Talk:Addax/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 13:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take on this review. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• You write "Addax is a critically endangered species of antelope," in the intro, but wouldn't it be better to just use the common name form here (instead of the genus name form), as you do everywhere else? Especially since it is mentioned as a "species" in the same sentence.

Corrected.

• As in the Nyala article, there is a tendency to not write "the addax" some places in the article. This should be consistent.

Done.

• There is a long list of synonyms, I assume this is because it was split up into several species at some point? Anyhow, it would be nice to have at least a short explanation.

If this list is long, then you should just look at Hartebeest. This has nothing to do with changes in the nomenclature of this addax. Occasionally various authors name a species to their wish and, anyway, neither does the MSW3 nor any other reference tell about any such taxonomic history.

Alright, if there's no more info, there's not much you can do anyway. But in any case, names are always erected for a reason, however invalid it may turn out to be. Prhaps something as banal as an observer thinking different seasonal coat colours were unique to different species, or whatever. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the history and fossil record section could be split up? The fossil stuff could be moved to taxonomy, since they might tell something about the evolution of the animal (extinct subspecies?), and the stuff about ancient Egyptians already seems to be mentioned under conservation, so could be moved there.

I think the facts about fossils can be taken to Taxonomy, as you say. But about History I think the facts from Conservation should be transferred here. How would that be?

I think that would be better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first sentences of the habitat section are written in past tense. I understand that some populations are extinct, but I assume the ones that survive still live in the same kinds of habitat?

I am doubtful about this. For you see, most sources say it in the past tense, and not much sightings in the wild are there. I bet it will be Extinct in the Wild soon. Which tense do you recommend?

Hmmm, as long as there are populations in the wild, I think present tense would be most appropriate, for consistency. The map indicates there are some, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Image sources look good. I'll see if I can find anything interesting on Flickr.

Thanks for your offer.

Flickr is down now for some reason, so will have to wait... FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Do we have images of both summer and winter coat? Could be nice to have, with mention in the caption.

I can not distinguish anything such at Commons. Perhaps you could help with some from Flickr.

I'll try. Do you have an example of how the winter coat looks, so I can identify it if I see it? Could this be it?[1] FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems we have a winner, these photos on Commons were taken during winter, and the coat looks obviously different from those in the article: [2][3] I can also see that the image of the captive herd in the article is from December, and that the coat is different there too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Truly, you are a marvel! Yes, the second image (AddaxSnow2010.jpg) fits in perfectly for a winter coat representation. Moreover its background shows winter season, (the reason I prefer this over the image Addax at the Louisville Zoo.jpg) only that it does not agree with its natural habitat of deserts. And the image currently in Physical Description seems right for the summer coat. If these two images are fine, then I could make use of the multiple image template for showing the two coats. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, they're both on Commons, and their licenses are fine. Here's what Flickr has to offer of free images: [4] FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, thanks. I will use the two pics from Commons. They will do, no need of other images. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Pictured animals should face the text where possible, not away from it, per MOS.

Here as you see all images are set at right for the sake of convenience. Only the Description and Conservation images are at left (and sadly the animals face away from the text). I think it looks better as it is. Anyway, this is a minor thing.

Not important now at least, but might be brought up during a FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If this goes up till FAC, I would surely use your suggestion. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Parasites" are under description, but wouldn't it fit better under ecology?

I have seen such a section under Ecology. Well, I had fitted it under Physical Description in another article, Giant eland, on the recommendation of some editors. I think this will do well here as well.

Whatever you like, but I personally see it as part of ecology; it is basically one animal preying on another. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the following sentence implies: "In a study, eight addax antelopes on a diet of grass hay (Chloris gayana) were observed to know more about the retention time of food from the digestive tract." Does this mean that they were aware of how long they should optimally keep the food in the stomach? Seems it could be clarified.

No, the addax were kept under study to determine their food retention time. Could you please help in modifying this sentence?

Perhaps "were observed to know more about" should be "were studied to determine"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Added it. That sounds right. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that they don't need to drink water is mentioned both under diet and adaptations. The adaptations section seems a bit redundant, couldn't it be split into other existing sections?

Adaptations is a vital section for a desert animal, as you have to describe the capabilities of the animal. And I can not see where the thermoregulation and other facts can properly fit into. This section is good as it is. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. But there still seems to be unnecessary overlap between that section and diet, in case of the water issue. So perhaps move that info to adaptation? That's the main isue. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Description mentions it is closely related to the scimitar oryx, but shouldn't this be mentioned under taxonomy then? And since Oryx is a clade, shouldn't it say it is related to all members of that genus?

I do not know in what way it is closely related to scimitar oryx. It could be taxonomically or physically, and the source implies it to be physical resemblance and nothing more. Till there is nothing clearly stating the claim, we can not add it by ourselves under Taxonomy.

If the source implies it is only morphological, perhaps "related" should not be used? FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be The addax is closely resembles the scimitar oryx... for we describe physical similarities and differences only. Perhaps that would end the issue? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think so. Just remove "is", of course. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How silly of me to add that is! Anyway, it's done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sources look reliable, but I've never seen TV used as source before though, are you sure this is the right formatting: C.B.S. program "60 Minutes" of 1/29/2012.

I don't know who added it, anyway it is irrelevant. I have deleted it.

That's it from me, looks nice. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up the review. I have readily fixed some issues and await your replies to some. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's it, then, I'll pass! FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)