Talk:Tiger/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shoebox2 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'm so pleased to see this important and interesting article proposed for GA, and to introduce myself as the reviewer for same. I know I'm a bit new at this, but have garnered experience on other major biology articles and have learned to genuinely enjoy collaborating with knowledgeable editors. If you've any specific concerns, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll try to have my preliminary review up within a few days. Shoebox2 talk 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on the review. Preparing the article has been a collaborative effort between LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and myself. We look forward to your comments and criticisms. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think better sources are required for any content based on lairweb as the site contains lots of misinformation and if no better source is found to verify the content based on lairweb, they should be removed. The site got even the basic anatomy of the cats wrong. The site quoted very few sources and the sourced content there is mostly syntheses of sourced material as well. I read that site over 10 years ago and it hasn't improved since then. BigCat82 (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed and replaced the lairweb cites. LittleJerry (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well hey, great. At this rate, you lot will have the entire review done before I even finish reading. :) Shoebox2 talk 22:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts Jerry! I just expanded the man eater section with more information on the measures to prevent tiger attacks based on the new reliable source you found (none of these methods actually work well) - pls see if that section needs to be slimmed down to meet the GA standards.

Looks the right size. Chap already slimmed in down from a larger size. LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have two drive by comments. Shouldn't fossil subspecies be present in the taxobox as well? And isn't the range map wrong, since there were apparently Caspian tigers in Turkey as well? Source of the range map info should also be mentioned in the file description page. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The fossil subspecies are now present in the taxobox. The range map includes the Caspian tiger in its inset map. I have added a description to the range map file.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

In general an admirably comprehensive, very well-written article worthy of such an iconic subject; has definite future potential as an FA candidate. The major issue--and I do mean major--currently standing between the article and GA status is the dubious sourcing and very messy citation list.

As per my usual practice, I'll provide a brief point-by-point overview using the template below, then post a more detailed list of fixes below that in a day or so.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Prose is as noted very readable; the multiple authors are to be commended for keeping the overall style flowing smoothly, and for striking a pleasantly engaging balance between the requirements of scientific description and lay readership.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead is a bit heavy on the conservation information, but given that's a main reason many will have for looking up this article, not inappropriately so. Layout appears to involve a few too many subheadings (the material in 'Interspecific predatory relationships' in particular seems as though it could be neatly absorbed into 'Hunting and diet' without too much trouble) but is broadly consistent with standard for zoological articles. Word choice is fine, and tone is appropriately dispassionate, in the manner of a textbook. Fiction is obviously n/a. List usage is confined to two well-chosen and designed tables.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   As noted above, this is the article's Achilles heel, and will be similarly fatal to the nomination if a lot of work isn't done ASAP. Citation list is just very, very messy, with no standardised formatting evident and significant missing info in most individual cites.

   ETA: As per the nominator's note on my talkpage, a bit of clarification is in order here. As they correctly pointed out, a pristine reference section is a requirement of FA, not GA status; also that it might be very difficult to flesh out specific details on an older ref at this short notice. So no, I'm not actually planning to fail the article if every single page number isn't in place ASAP, and I apologise if that was the impression I left. Right now, the quality of the sources is what the article authors should be most concerned with, esp. given there's clearly a lot to be concerned about there as well.

   However. There is a lot more wrong with the reference section (or was, at the time the above was written) than a few missing page numbers. We're talking missing authors, dates, even titles. A cite that makes it impossible to immediately and clearly identify the source in question isn't acceptable; several, I think it's safe to say, do not constitute an 'appropriate reference section'. Especially not when dealing with one of the most important zoological articles on Wikipedia. As I mentioned below, there's really no excuse at any level for an encyclopedic article on tigers not to have an ironclad reflist. Shoebox2 talk 14:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1. B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   A few unreffed statements within the article body. More concerningly, an article on an animal the article itself describes as 'the world's most popular' has no excuse not to have an exemplary list of ironclad references, and that's not at all what I'm seeing here. Oddities found just at a quick first glance include two editions of a single book being cited separately (ref #s 36 & 39); a very heavy reliance on a general guide to mammals (#45); a wholly inappropriate citation to The Daily Mail, a notorious tabloid (#102); and a worryingly large number of cites to random online factsheets (including a ten-year-old inactive SeaWorld page and, at #s 121-123, the apparently-unreliable 'lairweb.com' mentioned above) rather than what must be an overabundance of formally fact-checked, published material.

