Talk:Four-horned antelope/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) 01:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• OK, here's my review:

Well-written

• The prose needs extensive editing. Just to point out a few examples:

I have done much CE and removed errors, how does it look now? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks very good. One thing I missed on my first review. This sentence: "These calls may, in fact, be used to warn predators in extreme cases," Is it using the call to warn predators or to warn other antelopes of predators? Other than that, I think everything is OK. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This means the call is basically to raise the alarm, but its use is uncommon for the reason stated. If the danger is quite imminent, that is in extreme cases, the antelope will give out these calls as a last resort. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. When you say "warn predators" it makes it sound like they're trying to scare the predator away. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 12:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The sources says "warn the predator that it has been identified". I have now rephrased this as In extreme cases, these calls may, in fact, be used to warn predators that they have been identified. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• There is a lot of unnecessary passive voice which obscures the meaning.

I use passive voice mainly where I refer to results of studies. I will try to limit its use. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Better? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks a lot better now. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• The authority conflict mentioned in the Taxonomy and phylogeny section is very difficult to follow.

To clarify this, the trouble was that while the name Tetracerus appeared for the first time in Hardwicke's publication, perhaps an editor of the publication attributed the genus name to Leach. As Leach had clearly been identified as the authority, and satisfied certain criteria (which will be difficult to explain in the article), the ICZN held him as the authority. Could you please suggest any rephrasing you may like to see? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense to me now. One thing is you say "The authority for Tetracerus has been disputed" without saying who disputed it. Also, you ought to mention that Hardwicke's publication was the first to use the genus name. One more note, this story would be better if it were in its own paragraph. That way it would stand out more (since its an interesting story) and the taxonomy part would flow better. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that gives me an idea on how to rearrange it. Working... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, done. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Many sentences from the lead are word-for-word copies of sentences in the main text.

I do this often in articles, even in an FA, and there has been no issue with it. I am not sure if there is any MOS guideline this appears to be violating. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you've done it even on FAs before, then it's probably not an issue, but it looks strange to me at any rate. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have not been advised against it and see no harm in it. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'm not really a fan of it, but I won't let that keep this article from GA. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Too many semicolons.

Working... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Better? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Former" and "latter" seem out of place to describe horns, I would suggest using "front" and "back" or something similar.

I have removed these two terms. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Broad in coverage

• Reading the article, I'm curious about the evidence of ancient human interaction mentioned in the final paragraph of the Evolution section. This should be given more focus.

Good point. I tried to find more on that, but I am afraid this is all I can add from sources I can access at the moment. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have access to a good interlibrary loan service? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't. I rely mainly on online sources. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. My university has a pretty good ILL, so if you want, I can see if I can get a hold of Murty (1985) for you, which [1] cites for evidence of ancient human-Tetraceros interactions. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe a little too in-depth on the diet.

This may not be a real problem, in many of my previous articles on antelopes I cover the major plant species eaten by the animal. Please let me know if any particular part appears clearly redundant. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, if it's not been a problem before then I won't worry about it. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources

• Everything is backed up with reliable sources. Y
• Sorry to butt in but I am not convinced that - "B.N.H.S. (2004). The Wild Animals of India. New Delhi, India: Biotech Books. p. 52. ISBN 9788176221061" is a good source. The publisher is nearly unknown and the authorship is unclear. I would think all the bits that have been taken from it can be attributed to better sources. Shyamal (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will fix it later today. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shyamal: Done. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

• Nothing is biased. There's nothing controversial involved, so undue weight etc. are non-issues. Y

Stable

• No edit wars etc. Y

Images

• Images are uniformly good, well-placed, and have acceptable copyright status. Y

Copyright

• Article passes Earwig's copyvio test with no concerns. Y

• The article looks pretty good on the whole. Most of the issues I found are with the prose. I'm going to put the nomination on hold for 7 days so that this can be addressed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and constructive suggestions. I will work on these points in the next few hours. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all your points. Thanks again for your help. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me, passed for GA. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ashorocetus: I am afraid the review has not been closed. Please see WP:GAI. Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, sorry. This is my first GA review ever, so I wasn't really clear on what to do. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)