Talk:Bohor reedbuck

Bohor reedbuck has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 18, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Name

According to the IUCN, this animal is named Bohar Reedbuck. The article should be renamed.

Done Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 00:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf, I commend you for authoring a thoughtful and comprehensive article on the Bohor reedbuck. I will begin reviewing this article and will share my review momentarily. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:

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

Sainsf, this article already meets the criteria for Good Article status, but I had a few suggestions and comments for you to address before we move ahead with the process. This article has been masterfully written, and I commend you on your extensive research and writing. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments or this review process. I appreciate the opportunity to review this article, and thank you for patience. -- Caponer (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph, should the sentence instead read: "Only the males possess horns, which measure about 25–35 cm (9.8–13.8 in) long." Other than that, the lead reads well and you've done a very masterful job at summarizing a great deal of information.
On that same topic, should the sentence about the males' horns in the Physical description section read: "As a prominent sign of sexual dimorphism, only males possess a pair horns. Its short and stout horns extend backward from the forehead and hook slightly forward." This is merely a suggested rewrite.
I've made several minor tweaks and fixes throughout the article, so please let me know if you disagree with any of these.
I assume good faith for the offline sources that are cited within the article's text.
While the sources referenced here provide data for the total population of bohor reedbuck, are there data to support the population estimates for any or all of the subspecies?

Thanks for taking up the review, you are so amiable! Your edits are surely helpful. I have took your first suggestion, but I think it would be better to add the vital features of horns in a single sentence. May not sound good split. There are separate entries in the IUCN website concerning the subspecies, but no individual population estimates have been provided. So we can only have the overall picture. Do you have any other suggestions? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf, thank you for addressing my above comments! I definitely understand keeping all the content regarding the horns in one sentence, so that is not a deal breaker. As for the individual subspecies population estimates, I was just curious if there were any figures. With all that said, this article absolutely meets all criteria for Good Article status, so it is my pleasure to pass it! Thank you for your tremendous contributions to Wikipedia, and for your efforts in composing this outstanding article! -- Caponer (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand thanks! That sure is a great encouragement. It is for awesome Wikipedians like you that it is a pleasure working here. Thanks again! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bohor reedbuck. 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/20131228120643/http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Redunca_redunca.html to http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Redunca_redunca.html

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) 00:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]