Wikipedia:Peer review/Mammal/archive1

Mammal

After searching for mammalogy articles to work on, I decided to start with the most important. Right now it looks to be in need of a copyedit and a thorough sprinkling of citations. As I comb through it, I'm hoping to get some specific comments from anyone knowledgeable about the topic or GA/FA standards in general. Thanks - Enok^talk 17:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Review by Daniel Case

You are correct that the article needs references. I would go further and suggest that the one reference needs to be replaced with something deeper. Science articles should, whenever possible, not use Fox News as a reference. Or any news outlet unless it's a breaking piece of news and that's the only source available. Where possible, they should be sourced to acceptable sources within the field like journals. It looks there are some good ones inline; I would guess that the further reading section contains some other citations as well.

I would also look at the German and Croatian articles as well, both of which are featured within their respective projects. Even if you don't speak either language, they're worth looking at for organizational hints. (And of course, if you can find an editor willing to help you translate things ...). The German Wikipedia is very well-regarded and is always worth looking at for inspiration if the corresponding article has been seriously developed.

Now, as to some things that stand out about this article itself ...

• The anatomy section needs some work. The subheds should not be linked; rather {{main}} or {{see}} should be used as section hatnotes (it seems the former template would be more appropriate). Adapt the content of the "mammalian lungs" section of lungs for this article instead of simply referring peope to it. Lastly, the brain and skeleton sections link to articles specifically about the human versions of those organs. We need them to be about all mammals, not just humans.

• "Dinosaur" does not to be capitalized any more than the usual rules of punctuation require. It's neither a proper name nor a trademark.

• You could probably get away with a hatnote refer on the convergent evolution section as well. I would also note that contradiction tag on that article and see if that problem affects any of the discussion here.

It's good that someone is working on this article ... it's a core subject and it would be nice to be able to feature it on the Main Page. Good luck improving it. Daniel Case 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Review by Sabine's Sunbird

If you look up the page you'll see that bird is also being peer reviewed, and as a major contributor to that article hopefully I can provide some useful thoughts.

• Split out evolution into its own article and summarise the sections a little more concisely. It's good but a little overlong.
• Anatomy - numerous stubby sections. Eliminate the subdivisions, create one section anatomy. Concentrate effort in this section on uniquely mammalian features, particularly hair.
• Split reproduction out of anatomy. It covers a wide range of subjects. It is important to discuss parental care, all mammals have (often extended) periods of parental care, along with the birds and a few other animals this is fairly unique. Mammal reproduction is different from the birds in that most birds form monogamous pair bonds whereas most mammals don't. Reproduction needs to cover the biological aspects (gestation, pregnancy, lactation), social systems (leks, harems, monogamy, polygamy, promiscuity), parental care.
• Diet - what and how do mammals eat?
• There are other sections that can be included, communication and behaviour, distribution, etc etc. Depends on what is important to mammals. Check out the featured frog for ideas on how to set out a high order animal.
• The almost obligatory and humans sections (which is odd I guess since it is Mammals and Humans (also mammals), but you know what I mean). Mammals are vital economically, culturally, and we also have a massive impact on them, so a section on threats, extinction and conservation.

More generally, writing a higher order article is a lot of work. The approach I use is to really familiarise myself with the subject with a good general text, and then initially expand and write the article using that text to provide the meat and structure. Having gotten there I then work section by section polishing using more specialised texts (journals) to refine and cite. Trying to write an article of this magnitude using only journal articles is next to impossible, the article will be bogged down in interesting, factual details important to a species or family but irrelevant to the whole class. That sort of detail is important in this article as examples of the concepts, but should not be included for its own sake. I'm struggling here a little to explain what I mean, so here is an example; in a hypothetical section on the worldwide distribution of mammals, imagine that someone obsesssed with Christmas Island included the following statement, at the end of the section, all by itself.

On Christmas Island there once were two rodents, but these are now extinct.

This is a highly detailed statement that while fascinating in the context of mammals in Christmas Island, is pretty much irrelevant to the article on mammals and their worldwide distribution. However as an example of a point, it could be very useful, as below....

Terrestrial mammals, other than bats, are poor colonisers of oceanic islands, and few native mammals are found far from the continents. A few exceptions include Christmas Island, which once had two rodents, and the Falklands, which had a fox.

Anyway, there is a lot that needs doing here, so I suggest finding some help (maybe a collaboration). If you want any journal articles email me and I can get most of them at uni. I hope you aren't too daunted by the task! If you have any more questions or need further suggestions let me know. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:BirgitteSB

First of all this needs more content before it can get a very thorough peer-review and start thinking of GA/FA status. "Distinguishing features" should probably not be a subsection but instead the information should be dealt with in the course of the "Evolution" discusssion. The "Evolution" section could probably make a daughter article Evolution of Mammals and the information in this article condensed per WP:SUMMARY. The information given in bullet points needs to be reworked as prose with some of it probably being too indepth for this article. Missing are sections on "Mammology", "Genetics", "Domestication", "Parental care", "Social systems", and considering that most if not all megafauna are mammals there should be some discussion of the Holocene extinction event.--BirgitteSB 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)