Talk:Tammar wallaby

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look at this one and make straightforward copyedits as I go (and explain in edit summaries). I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• for starters, ensure refs are complete - eg books need isbn, publisher and locations (if possible). Also, make all names in consistent format - eg Smith, J.; Jones, F.; etc.

actually, any reason why you don't use cite formats? They help in all the bolding and italics needed to make the refs more readable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I find this way easier since I type this out on Microsoft Word first. LittleJerry (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• "battues" - umm, what?

[1] LittleJerry (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I did not know that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• within taxonomy section, discuss derivation of common and alternate names.

Can't find where the names or deprivated. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and find some - I also looked on Web of Science and there are a whopping 834 articles with this species as a key word (!!!) - much of it is DNA sequencing and hence too esoteric for general consumption I feel, but there will be some useful bits to add. Do you have university access? If not I can check some fulltexts of articles to see what can be added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I have very limited access to fulltexts of articles. LittleJerry (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll take a look at Web of Science and see what looks promising later today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, now the relationships. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the status on this review? No comments in almost a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I began looking at stuff the other night. A Web of Science search shows alot of material with fulltexts only available by university access. I'd meant to add it myself but have been remiss. I'll itemise some comprehensivenss issues: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Derivation of name(s).

• Closest relationships within the genus.

I'll get to the articles that LittleJerry can't get in another couple of days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not meaning to be a rush, but can we please get this though? LittleJerry (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Annoyingly, the last three or four times I've tried to log onto university access it's timed out or unavailalble. Hopefully I can sort it out in next day or two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

One last thing - chase - Williams, D. L. G . (1980). Catalogue of Pleistocene vertebrate fossils and sites in South Australia.

Trans. R. Soc. S . Aust. 104, 101-15

Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

strike that - just a list. Can't access fulltext anyway.Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tammar Wallaby/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

After seeing some trouble with another article worked on by the primary editor of this article (LittleJerry (talk · contribs)), I did a random spot-check of one of the sources used in this article and found it plagiarized. From ref 13:

• Source: "It has a small head and large ears; the tail is long and thick at the base."
• Article text: "It has a small head and large ears; the tail is long and thick at the base."

GA status should probably be revoked since further plagiarism is likely; the entire article will need to be checked. --Laser brain (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

More plagiarism from ref 5:

• Source: "Dark, grizzled grey-brown above, becoming rufous on the sides of the body and the limbs, especially in males. Pale grey-buff below."
• Article text: "In colour, it is a dark, grizzled grey-brown above, becomes rufous on the sides of the body and the limbs, particularly in males, and becomes pale grey-buff below.

--Laser brain (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! I recall checking and adding a few myself so it shouldn't be all. I have some free time tonight (in about 12 hours, so let's start at ref 1 and tick off all refs checked, and take the opportunity to discuss as we go. Might be able to do one or two now but weekend days suck... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for any assistance. Hopefully it will be minor and LittleJerry will have an opportunity to review the material I linked for him. --Laser brain (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: Am mainly pissed off at myself for missing copyvios (again), my homer simpson type meandering sometimes exacerbated by sleep deprivation. Just archiving my talk page currently but need to nick out to shops...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• ref 1 - ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• ref 2 - ok, though source does not mention West Wallabi Island (should be straightforward to find and add). Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• ref 5 - first two links not paraphrased, third has been changed thusly. A little tricky, was contemplating changing "sides of body" to "flanks" but sometimes not quite synonymous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• ref 6 was one I added and is fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• refs 7–9 offline, no access. --Laser brain (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• ref 10 was a bit close, and thus rephrased. --Laser brain (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• ref 11 offline, no access. --Laser brain (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• ref 12 - ok. --Laser brain (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• ref 13 - ok. --Laser brain (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• refs 14–17 ok. --Laser brain (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• refs 18–21 ok. --Laser brain (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please look at cites [34] [36] and [37] next. I had a hard time paraphasing them. LittleJerry (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

LittleJerry, I cannot access 34 and 37. For 36... I'm stumped. I can't really think of a different way to say this that wouldn't sound funny. Maybe Casliber could suggest something? --Laser brain (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You only need the abstract for [37]. Could you please check [32] and se if that is paraphased well? LittleJerry (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

37 is ok now. Will look at 32 tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

36 is pretty tricky. I'll need to think on it a bit. We're getting there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've checked most of the other sources (that I can access) and haven't found any significant problems. Some of the paraphrasing is closer than I word prefer, but I wouldn't label it problematic. I suggest this GAR can be closed, with consideration toward any outstanding items above. --Laser brain (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Page title capitalisation

Just a quick note about the title, it should probably be Tammar wallaby, as sentence case seems to be preferred at WikiProject Mammals. If fact looking at the wallaby page there are quite a few species articles that still need to be moved. Cheers, Jack (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes agree - there are so many articles.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Genome

I am moving some text about the genome here. I don't think that it should be included in the general article about the tammar wallaby.

The tammar wallaby's genome consists of 3.6 gigabases and has a short genetic map length of 1172 centimorgans.

Tammars are easy to keep in captivity.