   C. No original research:

   Rather impressively in an article of this length and scope, there's no agenda evident save the scientific, and even if the execution is shaky the desire to properly cite all statements is clearly there.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   In general, nicely covers all aspects of the topic while giving appropriate weight to each, which again is quite an achievement. However there are ome minor but noticeable problems with completeness/potentially incorrect information in certain areas; the table of subspecies could do a better job of standardising each one's characteristics and explaining each one in relation to the others, eg. which is the smallest/largest, darkest/lightest etc. I'd also definitely recommend some more research into the etymology of tigris, as it appears to be much more complicated than is implied here.

   B. Focused:

   Manages in the main to provide just enough detail to be satisfying to the reader on every point without overwhelming them on any particular one.

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   At this point there can't be many controversies left in tiger scholarship, so the basically straightforward narrative here, with occasional detours into the unusual, is appropriate and well-handled.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is indef semi-protected against vandalism, which seems to be working well. Multiple major editors all seem to be working well together, and civil & constructive discussion appears to be the talkpage norm.

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   Spot-checked about two-thirds of the images, and all seems to be in order, mostly free images used.

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

   Images are generally well-chosen, albeit captions could be a bit more informative (especially as regards the video). I'd also suggest slightly increasing the size of the thumbnails in the tables, given that the idea is to compare and contrast the various subspecies.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There's an awful lot of work to do here, most of it involving references and the citation list. However, there are also three co-nominators (and apparently a fourth who's keeping an eye on things) so for now I've got no problem giving it a few days to see what can be done, and will post more detailed suggestions as they're needed at that point. You've got the makings of a fine article on one of the more important topics in the entire Wiki-project, here; I urge you to make sure it lives up to that in all respects.Shoebox2 talk 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful comments. However I am concerned that you are going beyond the GA guidelines for references. The guidance states "Mistakes to avoid - Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" There is no requirement for the reference list to be in perfect order as per FAC - indeed, that is one of the major differences in the two - and reviewers are enjoined not to worry about the matter. We have for goodwill cleaned up (and replaced) a good number of the untidiest references but that is above and beyond the call of duty. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This has already been addressed, under point 2A above. As I mentioned there, at the time of writing it was in fact actively difficult for the reader to figure out what several of the sources were--and this, I will repeat again, in an article wherein there was absolutely no excuse for it; in a scientific article, precision in presenting data should be a basic concern, not a 'goodwill' concession. Therefore I emphasised the point. I've since had another look at the reflist and it's much better in this respect, so I think we can all safely move on from this discussion.

My major concern at the moment, as I also mentioned above, is the quality of the sources, and by extension the quality of the information gleaned therefrom. This nom has been active for a couple days now all told, and in that time I've found a possible factual error based on a misreading of the source (the Latin eytmology of tigris); an editor not associated with the article has pointed out one extensively-used source as unreliable (which source is still being used, incidentally--see ref #35) and one source as totally misrepresented in the text; and another, experienced reviewer (User:FunkMonk, above) has pointed out another possible factual issue/problems with sourcing.

Given all of which, I'm beginning to be genuinely concerned that the nominators--and for that matter, myself as reviewer--have underestimated the scope of work involved in making a cohesive, GA-quality article out of what must be many, many layers of random editing over the years since it was created. Especially given the indef-protection, indicating that vandalism is a serious and ongoing problem.

