Springbok edit

Nominator(s): Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a graceful antelope. The article describes in detail several features unique to this antelope. I feel this would make an interesting read. Thanks! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I don't usually stray outside of military history, but thought I'd take a look. I have a couple of suggestions (only really minor nitpicks): AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is a dab link to Dorsal which should probably be re-aimed towards Anatomical terms of location#Dorsal and ventral
  • punctuation: "2 m (6 ft 7 in) into the air - a practice known..." the hyphen here should probably be a spaced endash, or unspaced emdash;
  • punctuation: "estimate of nearly 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 animals", the hyphen here should be a spaced endash;
  • there is a dab link to Peter Grubb that should be re-aimed (sorry, I'm not sure which is the most appropriate link, though)
  • in the title: "The Safari Companion : A Guide to Watching" there shouldn't be a space between "Companion" and the colon
  • "The Karoo : Ecological Patterns and Processes", same as above
  • the duplicate link checker tool identifies a few examples of overlinked terms: Kalahari desert, Namibia, Karoo (in the Distribution and habitat section)
  • that's it from me, thanks for your hard work on this article. Good luck with the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words and comments, AustralianRupert. I believe I have fixed all these issues. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 03:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Any more comments? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time, sorry. I will try to come back after someone more knowledgeable about animals etc posts a review. Thanks for your tweaks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Would you like to add comments now? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, the article looks very good to me. I have offered my support above. A couple of minor points I noticed, which could be a matter of style specific to this type of article, so please ignore if that is the case:
    • "(Blaine, 1922) Occurs..." (probably needs a full stop before "Occurs")
    • same as above for "(Thomas, 1926) Occurs"
    • same as above for " (Zimmermann, 1780) Its range"
  • Anyway, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if biology reviewers missed this. So pinging Casliber, Cwmhiraeth, Jimfbleak and J Milburn. Sorry if any of you is busy. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim edit

Well written and fairly comprehensive; a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You deal with predators, but I would have expected a bit on parasites too. They are surprising well studied for this species. Cain et al, has something, but a quick Google also throws up multiple sources
Yeah, don't know how I could miss this. Done. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer something more specific than eagle. I think we are talking about large species here, three of which Cain (at least) mentions by name
Done.
  • this antelope can live without drinking water for years by efficiently meeting its water requirement through succulent vegetation—clunky, perhaps this antelope can live without drinking water for years, meeting its requirements through eating succulent vegetation?
Took your suggestion.
  • The other two varieties are the pure black and the pure white forms, selected in some South African ranches—I'm unclear whether the black and white forms occur in nature, or only through selective breeding. If it's the latter, I'd make that clear, referring to wild and farmed varieties instead of "normal" and "other"
Good idea, tweaked.
  • tend to be more vulnerable to predator attacks as they can not be easily alarmed. —Do you mean "alarmed"? Doesn't make sense to me, perhaps "alerted"?
Took your suggestion.

Thanks for your comments. Will work on these in the next hour or two. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: All done, I think. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few drive-by comments (might show up later when other "less involved" users have commented"), but I think it could be nice with scientific names after the common names in the cladogram. Also, why is a saiga shown, when the gerenuk is a much closer relation? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. We discuss the saiga more, but I like your idea better. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I already found this article to be in very good shape when I passed it at GAN. The changes since then have improved it to the point where I think it is worthy of FA. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by ɱ edit

  • In Etymology - "identifying the animal as a non-gazelle" sounds clumsy. A comparable phrase would be "identifying that the animal is not a gazelle", however perhaps it means more if all gazelles used "Dorcas", but apparently most use"Gazella".
I see. Done.
  • In Taxonomy - " 0.08 and 0.1 million years ago" will be better expressed as 80 and 100 thousand years ago, no?
It can be either way, I think your suggestion is better as the myas are really small here. Done.
  • Springbox triptych - you still use the phrase 'normal' here. Perhaps say 'typical' or 'wild'?
Good catch, said "typical".
  • In Ecology:
2nd sentence - you need an 'and' or an 'or' before 'at midday'.
Done. Don't how I missed these.
3rd - you shouldn't use an "'s" after Thompson's Gazelle.
Right, fixed.
4th - needs another verb (replace 'with' with 'have').
Done.
  • The rest actually looks good, though in the last section, I wouldn't use a subjective/opinion-based term like 'beautiful'. As well, I have many culinary interests, and was curious when reading that the meat is prized. Perhaps could you elaborate on which peoples consume the meat, and what cooking techniques are common, or what dishes they're used in? I'm not sure you'll be able to find RSs on any of that, but if you could, it would prove very interesting and good to note in the article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could I say "attractive" instead of "beautiful"? The meat is mainly an exported product, so a lot of people should be consuming it, not just locals. I could not find resources for cooking techniques, but salami can be prepared from springbok meat and I elaborated a bit on that. I have also added the characteristics of the meat.

Thanks for your comments. I will address them soon. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: I think I have fixed them all. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Supporting. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 04:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One last comment - reading the research paper on the topic, it doesn't necessarily state that springbok is used for salami, just that it could be, no? Perhaps change that in the article. As well, I think this bit should be mentioned: " Springbok are raised on commercial game farms. The meat is readily available in South African supermarkets and is consumed fresh or as biltong, pre-pared by preserving the raw meat with vinegar, spices and NaCl [salt], followed by drying, without fermentation." ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 04:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It is a bit difficult to wade through all that text, I will go ahead and add it. The article looks a lot better now. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 04:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth edit

Here are some comments from me now that I have returned from my month-long Welsh break!

  • The Etymology section has too many short sentence and needs to flow better.
  • "In a revision of the phylogeny of the tribe Antilopini on the basis of nuclear and mitochondrial data in 2013, " - That's a very long opening clause.
  • "became extinct during about 7,000 years ago" - One of these words is redundant.
  • "In juveniles the stripes and the patch are light brown." - This sentence and the next need swapping.
  • "adult black springbok develop two shades of chocolate-brown and a white marking on the face as they mature." - Needs attention.
  • "females have horns thinner than males'" - you could reverse the third and fourth words,and remove the stray apostrophe.
  • "female juveniles stay with their mothers until a new young is born" - This sounds awkward. How about "until the birth of their next calves"
Fixed all the above except the fifth, which I could not understand. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, some of the prose is fine, but in other places the sentences have a tendency to be short and dijointed.
I think I fixed some of the glaring examples, please let me know where else I need to work. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Diet section, the last sentence could be moved to near the beginning.
  • Again this section has a lot of brief sentences. Try to link some up and let the prose flow.
Fixed this section. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The national rugby team was officially recognised as the "Springboks"." - You have stated this before. Do you intend to emphasize how recognising the name helped in reconciliation? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was redundant. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm a bit busy now, will take a few days to check the article for all those short sentences. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Addressed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good, I have done a little copyediting. One further point; you mention that the springbok has an extra premolar on either side of each jaw. Surely that means the difference in total tooth number between springbok and gazelle should be 4 rather than 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Supporting this nomination on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the IR, @LittleJerry:! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Laser brain edit

  • Formatting and reliability are good. I don't have any complaints other than that I'm not crazy about this open access template being applied to citations. It adds a lot of visual noise to the References section for seemingly minimal benefit. Is this a trend now? --Laser brain (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did not know this template was there till J Milburn asked me to use it for Hartebeest. I am not a fan of it either, so I am willing to do whatever is best for this case. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:16, 8 May 2016 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Springbok/archive1&oldid=1136095458"