Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zebra/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [1].

Zebra edit

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about zebras, African equines with one of the most recognizable patterns in nature. This article has been brought to GA status and had a copyedit. I now feel it is ready. LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
It says its from 1895
There isn't any source for the date. Also, it's unclear if that's the creation or publication date.
this shows that it was taken by 1902 which means it would be in the public domain now. LittleJerry (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am seeing some sandwiching in Ecology and behaviour, Social structure (2nd + 3rd pics), Reproduction and parenting, Conservation sections.
I'm don't see a problem, as long as the words are not completely sandwiched. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Err, that's not what MOS:IMAGELOC says. Also, I am not convinced that all the images are adding encyclopedic value. Images should not be added just for decoration.
IMAGELOC states How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er;. none of the images in the article are facing each other. LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I think you could find a better pic for the Communication section, however not required. (t · c) buidhe 19:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be helpful, as I am not a FA reviewer, but there are three unlinked species in the taxobox. Is that an oversight? Even if there are no articles for those species, I believe they should still be linked.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack edit

  • Vilstrup, Seguin-Orlando, Stiller, Ginolhac, Raghavan and Nielsen,et al. – I think "Vilstrup and colleagues" is sufficient.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • V-shaped groove separating the metaconid and metastylid of the cusp – It is important to list diagnostic features, and I'm happy to see them here. But this one seems incorrect: Which cusp? (the metaconid itself is a cusp). Which tooth?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • well-rounded halves of the enamel wall. – not sure what is meant with "halves" here. The halves are rounded, but not the whole?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of motion dazzle for defense against mammalian predators has also been questioned. – The section is about the "confusion hypothesis", and "motion dazzle" is only one of several possibilities that are mentioned. Should this sentence refer to "confusion hypothesis" as a whole instead of only the "motion dazzle"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and may predict conditions months after their arrival. – Does not make much sense to me; when they are already at the locality, why should they predict its conditions? Is "after their departure" meant?
When they arrive at a place they can predict would it will be like in the next months. "....conditions considerably later than the arrival time are driving the zebra's migratory destination." LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zebras have been kept in captivity since at least the Roman Empire, and they were known throughout their territories, including Palestine. – "they" refers to the zebra. But I wonder if it should refer to the Romans instead?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I miss information on the former range of the zebra; how extensive was it before human intervention? Was it the whole of Africa? Any evidence for the occurrence of today's species outside of Africa? I think Zebras were present in northern Africa at least, but where extirpated there already in Antiquity, needs mention!
That is relevant for the articles on the individual species not here. The the evolution section clearly states that zebra evolved in Africa and mentions a fossil species in Algeria. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it belongs here. Not the individual distribution of the species but the former range of the zebra (i.e., the three living species) as a whole. Also because the historic accounts, especially those in Antiquity, may (I assume) not be referable to a particular species. But lets see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article already gives a very general description of each species range. General enough so that it includes current and former ranges. The mountain zebra for example likely never ranged outside southwestern Africa. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the problem is that the reader does not know that the general description applies to both current and former ranges. The reader has to assume that they just reflect the ranges shown in the distribution map, which – again he has to guess this – are the current ranges. I think something very general would help, such as "Originally, zebras were distributed over much of Africas southern Savannah, though they have been extirpated from many regions. The plains zebra is the most widely distributed species, while the mountain zebra is restricted to southwest Africa and the Grevy's zebra to Kenya and Ethiopia." Getting a basic idea about the former ranges is important because these are the natural ranges (without human interference). At the moment, the reader has no idea at all about these natural ranges. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added that their ranges have been fragmented. LittleJerry (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppliers of zebra skins insist that the animals are hunted with a license, and they contribute to the conservation of the species. – A very dangerous statement. Is it really true for all those suppliers? This is sourced with the "Zebra hides website", which has a clear conflict of interest here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes this vendor website a reliable source? Lets see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are reliable for what they say as a zebra hide provider. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack, I added a detail on fragmentation in the conservation subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, most important information is present, the article is very solid and a good read. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

I'm claiming a section here, I'll get to this in the next day or two. This will be claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 15:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For starters
  • That Zebra hides sales site is not a reliable source for the information it's cited to. It has a COI in presenting a positive take on its practices. A better source needs to be found.
