Talk:Sand cat/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aven13 (talk · contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'll review this article. Aven13 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, also for the initial comment. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

From a first read-through, it seems like an excellent article, with only a few flaws. Let's go through the checklist.

• "Its way of moving is distinct: with belly close to the ground..." Add an 'its' before the word "belly".

Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Change "head-and-body" in the intro to a more exact term. Is it head-to-tail? Head to the bottom of its torso?

No, not head-to-tail. Usually this term refers to length from tip of nose to root of tail, i.e. measured without tail. So I added length of tail to make this info more clear. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• "First sand cat known to science". Maybe change to "first recorded sand cat."

Can do if you insist. My reason for formulating it this way was : I'm pretty sure that the nomads in the Sahara sighted and encountered sand cats looong before the French explorers discovered it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Aven13 12:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• "It retreats into burrows when climatic conditions are extreme such as temperatures of -5 C or 52 C." Where did these numbers come from? Are they two temperatures that have been observed to make the cat retreat into its burrow, or are they the maximum and minimum temperatures that the cat can withstand?

I'll have to check + will revise as soon as possible. Sure is that the Sunquists used a reference, which i'll add instead then. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

revised; the part about temperature has definitely not been observed in the Sahara by Dragesco-Joffé (1993). Neither by Abbadi (1991) in Israel, who did not refer to temperature at all. The Sunquists (2002) indeed remarked on temperature range in deserts, but did not state that these have an effect on the cat retreating underground. In contrary: it hunts at night, i.e. when temperature has dropped.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Sand cat kittens were sighted and photographed in this area in spring 2017 that were hidden beneath a tuft of Panicum turgidum grass". Fix the tenses in this sentence.

Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Link "salt cedar".

The link to salt cedar redirects to the genus Tamarix, but not to the species T. aphylla, which is why I linked this species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the distribution and habitat section, you don't need the entire list of sightings of sand cats - that isn't going to be interesting to the average reader. Sentences like "In the late 1980s, four sand cats were radio-collared and tracked over a few months in southern Israel's Arabah Valley" aren't needed. Just listing the general area where the cats live is enough. (Besides, this fact is brought up again later in the article.)

In a previous version of the lead, I had written in the 2nd paragraph : " To date, it has been recorded in >several albeit disjunct localities< in Morocco, .."; but someone thought that the words between > < are superfluous. I do NOT think they are, as to date, there is no evidence for a contiguous pop across the Sahara. That is why I listed all the localities to emphasize this circumstance. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Although the cat is known to science for more than 150 years, it was recorded for the first time in Chad only about 5 years ago. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course, no record does not mean absence, but certainly a lack of survey effort !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

How about reincorporating >several albeit disjunct localities< into the habitat section? You would be able to cut it down to a paragraph or two. Something like "it has been discovered in several disjunct locations in Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Chad, etc." (Just an example, but you should be able to heavily cut down on the length of the section). Aven13 13:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the hunting and diet section, the long lists of specific animals found in the animal's feces isn't really necessary. Just say the general groups of animals it eats and move on.

• "In Israel, the sand cat was thought to be endangered by predation of larger carnivores such as caracal (Caracal caracal), wolf (Canis lupus), and domestic dog (C. familiaris)". What does "it was thought" mean? Was this disproven? Is it true? (Also, link wolf and domestic dog.)

The sand cat has not been recorded in Israel since 2002 and is thought to be locally extinct. The Arabah Valley, where above mentioned study was carried out, has been transferred to Jordan. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the threats section has only one source at the end. Add at least one more in the paragraph.

I'll see what I can find. What do you think about referring to the underground nuclear tests carried out in Pakistan in the area where sand cats used be caught in the 1960s? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just a note: The photos are one of the strong points of this article (they are very cute). One more in the behavior and ecology section, showing a burrow, the cat moving, or the scratch marks on a tree would be nice.

I'll check the media in commons. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Most images in commons show captive sand cats, but none showing a burrow, moving or other behaviour. An option would be to display external photos, like from the website that I just added to External links. Please let me know what you think. I'm afraid: no trees in deserts suitable for leaving scratch marks. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright then. Oh well. Aven13 12:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. Stay tuned for more. Excellent article. Aven13 17:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A few more comments:

• "In 2012 and 2014, sand cats were offered for sale in Baghdad". What happened to them? Released? Bought? Found?

Revised + added this info. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• "It buries its feces, covering it with feces." The pronoun is incorrect here.

revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• "has a reputation to even kill venomous snakes." The "even" here should be moved after the word kill.

Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the intro, it says "chiefly living in sandy and stony deserts". Are there any records of the cats actually living outside of a desert?

No record I know of outside a desert. You mean 'chiefly' is redundant? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if there are no records of it outside of one.

Removed the word chiefly. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Change "at the age of about one year" to "around the age of one year" or something equivalent.

Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Use the exact month in the sentence about the kittens being photographed instead of saying "spring", which can vary from region to region.

Done. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Do you think that info about blood chemistry and hematology of the sand cat is interesting to add? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't really think it's necessary. (Nice idea to add some of the habitat section down to the threats section, by the way. Makes it a much better read.)

Alright, very nice job. There are only two more things I can see that need some fixing.

• For the habitat section, in the beginning, you group together all the info about the cats in the Western Sahara; for the second paragraph you group together all info about the Arabian peninsula. If you can group together the 4 or so sentences involving the middle east into one paragraph that would be good.

Done + revised sequence a little. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• For the hunting and diet section, you can put all of that info about the specific types of animals down in a note at the bottom or something similar. Just saying what general groups of animals they hunt on is enough.

Done. And decided to not remove the details, but commented them out. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

After those two are done, we should be ready to promote to GA.

I have a few more unused references, but can add these later. There'll anyway be reason for updates in the future, as there are some projects running or going to be initiated. I will also slightly revise the section on characteristics. But if YOU think that the present version is suitable for GA promotion, that's super fine with me. Then I can work on these revisions for the next step, e.g. FA. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Yes. Quite well, in fact.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Yes.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References very cleanly laid out.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Good citations.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Not that I can tell.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Yup.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Most definitely. I feel like an expert on sand cats now.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The only part of the article I'm somewhat hesitant about, the article is very wordy, but it isn't all too important.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Yes.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Yes,

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Absolutely adorable images.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Pass.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass, with flying colors. If we're being honest, this article was already GA when you submitted it. Of course, every articles can use more revisions, but the article is definitely GA at this point. I hope to see you again. Thank you for the good read. Aven13 21:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)