Talk:Black wildebeest

Conservation Status

Please take this with a grain of salt as I'm a Wiki reader not and editor :)

When I came upon this page I was a bit confused how a species that had been widely exterminated in it's home environment could still be listed as least concern. Following the first external reference link I read this: "Indiscriminate hunting and restriction of the best fertile land for farming has reduced the population sizes of many African antelope, including this species. Connochaetes gnou now exists only in contained populations on game farms and in zoos (Macdonald 1995). The IUCN rates it a species of Least Concern because of the large number of captive individuals. (Macdonald, 1995)" which clarified to a point. This whole article needs to be expanded a bit (IMO). Perhaps the conservation status could be brought to a finer point. Just my 2c. --MWillMS 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black wildebeest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC) I'll take on this review. It looks an excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Good, see minor Comments
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead - see minor suggestions; layout ok; weasel: see minor comment; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Possibly strays into achievements of zoologists, see Comments
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All from Commons and licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	One or two minor Comments on captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This interesting and well-written article is clearly up to the standard required for GA. I hope you will develop it further to FA.

Comments

Lead:

• close taxonomic relationship - it's in the same genus; maybe combine this with the mention of the 2 species.  Done

• almost completely exterminated - when?  Done

• introduced - where?  Done

Body:

• scientific name - not convinced this needs linking, or even saying really; can just say 'The b. w., Connochaetes gnou, ...

I feel this is a proper start, I have done so in most of my other articles. There is no problem with your suggestion, but I felt it appears clearer and proper as it is. What do you say? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

not to worry

• Maybe the etymology should be a subsection.

I don't think it would look good; I feel it looks nice mixed with the taxonomic details. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

ok

• 'exhibit sexual dimorphism' = 'are sexually dimorphic'; on the same topic 'has the ability to maintain' = 'can maintain'; 'shows well-developed orientation behaviour towards solar radiation' = 'often orients itself towards the sun', perhaps -- isn't that what's meant? probably others in article, please check.

Done as suggested, except for the last one - not sure if it is absolutely the same in meaning. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

ok

• It has a bushy and dark-tipped mane: firstly, the paragraph is until then in the plural, so 'They have bushy manes...' would be better; and does the male have more mane than the female, given the dimorphism? If not, that's notable...

Done. Without any proper source, I don't think it's wise to conclude which has more mane. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

ok here, it seems surprising a source does not discuss this, probably will need sorting for FA

• 'flehmen (used by territorial bulls, as mentioned earlier)' - where? Best not to use cross-refs like this, they easily get broken; maybe say 'territorial bulls use the flehmen response to ...' or something of that sort  Done
• Biologist Richard Estes: Not sure this is right here. He has his own article, so discussions of him can go there; the focus here is on the species, and his name can go mainly or wholly in citations. BTW flehmen is again linked and discussed here, which is not earlier but later; suggest the mentions are merged.  Done
• caption 'Range map of the black wildebeest' - perhaps say something a little less obvious, like 'The black wildebeest's range is limited to South Africa'  Done
• 'The main natural threats are .. carnivorous mammals'. Do they threaten the population? It seems to have coexisted with them for millions of years. Also, they've already been listed earlier.

I think sometimes repetition of facts is helpful; the reader can instantly remember the predators. And predators are generally threats to the prey, so nothing unusual here. Anyway, almost all sources concerned with this say this. Shouldn't we mention all kinds of threats? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No, careful - we are talking threats of extinction, not danger to an individual animal. So no, there is no evidence that lions threaten wildebeest with extinction - or rather, do you know of any paper that claims this? I think not. So this needs fixing.

We can just say predators are a risk to them (instead of claiming "main natural threats", can we write something like predators and disease outbreaks are threats..."?) Or do you want the fact that predators are a threat to be removed completely? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There may be a place in the article for predators, diseases and other risks, but it is not in "Threats and conservation", where the risk in question is extinction. I've removed the non-extinction risk sentence from this section, as the IUCN source is crystal clear on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• 'issued several stamps' - personally I find this fine, but wikignomes usually jump on 'several', thinking it means 'many'. Would be interesting to know how many and when, not that it's important. Could just say 'some' (or just 'stamps').  Done
• caption '80 km/h' - please add mph also.  Done

Thanks for starting the review. I have responded to each comment, and we shall discuss on a few of them as well. Is everything else fine in the article? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's ready now.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black wildebeest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005154039/http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Connochaetes_gnou.html to http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Connochaetes_gnou.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)