Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Impala/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2016 [1].

Impala

edit
Nominator(s): Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a graceful antelope. The article was promoted to GA status in 2014, and now nominate it for FA status after expanding it further using better sources. Thanks. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Checkingfax

edit
  • Hi, Sainsf. I gave it a runthrough and made some minor edits to smooth it out functionality/MoS-wise.
  • I would suggest adding alt-text to images requiring it.

I will be happy to do another runthrough and make an !vote after more comments come in. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Thanks for your comments and efficient edits. I tried to add proper alt-text here, please check. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 01:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sainsf. I am not good at creating alt-text for images. Maybe Graham87 can take a look at them for you. I will say that two of them merely repeat the caption, and that is not helpful, so the text of those two can be deleted for now. You do not have to remove the whole parameter, just the text portion. That way somebody can see that it needs filling in (leave alt=). I will take a shot and say you did a pretty good job of not being redundant in your alt-text. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will delete them for now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, they sound pretty good. Thanks for adding them. Graham87 08:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checkingfax, care to !vote? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sainsf.
  • I am not a fan of sections that start with images. The default is for images to float right and I usually stick with the default unless there is a way to move an image down a paragraph and float it to the left. Many times I am able to re-juggle images in a big article and avoid sections starting off with images. This Impala article has some two paragraph sections that may be too short to move an image down, justify it left, and not have it impact the following section. Give it some thought and ping me back. I will not ding you for whatever you decide is best. I do feel that sections with images as their first content breaks up the flow of reading an article. I have no problem with all images being right floated if that is a solution in an article. This article has enough real estate to allow some left floating without walking on section headings. I love the article and its current presentation. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On this point, it is entirely optional where an image is placed in the beginning of a section. There was a guideline, but it has long been removed.[2] FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. No rigid rule about that.
  • Is there an inconsistency with number ranges in a case like this? (there may be others): 24 to 48 hours, and occurs every 12–29 days
  • I don't think consistency is mandatory in that, I like some variation and have never been advised against doing this.
  • I feel that at least the first use of the {{convert}} template should use abbr=off for each type of unit (metres, hectares, kilogram, etc.)
  • Not sure if it is necessary, I never do in any of my articles... the meaning is rather apparent.
  • Since there is no word limit I feel percent should always be spelled out instead of using % – except in infoboxes, tables, etc.
  • Once again either can be used, taking care that either "%" or "percent" is said.

I like the use of the {{clade}} template. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FA Toolbox:

Alt text: See this – top two images would benefit

Not sure how to add alt text in infobox, and what to write for the range map.

Citation bot: Added |year=2005[3]
Disambig links: 2 links still need DAB[4] It's at the top of the article, I don't think anything needs to be done.
Edit count: ? (not sure what we are on the look out for here)
External links: No dead links found
Peer review: Reports two links needing DAB[5] It's at the top of the article, I don't think anything needs to be done.
Redirects: 1 marked invalid[6] It's at the top of the article, I don't think anything needs to be done.
Reflinks: Pass
Dates used consistently: Pass
Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Addressed. Sorry for the late response, busy with GA Cup. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

edit
  • remove the pronunciation key from the lead
Someone had attached a "pronunciation?" tag there when I began work on the article. That's why I added it.
  • change "The slender, lyre-shaped horns, only on males..." to "The slender, lyre-shaped horns, that are only on males..." or "The slender, lyre-shaped horns (that only occur in males)..."
Done
  • "Browsers as well as grazers..." doesn't that just mean "herbivore"?
Both are types of feeding behaviours, and in antelopes one of them generally predominates. Here we know for sure that it is a herbivore, and I wish to highlight that both ways of feeding can be observed in this antelope.
  • is the plural of impala "impala" or "impalas"?
Sources use both. And in antelope articles (like sitatunga, mountain nyala, and the FA hartebeest) I have stuck to what appears to be the singular form.
  • "An annual, three weeks-long rut toward the end of the wet season, typically in May" this is a fragment
Fixed.
  • change "aepyceros" to "Aepyceros" in the Etymology section
Done.
  • change "Known as the common impala. Occurs across eastern and southern Africa. The range extends from central Kenya to South Africa and westward into southeastern Angola" to "Known as the common impala, it occurs across eastern and southern Africa. The range extends from central Kenya to South Africa and westward into southeastern Angola" do the same for A. m. petersi
Done
  • change "...from the Pliocene of Ethiopia" to "...from the Pliocene in Ethiopia" (optional)
Seems "of" and "in" can be used interchangeably here.
References
edit
  • ref no. 4's OCLC number is 24702472
  • ref no. 6's OCLC number is 861302215
  • ref no. 9's OCLC number is 852789105 (might want to check the all book refs for their OCLC numbers)
  • ref no. 13's OCLC number is 854973585
  • I'm stopping with the OCLC numbers. Make sure all book refs have one (any of them with an ISBN should have an OCLC)
Thanks for your comments, will look into these soon responded. But in none of my previous FACs have reviewers asked for OCLCs, are they mandatory? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, it's just another id number for the book   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: I have added OCLCs for all the book refs. I don't think it is necessary to add it, just remain consistent in whatever you use. Please continue with your comments. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Congratulations on another great article! Best of luck to you on your pending GA's   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

