Talk:Banded palm civet

Banded palm civet was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 29, 2023	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 4, 2024	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

GA Review

Unsuccessful. 20 upper (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Banded palm civet/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 20 upper (talk · contribs) 12:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not sure about this article, but give me some time and I'll have this nomination fully reviewed. 20 upper (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time! 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra: Starting review now; sorry for the delay. 20 upper (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article failed GA a few months ago. Will take a look at the nomination. 20 upper (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the lead, preferably the second paragraph. Mostly Done
What does citation 14 support? Please remove or replace it. Done (it supported the same claim as #15, so it was unneeded).
Move the last paragraph of Description to Behaviour and ecology Done
Expand the above mentioned paragraph Partly done, still some work to do.
The 4th paragraph in Conservation has no real flow. Please fix it, the first sentence is very odd, and the paragraph as whole doesn't quite make sense. Partly done, I've done some reorganization, but it could still use some adjustments.
No mention of evolution Not done for now, not because I don't want to, but because there really no research out there into the evolution of Hemigalus, at least not on the web that I can access. Offline sources that cover the topic at all are hard to come by, and there just isn't any information out there on this topic.
Add image in Description Done
Replace File:Hemigalus derbyanus boiei 236800062.jpg with File:Hemigalus derbyanus.jpg Done
They have one or two litters a year, and have one or two young.[13] The gestation period of the Viverridae, the family to which the banded palm civets belong, varies from 32 to 64 days.[13] The newborn civets weigh as little as 125 grams, and usually first open their eyes eight to twelve days after being born. They typically feed on their mother's milk (nurse) for up to 70 days.[5][13] I suggest you to remove the first occurrence of citation 13, as it appears four times. Done, thanks for spotting that.
Why do you mention its name in Indonesian? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's off topic and has nothing to do with how its English name came to be; species articles shouldn't include native names.
Is citation 5 reliable? I seriously doubt its reliability.
Citation 6 could not be translated, but everything else seemed to be in order.
The page number for citation 7 is 454, please fix that.
Citation 8 seems fine, but I suggest summarizing from the source, instead of copying every point in the sentence.
Citation 4 says there are five species of Hemigalinae, not 4 banded civet subspecies.
Citation 9 is fine
Page number for citation 7b is also 454
Source says "Tail about three-quarters the length of the head and body"

Wikipedia says "The tail is usually three-quarters the length of the body" That is too-close paraphrasing

Citation 10 seems fine
You claim the markings are on the back, yet the source claims they are on the face.
Source says "have been extirpated in the early 1900s"

Wikipedia says "have been extirpated in the early 20th century." Again, the paraphrasing is too close

They prefer intact forest habitat; a 2022 paper thus concluded that, as a source of zoonoses – diseases potentially transmitted from other organisms to humans, and vice-versa – in natural areas, the civets are low-risk. The sentence is barely comprehendible, and some of the statements are not supported by the citation.
The same paper found a negative correlation between the number of the animals that they captured and the distance from rivers – that is, fewer civets were found closer to the river than farther from it – and a similar correlation between the numbers of civets and forest destruction. Fewer civets were found the more forest loss there was within the local area (within one kilometre). - Out of context.
Source says " Unlike other civets that are omnivorous and may disperse seeds, banded civets appear to be strict carnivores"

Wikipedia says "They are known to be strict carnivores, as opposed to other civets, which are usually omnivorous." Too-close once again

Some sources don't have page numbers
Source says "Orthopterans and worms made up 80 percent of the contents of 12 stomachs, the remaining 20 percent consisted mostly of other invertebrates"

Wikipedia says "According to one analysis, worms and orthopterans made up 80% of the civets' diet across twelve samples, the remainder being composed of other invertebrates." Too-close once again

I've seen enough, and I'm failing this article.

Review against criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for the review, 20 upper. Could you please go into a bit of detail on the criteria that it failed; for example, where are the copyvios or plagarism, what are the problems with the prose and the referencing, where's the original research, etc. Thanks. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]