Talk:Blue duiker

Blue duiker 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: April 10, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Blue duiker appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 March 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the blue duiker marks its territory by the secretions of glands near its eyes?

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/Blue duiker.

Wikipedia

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: Angola / Botswana 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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Angola (assessed as Low-importance).
	Botswana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Botswana (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 04:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hello, hello Sainsf. I might as well get your oldest nomination done and over with. At a glance, the article is well expanded and written, but there are a few things that could use explaining or changing. I'll add them white soon. IJReid ^discuss 04:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First comments

In the first sentence of the lead, it is good to introduce what type of animal it is (e.g., deer, cow, fish). It looks like a deer but the taxobox shows it more like a cow. I doubt laymen will get this.

How about "antelope"? Not all will get "bovid".

Antelope is fine, I was just saying it looks like a deer but is closer to cows according to the taxon box. IJReid ^discuss 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added some spaces in [1], but I guess its policy to make sure the nominator agrees with any minor changes.

Thanks, at least I follow this policy!

"Activity is diurnal (limited to daytime)." "Opposite sexes form pairs." both quoted sentences, and a few others in the lead, are very short and choppy, and could be merged into larger sentences of dropped entirely (e.g., in what animal do same sexes regularly form pairs?)

Fixed a few things. The "diurnal" part is necessary, but I didn't get how to combine it with the other lines.

I will do minor grammatical changes like [2], when I see something like that, just want you to be aware.

Sure, go on.

Change "The name comes from the Afrikaans word duik or Dutch dūken –both mean "diver"" to "The common name of duiker comes from the Afrikaans...".

Done.

More comments

The etymology section in itself seems a little small, maybe it could be merged into Taxonomy, and rename the section "Discovery and taxonomy".

Will merge, but "Discovery" sounds unusual to this type of articles. We generally say "Taxonomy and etymology".

Okay, I'm more an extinct animals guy, so I'll follow your lead. IJReid ^discuss 17:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

The caption for the cladogram seems a bit odd, maybe just remove the bit on Walter's duiker and just say "... from Colyn et al".

Done.

Any more expansive cladograms would probably be more useful, like including some taxa outside of Philantomba.

I added the mammoth Cephalophinae cladogram at Duiker, can you take a look and say how much to use for our purpose here?

Done.

Move the similarities of Maxwell's and Blue duiker up into Taxonomy, and add info on where Walter's fits in?

I always add the "similar species" type of stuff in "Description", as I have seen in other articles.

Ok, but add in some Walter's info. IJReid ^discuss 17:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Maybe the images should specify which subspecies?

I am not sure I can identify the subspecies very accurately, the image descriptions at Commons are not helpful either...

The comparison images should probably be more similar in pose, for people to discern differences better.

This is the only "live" image of Maxwell's duiker on Commons. There are two illustrations other than that, and one of those [3] resembles the one in Taxonomy and etymology in this article. Should we use this pair? If you want to have a live blue duiker then look this up [4] and let me know which one you think resembles the live pic of Maxwell's duiker.

How about rearrange some images, but place both of the Book of Antelopes images together in that box, it should help comparisons as they are in near identical poses. IJReid ^discuss 17:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"The blue duiker is diurnal (active during the day). Secretive and cautious, it confines itself to the forest fringes. Opposite sexes form pairs.", again, short and choppy sentences.

Sure, will repair these.

Done.

"The length of the gestational period has been estimated from as less as four months[19] to as long as seven months.[20][21]", references should always follow punctuation (e.g., commas, periods, semicolons)

Not sure what you mean here. You mean [19] should come at the end of the sentence?

Other than these, the article looks fit to pass. IJReid ^discuss 16:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will finish working on these in the next hour (if you are around). Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the new cladogram may be, based on Colyn et al: Just adds a single external taxon, and the scientific names of the other species. I could add it into the box, or you could copy paste it right beneath the paragraph discussing it.IJReid ^discuss 17:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cephalophus

Philantomba

Blue duiker (P. monticola)

	Maxwell's duiker (P. maxwelli)

	Walter's duiker (P. walteri)

Hehe, I came to know of this "out-of-the-box" format only after I met you extinct animal guys! Done. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment

How about adding a picture, directly above where you pasted the cladogram, so that there isn't all that white space. IJReid ^discuss 17:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess any one of the live duiker would do? Or would you like this museum specimen [5] ? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a live duiker. IJReid ^discuss 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue duiker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303192035/http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Philantomba_monticola.html to http://www.ultimateungulate.com/artiodactyla/philantomba_monticola.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]