Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red panda/archive1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:55, 28 February 2022

Red panda

Featured article candidates/Red panda/archive1

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) and BhagyaMani (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In time for the release of the new Disney/Pixar film Turning Red. This article was at GA for some years and the user who brought it there appears to be inactive. We've re-written and revise it, got a peer review, a copyedit and source cleanup. The time has come for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:

Sources are cited for the panda distribution on File:RedPanda distribution.png, but not the source of the underlying topographic map. Is it freely licensed?

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the underlying topo map is freely licensed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other licensing, and image placement, looks ok (t · c) buidhe 19:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sdkb

As background, I have no particular expertise in biology or animal articles on Wikipedia, so I'll be reviewing this from a lay perspective. Looking forward to it! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The unbolding of the scientific name threw me off for a minute, but on checking it appears to conform to our recommended style. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether there's a need to wikilink million years ago—everyone knows what years are, and multiplying that by a million is a pretty straightforward calculation. The wikilink to the toolforge page very much caught me off guard, but I assume that's our normal way of handling links like that? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This link is automatically generated by the {{mya}}. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were others at the template talk page with the same concern, so I've gone ahead and updated it to remove the overlink. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps wikilink coniferous forests, as some readers may be unfamiliar with what they are. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is threatened by poaching, destruction and fragmentation of habitat due to deforestation. This isn't grammatically correct, since it's a list of only two items (the second being a compound item) separated only by a comma. I'd suggest changing to It is threatened by poaching, as well as destruction and fragmentation of habitat due to deforestation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should [Ee]ndangered be capitalized? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, because it is also capitalised by default in the taxobox. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The taxobox is part of the infobox, and we begin each line in the infobox in sentence case, so I think that's likely why it's capitalized there. But we don't capitalize it at the endangered species article, and it doesn't look like a word typically capitalized in normal usage. Is it a formal term or just a word? We could look at MOS:LINK, ask at that talk, or look to examples of other featured animals to get more clarity on this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it as a formal term when used in the context of Red List classification, like the other terms as well, e.g. Least Concern, Near Threatened that are capitalised in taxoboxes. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some recent discussion on whether to wikilink lesser-known countries that found a consensus that articles about less recognizable countries...can and should be wikilinked if doing so would benefit the reader. Bhutan seems likely to be in that category, and perhaps Nepal as well. This is an editorial discretion thing, so I'm fine with whatever you decide, but just something to consider. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I linked them all. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I definitely wouldn't link China, though; that's a clear MOS:OVERLINK. Sorry it's such a blurry line haha, but it's somewhere in the middle. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked China. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Red Panda Day is italicized in the lead but not the body; which is correct? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What guidance does MOS:ITAL have on italicizing this or not? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall impressions so far are good! The lead photo is fantastically cute {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb any more? LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't yet change the sentence in the lead .. by poaching, as well as .. suggested by Sdkb. LittleJerry: if you also think that this is necessary, please amend. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The [Ee]ndangered capitalization question and the holiday italicization question are the two other things I'd still like to see resolved a little more thoroughly, but happy to move on while those are being addressed. (I also may return to the lead at the end for any lead-body integrity stuff.) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I'm surprised {{transl}} doesn't have a |lit= parameter for "claw" or "paw", but seems not, and that's outside the scope here (just noting in case anyone's interested in taking it on). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made this tweak. Deciding when to write out the full term vs. just use "it" is always a tricky balance. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors might object to wikilinking Latin and Ancient Greek per MOS:OVERLINK, which advises against linking major languages, but IAR I don't have an issue with it, and Nepali language is certainly linkable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

Species description should probably be wikilinked (and also in lead). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's inconsistent Oxford comma usage, given no comma after "jawbones" but one after "comic books" in lead. MOS:OXFORD merely requires consistency, but as a dedicated Oxford comma partisan, I'm afraid I'll have to instafail this if you decide to leave it out 😛 {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also after "less white face". You may wish to go through the article to check for other consistencies. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London should be italicized, right? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as not important. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sichuan should probably be wikilinked. More generally, I'd suggest reviewing the geographic wikilinking decisions throughout the article, as having Northeast India linked but this not is inconsistent no matter where one falls on the overlink-underlink continuum. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory portion of this section cites a lot of people by name, but then the 2020 phylogenetic analysis doesn't give any name(s). Is this deliberate? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the linked people are authorities for scientific names. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A 1982 study examined the dental and cranial similarities and differences between the red panda and the giant panda, other bears and procyonids would lead to the species being placed in its own family Ailuridae. Do you mean 1982 study that examined? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following cladogram is based on This seems like a WP:SELFREF; is there any way to avoid it, or is this typical for articles of this type? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a selfref, but not uncommon to explain the basis of a cladogram. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to any recently promoted animal articles that have something similar? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle. LittleJerry (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dentition is a potentially unfamiliar term and should probably be wikilinked. More generally, as a lay reader, I'm finding all the taxonomy section rather jargony and hard to follow, but that may be unavoidable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some jargon. LittleJerry (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Alopecoyon not linked? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the phylogeny section begins with "The placement of the red panda on the evolutionary tree has been debated." re-emphasised in the lead as "The red panda's place on the evolutionary tree has been debated, but modern genetic evidence places it … " is this an extraordinary fact? ~ cygnis insignis 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics

