Talk:Blackbuck/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 14:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Will need a bit of time to read through. Will post my comments soon. Shyamal (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review! It has been a while since I worked on this, and I have learnt a lot since then. I will copyedit it a bit. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Structure

• The section on "Interaction with human beings" seems to be more on cultural association. I had expected something on crop damage etc. in this section but see it intermingled, I think splitting the section would be better.

• Subheadings could make the section look choppy, as there is not such a lot of material there. I was not sure where to place that bit on crop damage so I made a new para out of it.

• A range map (native range at least) would be helpful

• I could not find any, and am afraid I can not create one on my own.

• "Taxonomy and phylogeny" - taxonomy is expected to be based on phylogeny, I think many articles use "taxonomy and evolution"

• Right, done.

• "Etymology" should probably follow taxonomy since it deals to a large extent with the scientific name which is properly introduced only in taxonomy.

• Etymology is generally the first section of the articles of this type.

We can live with that. Shyamal (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Distribution should probably follow immediately after the description and behaviour and ecology after this

• Actually it can be either way, and I maintain this style on my articles as I feel habitat choices can be better explained after I have explained the behaviour of the animal. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course the section order can vary but several species level FA content follow this in WP:MAMMAL although this project appears not to have come to a consensus on structure unlike other projects like WP:BIRD. "Distribution and habitat" however usually go hand in hand and are ideally under an umbrella section on ecology. Shyamal (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• You mean I should make Distribution and habitat a subheading under Ecology and behaviour? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Content and sourcing

"The coat of males shows two types of colouration:" - I would think adult males have only one colour pattern.

• Tweaked to "two-tone colouration" – which means they are black on the upper parts, and white below.

Lead still reads other variation. I am not sure if the point is about adult males and subadult males which have a pale coat.

I always forget the lead, fixed. I did not find any info on how exactly the coat of a subadult male should look, but I expect it would look like a female's first and then darken (as noted in Description). Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Three kinds of groups, typically small, are the female, male and bachelor herds." - again a little difficult to understand - bachelor males?, what about females with an attendant male

• Clarified

• "Males often adopt lekking as a strategy to garner females for mating. While other males are not allowed into these territories, females often visit these places to forage. The male can thus attempt mating with her." - I am not sure this makes sense - Lekking involves males displaying in close proximity in an area that does not have food resources and where the fitter males are chosen by females. - I am going to have to read the original research materials.

• I read the PDF (ref. 30, the source) once again. The author identifies two types of lekking – first, when the male roams about to access and defend females (with no territory of his own); and second, when the male has a resource-rich territory and attracts females into it to mate with them. The author says the blackbuck engages in the second way of lekking, and then goes on to discuss the general costs involved in this.

• "30 male chromosomes and 31 female chromosomes." - do you mean 30 chromosomes in the male and 31 in females? Which cannot be! Or do you mean there are 30 somatic and 1 sex chromosome. I cannot find the page number and cannot verify the source.

An old study gives 2n=30 doi:10.1007/BF00327175 and a more recent study finds (normal males) 2n=35 doi:10.1159/000339898, it seems like there is some variability but it would be good to track down and write a summary that is helpful in understanding it. Apparently their sex chromosomes are somewhat different - "Thus, the ancestral bovid karyotype proposed by Todd was 28B + XX for females and 28B + XYIY2 for males, a condition found in some antelope species (e.g., Antilope cervicapra)" (see here) Another source: "Male is 2n=31-33 while the female is 2n=30-32" (p. 67 - Genetics Manual: Current Theory, Concepts, Terms by G. P. Rédei, 1998, World Scientific)

• Seems I incorrectly swapped the numbers [1]. The source (ref.20) says "2n = 30 (females), 31 (males)". I am not very good at the genetics part, I may mess up the information in these new sources. Someone more knowledgeable in this aspect could help.

• "although they might be independent species" - it seems very unlikely at least by the BSC (and unlikely under the PSC judging by what the few phylogenetic studies indicate) - would like to see what the source actually says.

• I have access to Ungulate Taxonomy (ref. 20, the source), it says "There is a possibility that the two recognized subspecies may actually be distinct species, but more needs to be known about their individual variations." (I am not sure what you mean by B/PSC.)

• "Blackbuck are sometimes treated as gazelles." - I am not sure this is useful given all that is said in the taxonomy section.

• Removed

• "Blackbuck bear a close resemblance to gazelles" - the only syntopic gazelle is the chinkara and I suppose it helps to separate it from that alone.

• The differentiation is between blackbuck and gazelles in general, the sources do not focus on the chinkara.

• There is a useful bunch of references cited at the end of http://faunaofindia.nic.in/PDFVolumes/sse/008/index.pdf (although that work itself is not of great quality)

• Thanks, I will work on this.

• Prosopis dispersal might be worth mentioning doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00320.x

• I have already stated it briefly. Would you like me to elaborate on it?

• "Neill, J. (2009). The Origins and Role of Same-sex Relations in Human Societies. Jefferson, North Carolina (USA): McFarland & Co. p. 16. ISBN 9780786452477." - cannot really be a reliable source for "There have been instances of homosexuality in blackbuck males" - a suitable zoological source should be sought.

• This seems to be the only one I could find for this, I have removed this and the claim for now.

• "Blackbuck moult in spring, following which the males look notably lighter, though darkness persists on the face and the legs" - this is based on a study in Texas, do we know if this happens in India?

• Clarified saying "in Texas". No idea about the Indian blackbuck.

- Distribution section says " mountains (in the northern-northeastern region)" - northern-northeastern region of where?

• As the sentence begins with "Indian subcontinent", this implies northern-northeastern region of the Indian subcontinent.

Images

• File:Fighting_Blackbucks.jpg - I am not convinced that these are blackbuck.

• Right, removed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I am busy in real life, I will respond to all of these and the comments at the GA review of Nilgai in a few days. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Responded. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look over again. I have been a bit offline so please hangon. Shyamal (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Review summary

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

---

I think this now passes GA criteria. A lot more work would be needed for FA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)