Understand that I am not actively looking for ways to fail this article; I would love nothing better than to see it succeed. Under the circs, though, I am seriously wondering if failing it now would not give all editors concerned needed time to ensure the 'Factual' and 'Citation to reliable sources' criteria are met. At the very least, since the traditional week given nominators to sort out any issues still has five days yet to run, may I suggest they make that the primary and urgent focus? Shoebox2 talk 16:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"an editor not associated with the article has pointed out one extensively-used source as unreliable (which source is still being used, incidentally--see ref #35)" - Has this point been resolved? The numbering of references change and the present #35 looks unexceptional, so perhaps you could better define the suspect source. I have also expanded the etymology of "tigris" as required above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have dealt with the range map (it includes the range of the Caspian tiger in the circular inset) and its sourcing and someone else seems to have added the fossil subspecies to the taxobox. Are there any other issues? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the efforts of Cwmhiraeth and those who take part in the improvement of the article. While I am not familiar with the criteria to become a GA, Shoebox2 raised some important points in the review process here, such as the remnant edits of the past vandalism that requires our collaborative efforts to identify and correct. The inaccuracies and misrepresented sources I found here so far all understated tigers; yet ironically our featured Lion article has opinions(!), unsourced content and misrepresented sources that are all exaggerations... These could unlikely be genuine editing errors but as both articles have been semiprotected for a long time serious vandalism is no longer a problem. Even if we don't have enough time to get it to become a GA this time, we can still take this chance to improve it and remove any remnant edits of the past vandalism. To a reader I think the accuracy is more important than the standardizing format, etc and I will take my time to focus on improving the accuracy. Thanks everyone. BigCat82 (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, it isn't a rule that a review should only last 7 days. It is up to the reviewer how long to keep it open. There is no limit. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of progress thus far

OK, first of all, I'd like to commend the nominators, who've shown an admirable willingness to fix and improve where needed, and to specially thank BigCat82 (author of the above unsigned comment) and FunkMonk for taking an interest as well. Clearly we're all here to improve the article. I'd also just mention that I did a pageview check on this article for March'14, and according to same this was the 839th most-visited article in that timespan--out of at least 70k+ articles. Thus, as noted previously, I feel a particular obligation to make sure what we've got here is the best possible article going, and hope everyone agrees with that as well. :)

I signed it after seeing your comment sorry for the confusion. BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

With that in mind, I've just had another look at the article, and have come to the following conclusions:

• The reference section now looks a whole lot better, at least from the technical standpoint. I'm still a trifle perturbed at the idea that cleaning up cites would be considered going above and beyond in a scientific article, but overall, we can all consider this fixed and move on.

• The prose is basically fine, certainly GA-worthy. There are places where word choice/grammar becomes an issue, but it's never close to fatal. As noted above the overall tone is great and the reading flows smoothly.

• Presentation of information is likewise mostly exemplary, with a couple exceptions:

a) The info--and the comparisons drawn therefrom--in the subspecies tables isn't entirely standardised. These tables should be designed so that the reader can quickly and efficiently identify the major differences between the subspecies (ie., what distinguishes a particular one from all the others), and they currently don't do that as well as they should (in particular, why only give population numbers for three of the six living subspecies?). Along these lines I'd also suggest increasing the thumbnail images a bit.

That all the information we have on subspecies differences from reliable sources. Sumatran is smallest, darkest and stripiest while the Siberian is largest, lightest and has fewest stripes. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's approach it this way: If you standardise and source the data metrics across all eight entries (as a suggested starting point, drop vague statements like "is one of the smaller tiger subspecies" and simply give length/weight/colour & markings/range & population for each), the needed comparisons can then be easily made by the reader. All you then need to do is emphasise in text the superlatives you've already documented--indicating biggest/smallest, most common/rarest, lightest/darkest and (as long as you've got the info) most/least stripiest would be fine.Shoebox2 talk 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Have removed vague claim (leaving the figures) and resized the images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

b) Most of the topic subdivisions make sense, however there are a few that seem arbitrary -- the information in both "Interspecific predatory relationships" and "Rewilding" seems like it could be folded into other divisions without much trouble. I also strongly question giving the "World's favourite animal" poll its own section; listing the full results of same is unnecessary, which reduces the section to the first two sentences. I'd then suggest moving these to the top of the "cultural depictions' section as part of a short introductory paragraph.

