Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quagga/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 10:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Quagga

edit

Quagga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a co-nomination with LittleJerry. Surprisingly little is known about this animal, so we have attempted to assemble a lot of obscure information to flesh out the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:ColonelHenry

edit

This is an excellent subject, and I applaud your work and research. It does need IMHO a rather significant copyedit for clarity and conciscion to meet criteria 1a. A few things after a cursory reading:

  • The quote in the "Behaviour and ecology" section that acts as a second paragraph, beginning "The geographical range of the quagga...". For such a long quote, I would use <blockquote></blockquote> to set it off from the non-quote text.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Distribution and habitat" is three sentences...rather short for a section. And there's relevant material in the section above...it would be better in my estimation to merge these two, or find a better way of splitting the material. Refer to MOS:PARAGRAPHS or WP:BODY
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrase: The quagga was hunted by early Dutch settlers from the 17th century, and later by their descendants the Afrikaners, as they were easy to find and kill. Their meat was eaten and their skins were traded or used locally → to "As they were easy to find and kill, the quagga was hunted by early Dutch settlers and later by Afrikaners to provide meat or for their skins. The skins were traded or used locally."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and the last wild population, living in the Orange Free State, was extirpated in the late 1870s" This should be a separate sentence and rephrased, starting "The last population in the wild located in the Orange Free State was extirpated in the late 1870s"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the above...is extirpate the right verb? We extirpate things that are inherently bad or not wanted. We extirpate foes in battle (by killing them and vengefully razing their cities) and vegetation (to pull up stumps by the roots), we extirpate sins, or extirpate by deeply excising to removal tumoral or necrotic tissue during surgery (i.e. cancer). I've never seen the verb used in terms of hunting animals to extinction.
Yes, it is used for local extinction. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an article that uses BritEnglish spelling, why are we using MDY dates and not DMY? WP:MOSNUM asks for consistency.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things for consideration. Good luck! --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments, I was about to fix the issues, but Little Jerry has already done it. We waited for a copy edit for weeks, but decided to nominate it now anyway. It is still listed under copy edit requests, so we can hope someone takes it up soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what you mean, copyedits and reviews sometimes take forever or never come. With an ongoing FAC & FLC, and real life pressures, I'm a little limited for time but I can try to find time to do a c/e for you in the next day or so...but no guarantees.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • In the Lede: Its name is derived from the plains zebra's call, which is heard like "kwa-ha-ha". Since the Quagga is extinct, do you mean "is heard" in comparision to the still extant Plains Zebra, or "was heard" for the extinct Quagga? Clarify.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same sound. Reworded, is it clearer? By the way, the image that was moved to the right, the manual of style is very specific about images having to face the text (not away, as now), of humans as well as animals. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the image because it was throwing off the on-screen formatting of body text and blockquote. MOS says: In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement (MOS:IMAGESYNTAX) and Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. (MOS:IMAGELOCATION). The needs of the text formatting trump the direction of the Quagga's eyes. I do not think the advice of having the eyes face the text is relevant here (the next sentences discuss people, not animals), no matter how pretty the animal is, a Quagga isn't Grace Kelly and no one would be sorrowful if the Quagga was looking elsewhere. If this were Grace Kelly, we wouldn't have her looking off the page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well alright. How about the sound issue, does it seem clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking genetic, craniometric, morphological, ungulate
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • quagga was heavily hunted, and it competed with domesticated animals for forage. — are these two facts related, or is the quagga simply losing out on food?
The former. Should it be changed? FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subgenera are treated inconsistently, with Hippotigris redirecting to zebra and Quagga unlinked. Personally I'd unlink both, but your call
Quagga as a subgenus is invalid, would be synonymous with Hippotigris now. I think the zebra article should be split, but for now, Hippotigris is just a redirect. It will probably be split one day (when zebra taxonomy is more resolved), so I think it would be nice to retain the link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • were erroneous, since using skeletons from stuffed specimens might be problematical — "were" or "might be"? The outcome seems more certain than the cause.
Added "can", is that in any way better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is more that the method is unreliable for the purpose, since it is unknown when non-quagga elements have been used to fill the skins. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was probably a grazer — is there any doubt that a zebra (or any horse) living on open plains wasn't a grazer?
Probably no doubt, but LittleJerry wrote it, so I'll see what he says. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • and tsetse flies— I would have thought any mammal the size of a zebra would be pretty obvious to the fly. Do they use sight to find their victims?
Should we elaborate this part? It is general for zebras, but I see no problem in adding more text here, good for fleshing out. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not looking for much more. Mosquitos hunt by smell, so it would be helpful to know if tsetses use sight. If possible (which it may not be) a clarification of why stripes wider than the insect confuse it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at home this week, so can't check the source, but will fix it after thursday, if Jerry doesn't beat me to it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a very complex, and almost controversial issue, so it will be hard to say anything without going into much detail. Tsetse flies are attracted to the odour of animals, yet some experiments have shown that they are less attracted to striped objects though an attractive odour is present. But the reasons for this seem to be unknown. If I expand on this, it would seem logical to expand on why stripes should protect from other predators as well, but is this going too much off topic? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • quaggas were used as harness animals for carriages in London, probably being gelded — unless they were all males, needs to be stated more accurately
I'll wait and see what Jerry says,he wrote it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is some confusion here, Jerry. You have fixed the grazer issue above, but without comment on this page. I wonder if you have have put that response here, since there is no change in the harness section. All I'm looking for is something like ...London, the males probably being gelded... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not remember writing that but fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May have been AshLin instead, who dropped by and added a few lines at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • high strung — highly strung, unless they are hanging from trees
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • on telegony—why italics?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will! FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK mostly OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided.

