| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I thought the article is complete after i put so much effort into it. If there are still any suggestions. they are welcome.
Thanks, Sainsf <^> (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Lead is way too short, have a look at WP:LEAD for guidance. It's intended to summarise the major topics of the article.
- "Adult in the Taronga Zoo" in the infobox, usually Taronga Zoo isn't preceded with "the".
- Before you use an abbreviation of IUCN, you should expand it.
- "its magnificent horns[3], " magnificent is your opinion, and refs should go after punctuation, not before, wherever possible. Check the rest of the article.
- Bags of over linking. To start with, we don't link individual dates or years. Next you should use sue common sense, would a reader of this article know what a "sheep" is? More than likely so there's no need to link it. You should check the rest of the article, I'll do my best to point out the clear ones.
- German would be best linked to German people rather than Germany, ditto for England, but consider, is it relevant to link these in this type of article?
- "the name leucoryx failed" how does a name "fail"?
- Two dab links, migration and roots.
- "is just over a meter" all of them? At what point in their life is that measured?
- Number ranges should use the en-dash, not the hyphen.
- "a meter to a meter and a quarter " -> 1.00 m to 1.25 m
- Don't relink things in the same paragraph (as a minimum), e.g. horns.
- The female has 4 nipples. See WP:MOSNUM, normally this would be written as "four". Check the rest of the article.
- Morning, evening, tree, shrub, all unnecessarily linked. Check the rest of the article.
That gets about half-way, there's a way to go, particularly dealing with the way-excessive linking going on. Would also consider a really good copyedit from someone who knows better than I. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)