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of formatting inconsistencies here. For FA, the sources must be formatted in the same manner. Caro and Plumb & Shaw have long citations in the bibliographies, but the other books have long citations in the notes section. All of the books should be done in the style of Caro and Plumb & Shaw, and the journals probably should too.
No. The Caro and Plumb & Shaw are cited that way because they have several pages cited thoughout rather than a specific section or page range. I have done this before in other FA articles and I'm not changing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FACR #2c. Hog Farm Bacon 17:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LittleJerry on this one; this is standard in science articles, and is actually without a feasible alternative due to mixed sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of instances where p. is used when pp. should be used. If multiple pages are being cited, pp. should be used.
Jonesey95 can you please do this? LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources like Rubenstein and Churcher we need the exact page numbers for each statement, not just a range. This helps with WP:V.
I cited page ranges before and never had this problem. It is too tedious assigning each exact statement an exact page since much of the information is stated throughout. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1). So you need six pages of Rubenstein to support that Zebras are only only living member of the family Equus? And "it's a lot of work" isn't a reason not to point to the exact page number for an FA.
If I was using Rubenstein just for that for that specific statement, I would just cite the one page number were it is mentioned. But you should notice I am using it for multiple claims that are not on one page. Hence am using the page range. I have used page ranges before for FAs and I'm not changing it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 87 (the Folia Zool PDF) needs authors given, a publisher given, and the weird website syntax removed from the title. It also needs the date from the paper.
Jonesey95 can you please do this? LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do these external links contribute? External links should link to additional information, not just unused websites.
  • The titles are a mess. Some are in the format where only the First word and other proper nouns such as Zebra are capitalized, while others are in Title Case.
Jonesey95 can you please do this? LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. This will need to be done manually, with editorial decisions along the way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made the book titles and journal article titles consistent in regards to capitalization (capitalized for books, not for journals). LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's just from a quick skim. More to come later. Hog Farm Bacon 15:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: Okay. Sorry if I seemed prickly earlier, my RL job is catching shoplifters, and that attitude rubs off sometimes. The page range and Caro issues I guess are related to project standards, I work a lot with history articles, where my suggestions would fit the style guide there. I plan on spending more time at FAC in the future, do I hope this doesn't build any I'll will. Hog Farm Bacon 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Archive 218 of the reliable sources noticeboard, there is no clear consensus on the reliability of sciencealert. Since only the highest quality sources should be in FAs, is it possible to replace this source?
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sources all appear to be reliable enough.
  • Be consistent with how author's first initials are presented. Sometimes you use a period in the manner of "Wales, J." other times you don't, like "Wales, J". Be consistent with this.
Jonesey95? LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found and fixed all of these (there were many). I don't see "Wales" in the page. Specific examples would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That wiki's founder! LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: That string does not appear in the article. I was using Jimbo Wales as an example. Hog Farm Bacon 00:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks coming later. Hog Farm Bacon 19:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks (start with three)
  • "Mountain zebras are protected in Mountain Zebra National Park, Karoo National Park and Goegap Nature Reserve in South Africa as well as Etosha and Namib-Naukluft Park in Namibia" - Supported, although IUCN lists a bunch of other parks, although they are too numerous to effectively list.
  • "However, he did not ride on them as he realised that they were too small and aggressive." - Checks out
  • "By contrast, plains zebra stallions are generally intolerant of foals that are not theirs and may practice infanticide and feticide" - Checks out

I'm willing to pass the source review at this point. However, I'm not convinced that any of the external links pass WP:ELNO #1. Also, the Horse Tigers one is more about a TV special than zebras, so it's especially irrelevant. The ELs aren't part of the sourcing, but I'm not convinced they add anything to the article. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, replaced external links. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to show the quagga under conservation? Instead of the current image there, because I'm sure plenty of the other photos are also from natural reserves.