The red panda's coat has a striking colour pattern Is it our place to say what's striking vs. not? Seems a little questionable on neutrality grounds. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to use British English (or some non-American variant), so it might be a good idea to put {{Use British English}} at the top to aid editors or bots in knowing this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colon (anatomy) is another example of underlinking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb: what do you think of the sequence of paragraphs in this section? – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I care all that much. Putting size first is definitely good, but beyond that I don't see a clear order among coat, thumb, and skull. I might have done size, skull, coat, thumb, trying to put the most important aspects first. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved coat up to first. The size section is really meant to be an "overall body description" section and the skull section is about its adaptations to its bamboo diet. LittleJerry (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving. I like this sequence much better. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

The image captions seem a little inconsistent, in that some say a red panda whereas others just say red panda. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got another clear overlink with India. Could you go through the article overall to refine the linking so I don't have to keep pointing out specific instances? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A trickier linking situation: Gongshan Mountains. I can't find any article on them here or (using Google Translate) on zh-WP, but I'd think a mountain range would be notable. Should they be a redlink? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Liangshan Mountains. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linked both. LittleJerry (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendron looks to be a scientific name italicized at its article; should it be here, too? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is slope linked to wiktionary? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The % symbols go against MOS:PERCENT, I think, but IAR I don't mind them (perhaps that guideline should be revised?). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fengtongzhai and Yele nature reserves seem like the sort of topic that would 100% have articles if they were in a western country; for here, that means redlinks or ILLs. I found Fēngtǒngzhài (Q22329689), which has an article in one language, which is of course...Ukrainian... Not sure about Yele, but if you don't speak Chinese, probably worth asking someone who does. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added redlinks. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the habitat map appear in this section, not just the lead? (Also, it probably needs a reference, as I'm not sure it's enough just to have the reference on Commons, as that's external.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical for animal and mammal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour and ecology

The majority of studies between 1827 and 2020 have been based in captivity. I think you mean based on animals in captivity—the studies themselves are not captive haha. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's some plurality inconsistency—compare singular It typically rests to plural Their lifespan in captivity. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it likes to hang out in trees due to predators at ground level, but I haven't found any discussion of predators yet. Could that be added? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is known about potential predators. I thought we made clear that it hangs around in trees because that's were it finds the majority of its food?– BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any estimates of average lifespan in the wild? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. To figure this out, somebody would have needed to identify and observe individuals from birth to death. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to use "stem" or "stalk" instead of "culm", or would that be inaccurate? It's jargon, and although it's linked on first mention in the previous section, readers who jump around (which is many/most of them) may be thrown off by it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Culm is the term used in several sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed, Culm is a type of stem. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The red panda is a poor digester of bamboo, which passes through its gut in two to four hours. I'm curious why this would be—aren't most animals adapted to be good digesters of their primary food? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is : shoots are *easier* digestable than ... ?? – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shoots are better digestible than leaves This sounds a little weird; maybe more digestible instead? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bleating is recorded after scent-marking and sniffing and males may bleat during courtship, particularly before mounting, while twittering is made by mating females. I feel like this could be worded better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split up. LittleJerry (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

adopt a bipedal posture "Bipedal" is unlinked jargon. Linking it would help, but I think it'd probably be even better to just use plain language, e.g. "stand up on their hind legs". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the couple may groom each other between mounting bouts I'd wikilink only over the word "groom". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about lordosis pose might be better placed in the reproduction section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

builds a nest using material from nearby This is a little vague—are there typical materials? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's inconsistency between "faeces" and "feces"; choose one and stick with it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed one of them has to be chosen, but keep in mind that changing to "feces" will require the whole article to be changed to American English, which in its current state is in British English. Wretchskull (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note! Changed this again. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "health" subsection might be more specifically titled "diseases". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

TKTK

Conservation

TKTK

Cultural significance

TKTK

External links

Dedicated to always irks me as promotional language (see WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT); could that be changed? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps a hot take, but I have to question the presence of {{Wikispecies}}. The external links guideline recommends against including Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Looking at Wikispecies' rather pitiful entry on the red panda, I'm not seeing anything of value there that we don't also have here. (Or am I missing something?) For neutrality reasons, we shouldn't give preference to other sites just because they're WMF-affiliated, as past precedent with {{Wikinews}} has affirmed. So is there really any reason to include it? Note that even if it's removed here, it'll still be present in the left sidebar under "in other projects". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fairly standard wikispecies entry, afaik, I don't see it as comparable to linking wikinews ~ cygnis insignis 10:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realize it's been used elsewhere, but that's other stuff; is there any justification under the external links guideline for including it? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not presenting an argument either way, it was a response to the description as a "rather pitiful entry". ~ cygnis insignis 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 *Why is Alopecoyon not linked? <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 :*Done. – [[User:BhagyaMani|BhagyaMani]] ([[User talk:BhagyaMani|talk]]) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
+*the phylogeny section begins with "The placement of the red panda on the evolutionary tree has been debated." re-emphasised in the lead as "The red panda's place on the evolutionary tree has been debated, but modern genetic evidence places it … " is this an extraordinary fact? ~ [[User talk:Cygnis insignis|cygnis insignis]] 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 =====Characteristics=====