"Interspecific predatory relationships" wouldn't fit anywhere else. Hunting and diet is large enough. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with LittlJerry, but I have got rid of the "World's favourite animal" subsection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth too. However the section can be slimmed down as I found undue weight had been given to extraordinarily rare incidents (which probably used to understate tigers if we compare the same heavily biased section with bogus exaggerations in the lion article - I will correct it, put up a list and explanation in talk later). BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, point made and conceded re: size. As a compromise have moved that section directly under "Hunting and diet", where it makes most sense, and renamed to make the relationship between the two sections clearer. Meanwhile, about "Rewilding"...?Shoebox2 talk 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

c) The "in captivity" section is rather poorly developed. I'd suggest separating out populations being held captive with a conservation focus from those merely held as pets/exhibits/circus animals what-have-you. The former info can then be placed under 'Conservation'.

d) Captions could be more informative. In particular, readers should be able to tell what they're getting into before they click on a video.

I have improved some captions but see no video included in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think more information concerning tigers kept in circus, in historic Roman Colosseum etc is good for the readers. I will add the relevant information later. BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As of yesterday, the article included File:Panthera tigris1.ogg under "Size", captioned simply "Video from Disney's Animal Kingdom". It was removed apparently by LittleJerry in favour of the current image of the Siberian stretching. Captions do look better, and I agree that more info re: circus and other tigers held in non-conservation-oriented captivity would be helpful. Shoebox2 talk 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• There's a lot of cite bundling going on throughout this article, in which a lone cite at the end of a paragraph/several sentences is apparently (I'm heavily AGF here) meant to cover all the info contained therein. While I appreciate the tidiness of this as much as the next reader, I'm a little concerned by how frequently it recurs, indicating a heavy reliance on one source for entire topics, and accordingly making it difficult for the reader to check individual statements. By contrast, several fairly innocuous bits of info (ie.'Crocodiles, bears and dholes may prevail against and even kill tigers") have three-four cites all to themselves. Would suggest using this as a starting-point for...

Those cites are for each animal. Its apples and oranges. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly where undue weight was given by past editor(s). In fact only two cases of dholes killing tigers of unknown sizes and ages with heavy casualties with unknown reasons were reported throughout the history, and according to an extensive study on dhole and tiger relationship, no single tiger, adult or cub, were killed since 1990. These extraordinarily rare incidents should not be here - hyenas are well known natural enemies of lions, and hyenas killing adult female lions is not uncommon and well documented but it isn't mentioned anywhere in the lion article at all as of now. I will correct and update the info in both articles and explain further in talk. BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done and fair points (although I note the revised version of this now includes six cites. There's no overlap, really? Each source only lists one single animal?) However my main concern here is more that a lot of material is either going unsourced or potentially appears to be. As I say, I understand the rationale behind cite bundling and am willing to assume good faith up to the point of GA status, but as per below, best practice would dictate checking and possibly citing more thoroughly. Shoebox2 talk 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• ...addressing my major concern with the article as it stands, which BigCat82 eloquently echoes above: the quality of the sourcing, and the accompanying inability to trust the info in the article. Not to harp on the point, but in just a few days after the review opened, several major factual/sourcing issues had been identified. The ten-year-old SeaWorld(!) page is still listed as cite #48, and what appears to be a completely anonymous blogger at #49 -- and this is what's being used to source something as important as the dimensions of a subspecies. The negative statement regarding the regulation of the US captive population is sourced to the website of an organization with a clear bias in favour of that statement (#139).

I have removed and replaced #48 and #49. With regard to #139, the conservation organization concerned may be biased but I think the information it provides in this respect is very reliable, the law in each state being actually quoted if you click through on the link provided. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Shoebox2 referred to the statement "America's tiger population is poorly controlled: while nineteen states have banned private ownership of tigers, fifteen require a license, and sixteen states have no regulations at all" - the use of wordings poorly controlled and the way the fact was presented indicated s strongly biased opinion as the source is neutral and didn't comment whether it is poorly or nicely controlled. BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad that the biased statement has gone. Thank you BigCat82 for your continuing help with improving this article, it's really helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Seconded re: the helpfulness. :) Also, yes, as a general rule you want to be very careful indeed when citing controversial statements -- the reader is going to click through and see the obvious bias, and the entire article's credibility is potentially going to be tainted. Shoebox2 talk 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This all becomes a particular problem when, well, see above (repeatedly) re: unusually important article, and obligations inherent therein. It makes me very, very leery of declaring a GA unless I have some evidence that the nominators are making the effort to not just fix what's pointed out to them, but systematically validate prior sources, check statements and generally ensure that all is accurate and plausibly sourced. Just to make things clear, I am not doubting the nominators' competence; I've been impressed by their responsiveness to issues thus far. And I'm aware that some things will be difficult to check; I don't need a legal document signed by God that the article is 100% accurate. I just want to see the effort being made, and some assurance that it will continue to be.

