This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
In the literature and especially on Wikipedia, the convention is all first letter caps for higher mammals. See for example other bovids, all Wildebeests, all Lemurs, all Marmorsets. It would thus be very odd and out of step to change the title. regards. Covalent 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that this prevails in the literature, but it is indeed unfortunately Wikipedia's bizarre policy. Salopian (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There need to be more cites. I'd like at least one cite per paragraph
The lead is too short. About one sentence per section is good in an article of this length.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Corvus coronoidestalk 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this article could use more images of the animals. Maybe the map should be moved to the taxbox and replaced with a migration photo in the "Distribution and habitat" section. LittleJerry (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I am currently improving the article (may take some more days). I transferred the pic to Habitat temporarily, but I shall soon arrange the pictures properly. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Looking good. Straight-off-the-bat, I notice that the lead is quite short compared with the overall size of the article. It should be an overview of the article, so I request that it is expanded. IJReid (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The image of the range, unless moved into a different section of the article (such as the "Distribution") should be added as a range map in the taxobox, which would suite it better.
Moved into taxobox.
The captions of images do not say which subspecies the animals pictured belong to. If possible, I would like them to be labelled with the subspecies.
The images don't mention the subspecies in the description, so I am afraid this can not be done.
"Taxonomy and naming" and "Genetics and evolution" could become subsections under classification, and any cladogram showing the phylogenetic placement of the subspecies in the species would be great.
I am not sure if genetics should come under classification. And if we create the section "Classification", I don't think we will have any introductory text for it. I feel it is better as it is, but what are your suggestions?
Well in that case, it is fine as it is.
"The average height is ..." This should be changed to "Their average height..." or "The average height of the species/blue wildebeest"
"It feeds during both day and night. Water is an essential requirement." two short, choppy sentences that could be merged
I couldn't see how they could be merged. So I merged the first sentence with the one preceding it.
Your addition to the taxobox is great (I see you like palaentology, your userboxes told me!) I don't mind the subsections in Description, I just renamed "Coloration" as "Colouration", as British English has been used throughout the article. The rest are obviously helpful, thanks for those!
There are other complicated terms people might not understand (even though I do) but they are linked, so I will let it go
Using these terms is inevitable, so we must have them.
That's all for now, more will come later. Good luck with the article Sainsf. IJReid (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking up the review. I shall try my best to address all the issues. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 11:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The article is GA standard once these last comments are fixed. IJReid (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift response. Fixed all your comments. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Great job! Passing now. IJReid (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)