I'm pretty sure it was created by the uploader, I've been in contact with him in the past. He has uploasded many selfmade images from museums, better to contact him directly than other editors that may not know. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, the uploads were made in good faith. It's just a matter of clarifying the permission a bit, but i am on it :). GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Permission has been clarified, link to talkpage with more information added. GermanJoe (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just some suggestions: Please add the author's year of death, when the image's PD-claim is based on age. Also use the maximum possible PD-tag (PD-old-100 for author's death before 1913). Tweaked all cases, no action required. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I couldn't find the exact date of death, PD 70 seemed more "safe" to use. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. Reference formatting issues. I tweaked a couple references (added a volume number, culled an errant punctuation mark), but there are still a couple things to consider.

  • You have some inconsistent date formatting. I think reference 28 is the odd man out that needs correction, but I didn't want to choose poorly and make things worse.
  • Author names/initials in references aren't consistently formatted. Compare reference 1 (initials with periods, no spaces), with 2 (initials with neither periods nor spaces), with 3 (full first name), with 5 (initials with periods and spaces). Similarly, sometime multiple authors are comma-delimited (reference 1), and sometimes with semicolons (most of the rest).

Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. My only prose objection is already being dealt with below, and I'm happy to go ahead and give this the nod now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell

edit
Spotchecks

I read the pages for the sources given for 2 (Skinner and Chimimba), 5 (Groves and Bell), 7 (Nowak), and 14 (Hofreiter et al). I also examined the relevant parts of sources 19 (Kingdon) and 25 (Piper). These source are used a total of 31 times to support sections of the article. In every case, the statement in the article was fully supported by the source listed, and the material was adequately summarized and rewritten to avoid plagiarism. Well done.

