From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Capybara 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 19, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
December 30, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Some thoughts[edit]

some comments from, I think, before the overhaul even

Per your message on User_talk:Videmus_Omnia, I'd like to make some suggestions. It's mostly technical and copy-editing stuff, and the overall impression of the article is that it's quite good. Anyway: (adding notes as I address or look at each of these)

  • There are 4-5 unclosed wikilinks.
    • I corrected 4 of these... I may have missed one, but if so, I couldn't find it as I looked a couple times over.
  • The taxobox is of a non-standard color. Just remove the color setting and it should select the appropriate color for the animal kingdom (pink).
    • Argh, I know you're right. Red looked so much better! Anyway, changed in prep for the upload.
  • The conservation status bit in the taxobox should probably be copied from the currently active page.
    • The main page had a broken image so I took that part out. Templates are not my strong suit.
  • Per WP:UNITS, all units should primarily be SI (it's a scientific article with no language-preference), and have the imperial units in parentheses.
    • In this case, then, metric all around? I used the units in the sourcees, and almost all of them used imperial units. I'd convert them if I could...
  • Per WP:OVERLINK, I feel that the number of internal links is excessive and it could distract from the ones that are really interesting and/or important. I'd be happy to help trim those down.
    • Yes, they are. I tend to like to link everything. I almost gave myself a headache linking! Any help here would be appreciated so as to have, exactly as you said, the interesting (or important) ones remain and remove the others.
  • The inline citations look fine, but I haven't had time to go through them all yet.
    • 'k. That's something I'm pretty good at (having once been terrible at referencing at all!).
  • The gallery is a bit large, but it's no big deal (they're free images after all).
    • Yeah, another bit of my own partiality... I like galleries.
  • The part about leather is mentioned twice. I suggest using only the mention in human interactions, but moving the cite down with it.
    • corrected. Thanks for that catch!
  • I'm not sure the part about catholic tradition can grow much larger, so perhaps just incorporate it in the human interactions, where the fact that we eat them is already mentioned.
    • Agreed.

As I said, it's mostly copyediting. Hope you find the suggestions useful. --Pekaje 16:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the two ancesteral species that I incorporated (with the intent of changing those pages into redirects), does that look okay? VigilancePrime 17:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Biggest HELP! need is in putting references into the right format. I think this may have Featured Article potential and would like the thoughts (and assistance) of the "larger Wikipedia community." With the exception of citation formatting, this article, I believe, meets the criteria for a GA- or even A- status currently; if someone can confirm/"promote", please do! Many thanks! VigilancePrime 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really into that scene, but AFAIK galleries are frowned upon, especially when they're as big as the one included here, and which seems to be there simply to hold every capybara picture anyone has ever uploaded. See also my point below. --jjron (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Where to find[edit]

What's with the huge list of Where to find in captivity? I can't recall seeing this in any other article, and it all seems pretty pointless. Maybe if this was an endangered species it would make some sense, but as far as I know they're quite common, so I can see no reason for this list. --jjron (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm goin to totally redo this section; I have a plan and only need some time. I think it'll be an improvement when I get it complete. VigilancePrime (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, OK. But also re the above message about possible FA, most of this list would count as original research, which shouldn't be included regardless, and would definitely exclude it from any hope of FA status. --jjron (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree but have already dismissed any thought of this article ever being FA anyway. After two days on the peer review I figured that much out! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC) :-)
Hehe, fair enough. --jjron (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Finally took care of the Where to find section (actually, awhile ago). Wanted to note as much.

New Discovery![edit]

Wow! A huge, old, fossilized CAPYBARA! Cool!
Now, though, we have a bunch of links and need to get those incorporated into the article so we don't end up with a LinkFarm.
Please help! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a stub article Neochoerus pinckneyi. Unfortunately, there are not many useful refences on that page. If it gets incorporated into this article, a link should be made. Dspark76 (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The taste[edit]

I see that there is a reference to it tasting like pork. That's true, but if you have ever eaten it the more distinguishing factor is it's strong smell that I'm told also exists in beaver meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Giant capybaras?[edit]

The article mentions fossil capybaras eight times bigger than the modern capybara, and links to a two popular press articles that use similar wording, but cite no sources. I suspect they're referring to recent finds of giant rodents like Phoberomys and Josephoartigasia, but those are dinomyids, not so closely related to capybaras. Neochoerus pinckneyi was a larger Ice Age capybara, but apparently only weighed about 200 lbs. Unless someone has a reference for a thousand-pound capybara, I suggest we amend the article. Cephal-odd (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Invalid Status?[edit]

What's that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Capybaras as pets[edit]

There is some missing information about capybaras as pets. -- (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Capybaras in Italy[edit]

The article mentions capybaras escaped from captivity and found living near the Arno river, in Italy. Is there any source for that information?--Sid-Vicious (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Anacondas' preferred prey?[edit]

This article states that the capybara is the preferred prey of the anaconda, but over on the anaconda page it says that while the snakes may eat large animals (including the capybara), such large meals are not regularly consumed. Assuming this means that they usually eat other, smaller prey then there's a pretty strong disagreement here! I'll crosspost on the Anaconda talk page and see what they think too. Redset (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant Links[edit]