I wanted for there to be a Grévy's zebra image since there isn't in the rest of the section and the species is endangered. The quagga is mentioned in the taxonomy section. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The photos could just be swapped (the quagga is almost a symbol of extinction), but anyway, this point is not essential. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No predators and parasites section? There must be a lot.
Predators have a paragraph. Parasites are more relevant for the individual species. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its ultimate origin is uncertain, but it may have come from the Latin equiferus meaning "wild horse"; from equus ("horse") and ferus ("wild, untamed")." This seems like a stretch, how does the source put i?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The word may have entered into Portuguese as ezebro or zebro" What "word" is referred to here? Equiferus or zebra?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The zebra was previously called hippotigris ("horse tiger") by the Greeks and Romans." Prevous to what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link both equine and Equus, which has the same destination. Either equine should be unlinked, or does it actually refer to Equinae? Should be redirected there instead then.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the stripe function info is about ecology/behaviour, which should logically be discussed in that section.
I prefer it where it is. The formatting is better. The physical description of stripes more naturally leads to the debate over their function. I've wrote FA's where ecology and behavior are partially discussed in regards to the function of a physical characteristic, like bat, giraffe and elephant. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case, it is solely about their function in an ecological context. In quagga, we also put it under behaviour/ecology. I think it's quite misplaced where it is now, but if no one else has brought it up, I guess others didn't find it as jarring. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the text in the Distribution columns under Extant species not begin with capital letters?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mule could be linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk. Any more? LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, added some, more to come. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have chestnuts only on their front limbs" This could be explained in-text, like saying "chestnut"-calluses or something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Primitive markings including a dorsal stripe and often leg striping and horizontal shoulder stripes reflect the wildtype coat of equines" I think this is a bit of a misinterpretation of the source, zebras are wildtype equines, those terms mainly apply when used to describe domestic horses (when they have such stripes, they can be compared with those of wild types like zebras; a horse with stripes similar to a zebra or wild ass has "primitive markings"). But to be sure, pinging horse-experts Montanabw and Ealdgyth on this.
I actually got that from Montanabw who originally wrote this from the Equus article: "A dun-colored coat with primitive markings that include a dorsal stripe and often leg striping and transverse shoulder stripes reflect the wildtype coat and are observed in most wild extant equine species". LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source used talks specifically about non-zebra horses that have faint striping inherited from wild type ancestors, and even starts "the primitive markings in horses, the so called zebra markings". It is therefore moot to point this out in entirely striped animals like zebras, because in them, it is not a primitive throw back feature, because they are wild types themselves. So I don't think any reliable sources would use the term "primitive markings" in reference to the stripes of zebras. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link morph.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "predators has questioned." Has been?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, no correlations have been found between striping patterns and populations of mammal predators." I'm not sure what this means?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Caro and colleagues (2019) studied captive zebras" You have already given the date, I don't think you need it again.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why do those flies not lie stripes?
It already states that "A 2012 study concluded that the stripes polarise light in such a way that it discourages these insects in a manner not shown with other coat patterns". LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that only states they are discouraged, not why. What is it about this light they don't like? If we don't know why, it could be stated. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zebra eat primarily grasses" You should be consistent in whether you use the plural form zebras or zebra throughout.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "females are usually abducted by outside males" How?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the purpose of the dewlap in the mountain zebra, which seems to set it quite apart from its relatives?
Doesn't say. That's more important for the species article. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As below, I'd also expect some mention of subspecies and numbers of them, at least in the "extant species" boxes. Just brief, "this species has the following subspecies".
That's more important for the species article. Plains zebra subspecies in particular are too complicated for this article.
You don't need to go into detail, just say something like "this species has been suggested to have 2-4 subspecies" for each in their boxes. Since another reviewer also brought it up too, other readers would probably consider it an oversight too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the flehmen response" State that this is by baring their teeth.
Its more complicated then that. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be explained, the MOS says "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."[2] FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while imprinting their own striping pattern" So they do also have a function in recognition of individuals, I'd expect this to be mentioned under function then? And how is it even known they use stripes for this?