This picture in the "Genome" section seems to show a wallaby eating something on the side of a tree. It does not illustrate the point made in the caption "Tammars are easy to keep in captivity." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I replaced it with the Budapest Buffalo zoo image. LittleJerry (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Species

From "Taxonomy and classification", subsection "Subspecies": "All the island tammars were once thought to be of one species." Aren't they still thought to be one species? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The tammar wallaby is also native to new Zealand? The map in the infobox only shows Australia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The island tammars are not considered one species. With regards to the map, I can't find one with New Zealand, I think the natural range is more imporant but one is free to create a map with both the natural and introduced ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood the meaning of the sentence about the island tammars. How about changing it to "The island tammars were once thought to be a separate species from the mainland population." Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Phylogeny

I have drawn a diagram of the of the phylogeny of marsupials based on the figure in Renfree MB, Papenfuss AT, Deakin JE, et al. This might be useful. File:Phylogeny of marsupials.png Graham Colm (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, however I have one question. The source they cite for this tree actually gives three trees for Macropus phylogeny. Is is a problem? LittleJerry (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would prefer a tree focused only on the Macropus genus. LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The authors argue that the third tree is the closer approximation. Here is an edited version of my drawing, which shows the Macropodidae branch only. File:Phylogeny of Macropodidae.png Graham Colm (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In the middle of the diagram, it is a little confusing as to which line corresponds to each species. Perhaps if you can bring the text slightly lower down and closer to the lines, that would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have tweaked it; you might have to flush your cache to see the difference. Graham Colm (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's a little better. Isn't it possible to bring the text right on top of the lines? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tammar wallaby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731035212/http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/about/pubs/great-southern-land.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/about/pubs/great-southern-land.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225064720/http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/component/option%2Ccom_docman/task%2Cdoc_download/gid%2C133/Itemid%2C/ to http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/component/option%2Ccom_docman/task%2Cdoc_download/gid%2C133/Itemid%2C/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tammar wallaby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wildlifehealth.org.au/AWHN_Admin/ManageWebsite%5CFactSheets%5CUploadedFiles/119/Tammar%20Wallaby%20Sudden%20Death%20Syndrome%20%28TSDS%29%2022%20Feb%202012%20%281.3%29.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529185835/http://science.org.au/nova/044/044key.htm to http://www.science.org.au/nova/044/044key.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tammar wallaby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923203003/http://www.biolreprod.org/content/68/3/929.full.pdf to http://www.biolreprod.org/content/68/3/929.full.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730072827/http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/news/news0901.pdf to http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/news/news0901.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228193959/http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/AfricanSavanna/fact-wallaby.cfm to http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/AfricanSavanna/fact-wallaby.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Papers

Axl. Could you help me out with these articles?

• Male germline development in the tammar wallaby, Macropus eugenii
• Uterine morphology during diapause and early pregnancy in the tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii)
• Human chorionic gonadotrophin does not induce ovulation in the tammar wallaby
• The tammar wallaby: a non-traditional animal model to study growth axis maturation LittleJerry (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The first paper shows that spermatogenesis in wallabies is similar to that of eutherian (placental) mammals. However I don't think that this is particularly helpful in the article about "Tammar wallaby". Perhaps it might be worth mentioning in the article "Spermatogenesis". Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The "Uterine morphology" paper doesn't really add anything new to the article. The article already mentions that Tammar wallabies use diapause, and I think that this is adequate. However the paper could be used to update this ancient 1973 reference. Incidentally, I see that the 2019 paper states the genus name Notamacropus. Is this a recent change to the genus classification? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The human chorionic gonadotrophin paper isn't helpful for this article. (I note that is also states the genus Notamacropus.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Notamacropus is the subgenus, which is mentioned in the article. I have found other recent papers that use Macropus so I'm assuming its still the genus name and the other authors are using the subgenus to be more specific. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. "Notamacropus eugenii" is not "more specific" than "Macropus eugenii". Both names refer to the species. This paper states "The tammar wallaby (Notamacropus eugenii) (see [3,4] regarding the change of genus from Macropus) is one of the most intensively studied marsupials." The references are Jackson SM, Groves CP (2015) Taxonomy of Australian mammals, Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing, and Eldridge MDB (2010) Population and conservation genetics of marsupials. In: Deakin JE, Waters PD, Graves JAM, editors. Marsupial genetics and genomics. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 461–497. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The paper on growth axis maturation doesn't add anything extra to the article. (It's relevant if you run a wallaby farm or if you're a scientist investigating growth mechanisms in infant animals.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Would you be able to do a quick copyedit. I'm finished with the updates. LittleJerry (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The Australian Faunal Directory and various conservation agencies use Notamacropus bie.ala.org.au as the accepted name for this species. Other species have been recognised as this genus. ~ cygnis insignis 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I added that information. LittleJerry (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Possibly superfluous sentence

In the lede I read:

"It is one of many organisms to have had its genome sequenced. "

If complete genome sequencing is very common (as implied here) then it might be better to leave the fact (and the sentence) out as not notable enough. If, on the other hand, complete genome sequencing is not very common, it might be better to remove the implication that it is common with something like:

"Its full genome was sequenced in 2011."

Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the text per your recommendation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagreement over abbreviated genus

I believe the abbreviated genus in the taxonomy section should "N.", given the wallaby's newly assigned genus. The citation in question was when it was still considered to be under "Macropus"; since it is not a direct quote, there is no need to be a stickler for what the article says. Heh0002 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Then change the way the sentence reads. The article is currently saying something that the cited source didn't say. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

But it is. They're talking about the same species. The only thing that changed is the genus, which itself is abbreviated, so the only noticeable change would be a single letter. This is not as big of a deal as you think it is; for example, at Brown hyena#Description, most of the sources are old and still refer to the species as "Hyaena brunnea", which is outdated and incorrect, yet they are still used to cite information in the article. Heh0002 (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You know I understand the difference, so please listen when I say it's the wording that is at issue. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)