Talk:Royal antelope

Royal antelope 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 19, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Royal antelope appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 March 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the royal antelope (pictured) is the smallest antelope in the world?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal antelope.

Wikipedia

POV

It is very cute.

It's not necessary to flag an article for POV issues when it's this blatant and easy to fix. Just edit it. [Done. and neutrality-question template removed] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review and will read the article in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you friend! Glad to collaborate with you again. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

Leaving the lead for the time-being:

I have my Wikipedia account set up to indicate the status of wikilinks, and in your "Taxonomy and etymology" section, 12 links are green, indicating redirects are needed. (Correcting this is not a GA criterion).

This is something new to me. You mean I should link "scientific name" directly to "Nomenclature#Scientific nomenclature" and find the 11 other cases? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really telling you to do anything, but personally, I like my wikilinks to go directly to the article to which I want to link. Do you have your account set up so that you can rest your pointer on a wikilink and see where it is going? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I do. All I do is try my best to avoid dablinks, and perhaps I am not patient enough to check where the links really go! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"that the antelope was called "the king of the harts" ("hart" means "heart" in both Dutch and Afrikaans)" - The word "hart" is an old English word for a deer, so what is the relevance of the mention of "hearts"?

Didn't know that. I thought this has to do more with those two languages. Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"... by the Negroes." - I think you might say "indigenous people", "local inhabitants" or similar rather than negroes, a somewhat derogatory word.

Was not sure if it would be treated as a derogatory word here. Amended. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It reaches merely 25 centimetres (9.8 in) at the shoulder" - The previous sentence is about Bates's pygmy antelope so this is ambiguous. Also, this conversion is too precise.

Removed the ambiguity. I have hardly used the precision parameter earlier, do you think I should round the converted figures to a multiple of 5? What is used in most articles? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I do is consider the original number; in the case of 25 centimetres (9.8 in), the 25 is obviously an approximate figure so 25 centimetres (10 in) will do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will remember that. Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"2.5–3 centimetres (0.98–1.18 in)" - This conversion is too precise as well.

Reply as above. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case 2.5–3 centimetres (1.0–1.2 in) would be better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"They generally rest or ruminate" - The previous sentences are about a single animal while this suddenly goes into the plural.

Fixed and checked throughout the article. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Territories are marked with dung, though the reduced size of the preorbital glands implies that the intensity or regularity of marking behaviour is not notable." - I suggest you rewrite this in more easily understood language.

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Feeding occurs mainly during the day; some foraging may also be observed at night" - This seems to contradict what it says above about the animal being nocturnal.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"... features that sharply inhibit the digestion of lignified growth." - I suggest you rewrite this in more easily understood language.

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- To be continued. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. You indeed have a sharp eye. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

"... estimated the total population at 62,000; however, it is likely to be an underestimate"- How about "estimated the total population to be about 62,000, however this is likely to be an underestimate."

Reworded. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it likely to be an underestimate?

Sorry, no info on that. Possibly because the animal is very secretive and not all individuals may have been noticed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"it is scarcely hunted " - Perhaps "it is seldom hunted ".

Reworded. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now at the lead section, "Only males possess short, smooth, spiky horns..." (a phrase which also occurs in the description section), this way of expressing the fact makes it sounds as if the females might have horns, but of a different type.

Reworded. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has conversion factors that are too precise.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could add a sentence about the royal antelope's affinities.

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration of 2 animals seems to be lacking information on its license.

I have pinged the uploader Mariomassone to add info on all the Book of Antelopes images he/she has uploaded but he/she has not responded yet. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)I notied Mariomassone is working on Canidae as well... Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- That's about it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I have responded to all the comments. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article is stable.
The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]