Zebra's being able to recognize each others striping patterns does not mean its their function. We can recognize individual human faces but that's not why we have faces. LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but if it is a function, this needs to be explained. Yes, we can recognise faces, and this is a secondary function, but do the sources specifically state this is also a function of zebra stripes? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source only states that the mother imprints her striping pattern on the foal. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and feticide" How?
By causing the females to miscarry? LittleJerry (talk)
Yes, but how do they do that? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this article is effectively about Hippotigris, we need to know when and by who this was named. And was it ever considered a proper genus?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and they were known as far as Palestine" this seems an odd statement, as Palestine is arguably closer to where zebras live than Europe.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the species was named in his honour" You could add "the species it belonged to" to avoid confusion.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The quagga was hunted by" I think you could repeat here "the quagga subspecies of the plains zebra", it is in the opposite end of the article from where you explain it was merely a subspecies.
The article mentions that it is either a subspecies or population. Recent genetic evidence suggests that their are no subspecies of plains zebra but clines. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whichever it is, I think it is good to reiterate there, all the way at the opposite end of the article, so the reader knows it is not a species. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could mention under conservbation that a subpopulation of Burchell's zebra was hunted to extinction, which was at one point thought to be a distinct taxon too.
Subpopulation not important for article. Not as iconic as the quagga. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - another important animal article down, good job. FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • In the image caption it should be "plains zebras" (not zebra). See [3]].
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation of the taxonomy is confusing. If I understand correctly, zebras do not belong to the subgenus Hippotigris, rather zebra is the common name for the subgenus Hippotigris. This should be clarified at the start, and it would also be helpful to spell out that equines is used here in the sense of the plural of the genus equus.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not clarified this point. Human is the common name for Homo sapien and belongs to the tribe Hominini. Saying that zebras belong to the subgenus Hippotigris si unclear.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are the only living members of the family Equidae." "They" obviously refers to equus but it is grammatically ambiguous.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zebras have fairly good senses." This is too vague. Fairly good compared with what and which senses are best?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The researchers concluded that this could be used against mammalian predators or biting flies.[57] The use of the stripes for confusing against mammalian predators has also been questioned." Why "also"?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the longest land migration in Africa." longest of what? Zebras? Any animal?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Plains zebras are more water-dependent and live in more mesic environments than other species. They seldom wander 10–12 km (6.2–7.5 mi) from a water source.[24][26][76] Grévy's zebras can survive almost a week without water but will drink daily when it is plentiful and conserve water well.[77][21] Mountain zebras can be found at elevations of up to 2,000 m (6,600 ft)." I expected a comment on mountain zebras' water needs here.
Plains and Grevy's zebra are suppose to represent the extremes of water dependence. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Living in an arid environment, Grévy's zebras have longer nursing intervals and do not drink water until they are three months old." Why does an arid environment lead to drinking water later?
Because there isn't has much water available and have to spend longer times dependent on milk? LittleJerry (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expected a brief section on sub-species. Is there a reason you do not have one?
That's important for the individual species not this article. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 38 and 102 slate.com, ref 100 PBS and ref 113 Travel News Namibia do not appear to be reliable sources for science. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already had a source check review and they passed. They are reliable enough for the claims used. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source check just seems to have been a spot check on three sources, not on these specific ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, Hog Farm did both a spotcheck of three sources and looked all the sources in terms of their reliability. They had no problem with the ones you pointed out. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles - TravelNewNamibia is used to cite specific national parks they are located in, so not really scientific information. PBS is used to cite some fairly basic stuff, and PBS is reliable enough for that. The second slate is used to cite information about Rothschild's attempted training, and Slate is reliable enough for a basic presentation of a historical fact. I can see the other Slate reference maybe being an issue, but PBS looks acceptable for the lower-level scientific statement, and two of the ones questioned aren't citing scientific information. We don't need Nature to tell us about Rothschild. Hog Farm Bacon 17:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2020 (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/Zebra/archive1&oldid=977106679"