Under "Related news" there are about ten links to stories about giant fossil rodents such as Josephoartigasia and Phoberomys. None of these are capybaras, and I suggest we remove them from the article. Cephal-odd (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


"Graminivore" is a made-up word. "Graminivorous" is not. This is an attempted over-simplification of herbivorous behavior, and was further contradicted by the next sentence in the article. A "graminivore" would "specifically" only eat grasses and grass seeds, right? Not also aquatic plants, fruit and tree bark, correct? Doc9871 (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Google seems to disagree with you there [1], as "graminivore" is occasionally used, even in scientific papers. In any case, words like this on "-vore" and "-vorous" are always used freely together, and I don't think it makes sense for any of them to say that one of the two is a real term and the other is not. A graminivore, or graminivorous animal, is an animal that eats grasses; I don't think the seeds should even be there (a granivore eats seeds).
The text on diet at this page is questionable. It's sourced to zoo sites, which are not the best we can have. The Mammalian Species account suggests that it is in fact a graminivore, in that the bulk of its diet consists of grasses (more precisely, they describe it as a "grazing herbivore", and note that it also eats sedges). It would be interesting to see where the Palm Beach Zoo's assertion that it also eats fruits and tree bark comes from. Ucucha 12:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


The article lists them as being found in many countries of South America, then lists Panama and Costa Rica, which are generally considered North, or Central (or even just part of the Americas) but not South America. Furthermore, the range diagram does not show its range reaching Costa Rica.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapold (talkcontribs) 06:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tangled and in my opinion bloated lead sentence[edit]

The article currently begins with this sentence (and a bunch of footnote references):

The capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), also known as capivara in Portuguese, and capibara, chigüire in Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador ronsoco in Peru, chigüiro, and carpincho in Spanish, is the largest living rodent in the world.

With this wording and punctuation it's massively unclear what the status of several of those names is. For example, is capibara meant to be one of two Venezuelan/Colombian/Ecuadorian names, or one of two Portuguese names, or an alternate name in English. or what? Likewise, what about chigüiro? If this information belongs here, then someone who actually knows what's intended should restructure the sentence with punctuation that is unambiguous.

But, in any case, I don't see why alternate names of the animal in non-English languages are relevant here on, so I think that a lot of that content should just be deleted. In my opinion, if chigüiro is an alternate term for the thing in some Spanish-speaking countries, that's information that belongs in, but not here, unless it's especially relevant for some reason.

-- (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign language names removed. Dger (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bastian (talk · contribs) 04:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I am going to start a review of this article shortly. Bastian (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Prose is okay for the most part, some work may be needed.
Submitted article to the Guild of Copy Editors. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    The citation given in the "Fossil record and other species" section does not talk of any fossil records or other species.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    There seems to be a little bit of back and forth editing when looking at history. I will wait to see further.
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Good job! Although I'm more of a reptile, especially venomous snakes guy, this was an interesting read. I think you passed the article which I worked on and nominated, the black mamba - I forget. Bastian (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A few problems[edit]

Please look above for problems listed. I have not gone through the entire article yet, but I will finish reading it later on.

The first "individuals" is misspelled in this sentence: "... as 100 individauls but usually live in groups of around 20 individuals."

As I said, the prose (spelling, grammar, and punctuation is good for most part), but there is still some room for improvement.

Another problem so far is the citation given in the "Fossil record and other species" section - it says nothing about fossil records or other species. Bastian (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Under the subsection "Diet and predation" there is a contradiction in sources. You list "...four to six plant species making 75% of its diet." and listed this as a source. First, that source cannot be read as the lettering is way too small and so I as a reviewer cannot verify the number 75%. A second source claims "Only seven species represented 60% of the total diet:..." from here.

Another thing in the same section is this: "They will select the leaves of one species and disregard other species surrounding it.[16] Capybaras eat a greater variety of plants during the dry season as there are fewer plants available. While they eat grass during the wet season, they have to switch to reeds during the dry season as they are more abundant.[16]" - since all three sentences come from the same source, I would take out the first citation and just leave the one at the end right after "...more abundant" Bastian (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, remember to always read the GA review list above as I sometimes will leave comments up there, not just here. Bastian (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The bits of improvements made are making the article look a lot better. Maybe add an "External links" section with a few links (3-5) of some general info pages from zoos, maybe links to a youtube video or two and you are pretty much good to go. Bastian (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a few more problems. There are two different citation formats in the article--separate refs are used alongside inline complete citations. Many of the citations (I think these are recent additions) are not properly templated and use inconsistent, different date formats. Journal and newspaper titles are not properly rendered (at least one is abbreviated, and I've fixed "Latimes") and/or not wikilinked. Some refs say "downloaded," others "retrieved." This YouTube link is inappropriate in the first place, and certainly so in a GA. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

New picture[edit]

It needs a new picture with a human to really show the rodents size. Can anyone find one that can go up on this page? Reedman72 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Great Toronto Escape[edit]

I wrote a short paragraph about the escaped capybara of High Park, along with several reliable sources. They have been on the lam for over 2 weeks and this is still making national news. Yet my segment was deleted, probably because it was deemed not notable enough. I completely agree that it's not notable enough for its own article, but I'm not sure the deletion here was justified. Opinions? Observer31 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I have the answer to my own question - this bit of info should be in the zoo history, not the species page. Sounds good? Observer31 (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)