edit
  • I really like the images, but the image under diet from a zoo in some cold country seems a bit out of place among the rest. How about some wild animals grazing?[7]
  • Awesome. No idea how you come across the best image always.
  • "An alternative name for the impala is "rooibok"" From what language? Sounds Afrikaans...
  • Fixed
  • "n 1845, Swedish zoologist Carl Jakob Sundevall placed the springbok in Antidorcas, a genus of its own.[8]" Not sure why you mention this, was the springbok originally in the same genus as the impala?
  • Removed, seems it was added by mistake
  • "led palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba to consider" When?
  • Fixed
  • "According to Vrba, the impala evolved from an alcelaphine ancestor. She noted that while this ancestor has diverged at least 18 times into various morphologically different forms, the impala has continued in its basic form for at least five million years.[9][15] Several fossil species have been discovered, including A. datoadeni from the Pliocene of Ethiopia." This doesn't seem to have been confirmed by genetic evidence, why go so much into detail about this theory?
  • I came only across this hypothesis when I tried to learn about its evolution. I don't think there is much outside that. If there were a better theory, I would have replaced this, but seems this should be there for now. Other sources repeat the same thing citing Vrba.
  • Not really something you have to act on I think, but per our discussion about the genus being monotypic, the extinct species Aepyceros datoadeni seems to perhaps warrant a genus article...
  • Then Antilope too may have extinct species we may not know about. And Aepyceros was perhaps never created, though this fossil species was mentioned right at the top.
  • "Several fossil species have been discovered, including A. datoadeni" What are the others?
  • I can't seem to find the names of the others... this is the only one mentioned almost everywhere.
  • "The horns, strongly ridged and divergent, circular in section and hollow at the base." Seems an "are" is missing here...
  • Blooper fixed. Checking for more...
  • "Black streaks run from the buttocks" Does the source really say buttocks, and not rump or such?
  • Nothing weird about that as sources do use it, try this [8]. Any problem with the word?
  • "these glands males are most active" Glands males? What is that?
  • "classifies the impala as Least Concern" Perhaps add "overall"? Since it doesn't apply to the black-faced one, apparently...
  • Fixed
  • "is spent in feeding and resting" Spent on?
  • Fixed
  • Rut is not linked outside the intro.
  • Fixed
  • "A possible explanation for this could be that because the impala inhabits woodlands, that are considered to have a high density of ticks, unlike the other animals in the study that inhabit grasslands, the impala could have greater mass of ticks per unit area of the body surface." This sentence is rather convoluted, perhaps put some of it in parenthesis?
  • Fixed
  • "in a study, ivermectin was found to" Perhaps state that this is a form of medication.
  • Fixed
  • "Impala carefully feed on" What is meant by carefully?
  • It means they are careful in what parts of the plant they choose. Would "meticulous" be better?
Yeah, could "parts of the plant" be mentioned as well? FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to support once this is dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one! FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A study revealed that time spent in foraging reaches a maximum of 75.5%" Percent of what? The day?
  • Fixed
  • Are the subspecies sympatric anywhere?
  • This map [9] can give an idea of the black-faced impala's distribution, though it seems wrong about the common impala. Sources don't say exactly where their ranges meet, but it seems they must meet somewhere in southern Africa.
  • Perhaps state the main difference between the subspecies in the intro, much space is given to behaviour in the intro (I'd say the kicking part is too detailed there), but not description.
  • Done
  • The male in the taxobox has very short horns compared to the one under description. is it a juvenile?
Hmm, it's a featured picture after all, I think "mature" animals are generally preferred for recognisability, but not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Hi, care to !vote? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Really sorry for my awfully late reply, GA Cup is literally eating me up! I have removed "carefully" as the part following this indeed shows the care the animal takes while eating. Thanks for your support, and your help with issues Checkingfax has raised. :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for FA promotion. I gave it a read-through, and didn't find any significant issues. It looks to be in good shape. Praemonitus (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and edits. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "The impala ... other impala": If you want to use "impala" as the plural, that's fine, but then it reduces readability if you use the same word to mean two different things (plural and singular mass noun) in the same sentence. In general, the article might benefit if you tried to maintain the plural or maintain the singular longer than you do. It wouldn't surprise me if other reviewers recommend "impalas" as the plural.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Thanks for your support, edits and comments, sorry for getting to this so late. I think you refer to these lines (all I could find with two meanings):
  • The impala displays two characteristic leaps – it can jump up to 3 metres (9.8 ft), over vegetation and even other impala...
  • Impala on the periphery of the herds are generally more vigilant against predators than those feeding in the centre; a foraging impala will try to defend the patch...
  • The historical range of the impala, spanning across southern and eastern Africa, has remained intact to a great extent, although impala have disappeared from a few places...
I have tweaked these to keep only one meaning. Is that what you wished to see? Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

edit
  • All files are CC and have sufficient source and author information - OK.
  • Flickr-images show no signs of problems - OK.
  • 2 photos lack EXIF-data, but have been uploaded by long-term contributors with credible authorship claim - OK.
  • File:Leefgebied_impala.JPG - On FA-level this range map, more precisely the data it represents, should be verifiable by a reliable source, just like any other content (WP:V). I know, you didn't upload the map - but could you provide a reliable source for the shown range, and add it to the image information page please? Or maybe there is another range map with better background info? GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the IR. In this type of articles the IUCN is the best source for range details. Should this [10] be enough to support the map? The range is nearly the same as shown though the subspecies ranges appear to have been combined. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Impala.png seems to reflect the actual range a lot more accurately (shown by IUCN, and IAE as well - see [[11]]). Admittedly it looks a bit less "nice", but the current map shows some major discrepancies compared to the verifiable range (especially in southern Namibia, the middle section, and northernmost parts of the range). I wouldn't mind some minor differences due to technical difficulties or different datasets, but the actual differences between the various maps seem to be too significant to ignore. Considering the actual map lacks background information for verification and the linked map has 2 reputable sources for verification, I'd lean towards using File:Impala.png instead of the current one. This alternative file is already used on several other Wikis (like 50:50 between the 2 map versions). GermanJoe (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I have replaced the map with the suggested one. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added the 2 (likely) source links for verification to the image information as well. GermanJoe (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Impala/archive1&oldid=1039911973"