Talk:Nyala

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I will read this article now, and add comments within the next hour or so. I've fixed a few minor issues I noticed while reading. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence "It is a species of the family Bovidae and genus Nyala, also considered to be in the subgenus Tragelaphus." may confuse, for surely each option is mutually exclusive? And the article on Tragelaphus says it's a genus, not subgenus.

Yes, it is a genus. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why you don't write "the" before nyala in singular form throughout the article? For example "nyala feeds upon foliage" and "Nyala was first described by George French Angas". Strikes me as unusual for an animal. But later you say "The nyala are very shy and cautious in nature".

I have added "the" before the name "nyala" throughout the article wherever proper. I have decreased the use of plural form here. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The intro could have some more info from the rest of the article, for example a visual description of the animal? Now there are just measurements.

Expanded with much more details. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps use this drawing[1] from the original description in the otherwise image free taxonomy section? I'm myself a sucker for that kind of historical stuff.

Added it, though just a small thumbnail in the fear of squashing up the text. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• It appears it was first classified as part of Tragelaphus in the original description, but this is not stated directly.

I couldn't find any citation clearly citing the reason why the species was thought to be of Tragelaphus. In Ungulate Taxonomy it is mentioned that Ropiquet (2006) said Nyala was a separate genus since the Miocene. Then really, where does Tragelaphus come in? It seems more as a misnomer to me, as whatever citations I have here support Nyala as a genus itself. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If everyone agrees today that it is a separate genus, then the intro and taxonomy section should reflect this.FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So what you mean is that I add something like - while Nyala is the accepted genus Tragelaphus is still believed by some (this does sound vague) as its actual genus? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds right. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• This seems to be mutually exclusive: "and was only reestablished as a valid genus in 2011 by Peter Grubb and Colin Groves.[7] But it is still considered as a species of Tragelaphus.[3]". If there is uncertainty, how can either be correct?

See previous issue. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• It could be nice to have an image of a juvenile. I found these: [2][3][4]

I can upload one of these, but where do you propose to have the picture in the article?

I think the first one is quite good. Maybe replace the one currently in behaviour, and put the juvenile in behaviour instead? FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for uploading the image. I have much trouble with licensing and all when it comes to uploading images. Good, now we have a juvenile's photo here. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the sections on disease and parasites should be moved further down, below reproduction? I'd think most readers would like to know about the animals themselves before their diseases.

I think it would be improper placement. Breaks the flow in a way. I think it is best suited to be placed after the description. I a afraid the readers would have to face a trifle. Anyway, I followed this sequence in the FA Giant eland as well. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• You mention rinderpest under threats, but not under diseases. Also "Ticks and parasites" should perhaps just be "parasites", since ticks are already parasites?

Fixed as you suggested. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the rinderpest still be mentioned elsewhere then? FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I could just add a word or two in Conservation once more, just because IUCN mentions it in Threats? I can't find any other more appropriate place. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, better having it there than leaving it out entirely. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• It seems some sections should be subheadings, such as reproduction and diet under behaviour, evolution under taxonomy, etc.

Done, but I am not sure whether genetics comes under taxonomy. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Much of the info there is about taxonomic placement. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• What is meant by "so the relationships in female herds may be considered relatively higher than that of males" that their relations are closer?

Fixed. Yes, closer. 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can nyala males defend themselves against predators with their horns?

I have known most antelopes as using horns for defense, but there is no reference for this. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• The image of Africa in the habitat section seems a bit redundant, given the range map already in the taxobox. Maybe replace it with a more interesting image of the animals in their habitat? There are many nice free images on Flickr[5] and Commons.

As of now I have replaced the former with a Commons image of an active nyala. You may replace it if you like. Don't you think it would be more interesting if we could get a pic of the animal in the wild, and not in zoos as in most other photos? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The one currently under habitat could replace the one under description, which seems too similar to the one in the taxobox. Then we could maybe add one of a herd of wild specimens under habitat. Here's a nice series, one could be chosen:[6][7][8][9] FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, though nice, they're from a ranch in the US! These two are of wild African animals:[10][11] FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If what I say seems a bit hard to understand, I'll try to make a version myself, feel free to revert if you don't like it. I also found this image of a wild male[12], perhaps it is clearer than the one currently in the taxobox? Another interesting image which there probably isn't room for, a young male, with juvenile stripes and horns:[13] FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You have a great many and good suggestions. I have some ideas. Of the series you first mention, we could use an image somewhere, as it also shows a water body in its area. But sad that they are from a ranch. I saw the last two images you mention; I think we could delete the existing one and put the image of the "young male, with juvenile stripes and horns" in Description - as it shows many details clearly, even the yellow tips of horns. If you would be so kind to help by uploading the image, I am blunderous while uploading images. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, here are the nicest images from the lake:[14][15] The adult male:[16] There are several of the young male, which one do you like the most?[17][18][19][20][21][22] FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading more images. I think these will suffice, so no need of taking more trouble with this. i am arranging all these images properly. See whether they look fine or not. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, but perhaps the line about territoriality in the habitat section should be moved to the behaviour section?

As this part is mainly concerned with the territory ranges, I thought it would be proper to say this fact here. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a bit puzzled by this: "In a study, the impalas and nyalas were observed to comprehend the influence of social class and reproduction on them. This was done using their Kidney Fat Index (KFI), a technique in which the kidney is removed and weighed with the fat and once again excluding the fat. The resultant difference is the amount of fat on the kidney. The more the fat, the healthier the animal." What does it have to do with comprehension?

I couldn't find a link for KFI, so I defined the technique. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What puzzled me is what it has to do with the animals comprehension? FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewritten. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaah, heheh, I completely misunderstood the meaning then! FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In all, nice article! FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I have fixed some and replied to all comments. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is basically there. And whatever is left can be added after I pass it. I'll pass it next time you've replied. FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, apart from the same image of a male being used twice, but that should be an easy fix. Good article! FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 5 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:

General suggestions

• The nyala is mainly a browser, as indicated by the high percentage of dicots in its diet (study cited in the article). I have watched lots of Nyala, and it is rare to see them eating grass. They tend to be mainly around clumps of bushes. Hence the image of the nyala grazing creates the impression that they are grazers, not browsers. I suggest replacing that image with one that shows a nyala browsing to be more closely aligned to the text. Dkeats (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, I can only find pictures of grazing individuals, both on Commons and FLickr. Closest to browsing are these two, but they're rather ambiguous.[23][24] FunkMonk (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mountain Nyala?

Where is mountain nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni) in the scheme of things? If mountain nyala is in the same genus (Nyala), then one of you smart guys better change that entry to read Nyala buxtoni. And if you're saying that Nyala is a separate genus, then you'd better edit Bovinae as well. No half-measures please. Kortoso (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Kortoso: The mountain nyala is a different species in Tragelaphus; nyala is considered to be of the same genus but still placed in Nyala. I have added a cladogram, this should make things clearer. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Apologies for the snarkiness. ;) Kortoso (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kortoso: Welcome. Many people do confuse the nyala with its montane namesake! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)