There is absolutely no GA criterion that states that a nominator has to give an " assurance that [the article] will continue to be [monitored]" after becoming a GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair point, have stricken the wishful thinking from the record accordingly. :) I had made the assumption based on previous experience--but certainly without asking as I should have--that the nominators' intent was to continue working on the article past GA. Apologies. Shoebox2 talk 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Our featured article Lion has obviously deteriorated greatly to a standard way below a GA should be given all the biased opinions and misinformation boosting the lions into an alien king of the universe status. But after this review process with all the valuable discussions and constructive edits, there will be clearer directions and references for future editors to contribute constructively, and I being a leo born lion fan and big cat lover will continue to monitor most big cat articles for accuracy. BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, as a fellow big cat lover myself that's most excellent to know. :) I'm seeing lots of good work here from everyone on citations and accuracy already, and am really impressed. Shoebox2 talk 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So. FunkMonk is correct that there isn't a formal time limit on the nom process. And I think, given the responsiveness I've seen thus far, that the above is doable within a reasonable span of time (also, that one of the nominators has notified me that they're on Wikibreak for a few days), so am willing to be patient, and am always open to discussion. Looking forward to passing the article when all is addressed. Shoebox2 talk 23:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Remaining items

ETA: Right, thanks everyone for all the work put in thus far. I reviewed the article again yesterday... which you'll note somehow turned into a full-on copyedit (being home sick and bored will do that to you). Any changes I've made are of course subject to review and approval by the nominators, although between what I've done and what everyone else has accomplished this week, I think what we've got here is an amazingly improved article that I'll be pleased to pass. There are just a few remaining unsourced passages that I'd like to see either verified or removed before that happens:

• "More recent attempts have been made using camera trapping and studies on DNA from their scat. Radio collaring has also been used to track tigers in the wild."

Ref added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• "In India's Nagarhole National Park, most prey selected by leopards were from 30 to 175 kg (66 to 386 lb) against a preference for prey weighing over 176 kg (388 lb) in the tigers. The average prey weight in the two respective big cats in India was 37.6 kg (83 lb) against 91.5 kg (202 lb)." --Not only unsourced but unecessarily repetitive?

This was sourced, but have repeated the ref; and there's no actual repetition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• "In some cases, villagers beating drums were organised to drive the animals into the killing zone. Elaborate instructions were available for the skinning of tigers and there were taxidermists who specialised in the preparation of tiger skins."

Sounds true but source is not evident, removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Man-eating tigers only rarely enter and attack in villages. Tigers stalk humans like other prey before pouncing from close range." --Would generally like to see this paragraph sourced to something a bit more recent then Corbett; given the paragraph immediately below it there's no scarcity of modern material on tigers' methods of hunting humans.

Removed the quoted part, merged the rest with para above, where Corbett forms only a small element. As you say, there is already discussion in next para of more recent findings (which agree pretty well with the old stuff, actually). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Once the above has been taken care of, and the nominators have either signed off on my changes or made their preferred revisions in turn, as noted I'll be more than pleased to pass the article. (For that matter, I might continue to work on it myself if the nominators don't plan to--all that's really missing for FAC right now is the sourcing...) Shoebox2 talk 18:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck. I myself have no intention of bringing this to FAC. I no longer have the time and energy for those. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, all looks good (and thank you!). Will pass the article now, with warm commendations for all involved. Shoebox2 talk 22:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)