Wikipedia:Peer review/Elk (Cervus canadensis)/archive1

Elk (Cervus canadensis)[edit]

Pretty well detailed article...preparing to update all cites to ensure they are still accurate so mostly asking for a copyedit, and suggestions as to what I and others might have missed that needs further coverage.--MONGO 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Sections - I'm not too keen on See Also section, should surely be able to be worked through text (related species yada yada yada). Also; I'd make a last section Elks and humans and have products, hunting, farming folklore and trivia all rolled into it. Trivia sections area bit wishy-washy and not liked in FAC these days. Subspecies should be a subsection below Description - all these make nice hierarchical headings/subheads too.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sod it, I'll get stuck into it myself. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Needs a copyedit. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: I know it was difficult finding common ground for the article name but I really don't like Elk (Cervus canadensis) however I'll see what others say.

Overall, looking very promising though. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Description ad Distribution and habitat both seem to have information which belongs in each other on subspecies. Unravelling this satisfactorily I find to be one of the most infuriating parts of getting thee type of articles up to FAC. Good luck...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments:

Cultural references is a section stub. Surely there must be more than that? Perhaps they are cultural in Asia too, btw. If nothing else the section can be mereged into usage with reference to hunting (which I assume occurs and is currently also missing) throughout the ages.

Elk products might be renamed Human uses or economic importance or something.

Elk are naturalised in New Zealand after a single introduction and cause some environmental damage as well as form one of the economic assets (in the form of hunting). You do mention that they were introduced but don't mention the benefits and gloss over the costs - seem to have adapted with fewer ill effects and hunting is extensive. I doubt many Kiwi ecologists would agree.

Migration is currently about one population on one continent, this article should be about the whole species, not just those in the Americas. Does the species as a whole migrate? Are there larger migrations in Asia than in the US?

Until recently, red deer and elk were considered to be one species, Cervus elaphus, perhaps were often considered would be better. I have older books that include the split.

Just from my brief skiming. I'll look over it later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
- The sections on subspecies and DNA analysis refer to technical terms and concepts which need more explanation for the layperson. I'm not sure what "ecotype" means, and it is strange to have the phrase "ecotypes (former subspecies)" repeated three times. "MtDNA" needs to be spelled out, and the significance of mtDNA findings explained.
- The lead should cover the major points of the article. It is a common mistake in bio-articles to have the lead focus on the origins of the subject's name. Naming should be discussed in a section, and briefly mentioned in the lead.
- The article needs a general copyedit. There are some grammatical mistakes, and style issues such as "Please note that...". I can give it a final once-over after the article is in near-final shape. Just give me a shout when it's ready.
Cheers, Kla'quot 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I want to expand several sections and will use the kind advice offered here by several editors.--MONGO 04:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As mentioned already, the part about petroglyphs needs to be expanded. What's the significance of these to Native Americans? Could this fit in the "human uses" section? If you need more information, I suggest trying Google Scholar, Google Books (sometimes there are old, but useful full text materials, other times the snippets they show give enough information), or Amazon full-text book search. --Aude (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...that's coming...I have some leads but your suggestions are also helpful.--MONGO 21:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]