Style
  • The article overuses the passive voice. There are many, many cases where a passive sentence could be rearranged where you could rearrange a sentence from the passive voice to the active voice to increase clarity and improve flow. This is not needed in every instance, but many sentences would be made clearer this way. (Examples: Shortridge placed the two in the Qugagga subgenus; most experts now suggest the two populations represent ends of a cline; some observers suggested the stripes were light, but Rau (83) claimed that this was an optical illusion. Etc.)
Fixed examples, will try to fix others I come across. FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some minor edits to the article for grammar and prose style. Feel free to revert any you disagree with, but please explain why if you do.
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • The source says quaggas are 125-135 cm tall at the shoulder. Our text just says they were 125-135 cm tall, which could be misleading, since a quagga with raised head would be much taller.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd paragraph is a little confusing. It almost sounds like some people thought the stripes were light-colored, while others thought those same stripes were dark-colored. (Actually, the dispute was over the configuration.) The alleged "optical illusion" is not explained well either. One rewording that would work would be as follows: "On the basis of photographs and written descriptions, many observers suggest that the configuration of stripes on the quagga is light stripes on a dark background, contrary to the configuration in other zebras. Reinhold Rau, pioneer of the Quagga Project, claimed that this is an optical illusion: that the base colour is a creamy white and that the stripes are thick and dark. However, embryological..."
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 19 (Kingdon) flatly asserts that the quagga has a thicker winter coat than horses. I don't think the other source, Groves and Bell, says anything contrary. Is there a reason for the doubtful-sounding "possibly"?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • The "oug-ga" statement is true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the taxonomy of the Quagga, and should be omitted.
Well, since the specific name itself (a taxonomic name) is derived from human interpretation of the sound, it should be relevant in that paragraph which discusses etymology, no? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that the word "Quagga" came from "kwa-ha-ha", with the "oug-ga" interpretation being an unrelated behavioral note (more fitting in the "Behaviour and ecology" section.) That is the impression one gets from the article. But when I look at the source, it appears the name is thought to have derived from Oug-ga as well... or rather, the name derived from the sound, which has been written both ways. I have tried to reword the article's text with this edit. Feel free to revert and reword any way that makes sense to you. – Quadell (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You nailed it, it is two ways of transliterating the same sound. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the "passive voice" issue, some sentences in paragraph 2 are unclear. You say that the southernmost population of Burchell's zebra was thought to be a distinct subspecies, but also that it was then regarded as a full species. A person could not have thought that this southernmost population was both a distinct subspecies and a full species at the same time. What is it you mean to say?
Rewritten, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does. It's still a bit confusing, but I think that's because the taxonomy is inherently confusing. No further problems here. – Quadell (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviour and ecology
  • "The practical function of zebra striping" seems abrupt. I would start a new paragraph there, and, in my opinion, the sentence would be clearer as follows: "Since the practical function of striping has not been determined for zebras in general, it is unclear why the quagga lacked stripes on its hind parts."
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of this section has several problems. For one, "Captive individuals" should be "Captive quaggas", since many zebra species had just been mentioned.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piper claims that quaggas were aggressive and volatile, and that "taming one of these animals must have been interesting and practically impossible." That's not the impression I get from this paragraph. Nowak says they were more docile than Burchell's zebra, but that may not be saying much. Piper says they were used as guards because they were easily startled and prone to attack invading animals, not because they were docile and easily tamed.
Seems quite complicated, LittleJerry, what do you think about this issue? FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, Nowak says quaggas in zoos "were said to be much more tractable than E. Burchelli and to quickly become docile and tamable." On the other hand, Weddell says quaggas in zoos were "generally too high-strung to breed in captivity", and Piper describes the quagga as "a very lively, high-strung animal, and the stallions were prone to fits of rage, so taming one of these animals must have been interesting and practically impossible." Piper goes on to describe them as guard animals: "Any intruder, be it a lion or a rustler, was... most probably attacked by this tenacious horse."
You'll have to give fair weight to these sources when describing their behavior, before I can support. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reshuffled the text so it doesn't seem so selfcontradictory[2], so that it basically says "they were said to be wild and lively, yet were also said to be tamer than Burchell's zebra". FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The text in the article now follows the sources well. Thanks. – Quadell (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Highly strung nature" would be more clear and less casual as "highly volatile nature".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "until" from the last sentence. (All animals live until dying.)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • It seems to me that reference 7 should refer to pp. 1024-1025, rather than just p. 1024. Do you agree?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "van Bruggen" be capitalized?
Fixed, though I think I've seen both versions used. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Smart Human" should use single quotes.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other problems with this article. The lede in particular is excellent. The images are all valid and used appropriately, with fitting captions. I hope to support once the above issues are addressed. – Quadell (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll fix these issues later today. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I think the only thing left is the question of how docile vs. aggressive they were. – Quadell (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd like to see what LittleJerry thinks about the last issue. As for having the exact date of extinction in the lead, I think it's important, since it is otherwise so rarely known exactly when a species went extinct (therefore it is quite notable in itself), and because I am thinking of submitting it as a today's featured article candidate for that date, so it would need to be in the lead anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. – Quadell (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never really thought about the docile vs. aggressive when I edited the article. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems like the sources are contradicting each other? We could say that one source says one thing and one another,not sure how. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, summarize and contrast the two viewpoints, and it should be fine. – Quadell (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to give it a shot today, and LittleJerry is of course free to make suggestions as well. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2013 (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/Quagga/archive1&oldid=1046369668"