Jump to content

Talk:Dibatag/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one. delldot ∇. 05:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks great. A few comments for now, mostly just quick prose fixes.

  • This is a lot of numbers to wade through in the first para of the lead: " The typical head-and-body length is about 103 to 117 cm (41 to 46 in). They stand up to about 80 to 90 cm (31 to 35 in). Male dibatag weigh between 20 and 35 kg (44 and 77 lb), whereas females range from 22 and 29 kg (49 and 64 lb). The length of the curved horns, present only on males, is typically between 10 and 25 cm (3.9 and 9.8 in)." Could this be approximated in the lead then spelled out in the Description? e.g. ...head-and-body length averages slightly over a meter (3 ft)... they stand just short of a meter...
This has not caused trouble in any other article about antelopes I have expanded. I believe the head-and-body length should be omitted, but I am not sure about the rest. I mostly emulate the style of an antelope FA I contributed to, Giant eland. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • explain or use simpler wording for difficult terms like 'anteorbital gland'
I do not know how exactly to explain it, should I remove it? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious: is there a reason the order of sections puts taxonomy so high in the article? I see the template has it lower and that seems preferable to me. Yet every taxa article I see has Taxonomy this high, including FAs.
No idea. I observed that it was the sequence in so many articles, so I simply emulated it. I guess it is because it may be disturbing the flow from Description to Ecology to Distribution, and it would not look too good at the bottom. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the referencing work? If I see several sentences with no ref followed by one with ref [2], do I assume 2 covers all these sentences? If a sentence is moved, do I copy the ref from three sentences later to go with it?
Yes, you do. I take special care of that whenever such shifting has to be done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be best to choose singular or plural for talking about dibatag, then use one or the other throughout, unless there's a good reason to change it up. e.g. "Dibatag is a medium-sized antelope" but then "They stand up to about 80 to 90 cm".
Yes, an overlooked issue. Fixed as far as possible, but I have generally seen that the number may be altered from singular to plural and vice versa. It need not be and often can not be the same throughout the article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor one. This sentence is awkward: "The reaction of dibatag towards gerenuk is obscure, with there being reports of their loose associations as well as avoidance of each other." I think 'with' is discouraged as a conjunction for ambiguity, and the noun + -ing construction is also discouraged. Have you seen this? It's awesome. Specifically WP:PLUSING.
I never came across such issues in my earlier articles, added to that I am not a native English speaker. I will go through the page you mentioned. For now, you know better about such grammar. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fighting sentences are juxtaposed with territory ones. Does this imply they're territorial? Can any more info be added about when and why they fight and whom with? Only other dibatag males? What about gerenuk?
Altered. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might it make more sense to rearrange the second para in Eco and behavior to have the food info last, so that juxtposes predators after fighting and eating behavior before diet?
You do come up with good new suggestions. It may look weird compared to so many other articles, not just about mammals but even birds, where, for some reason, diet always precedes reproduction. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will drop these here for now so you can get started if you like, then come back with more comments later. Looks good so far! delldot ∇. 06:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second part

[edit]
  • I think some of the eating info in Eco and behavior could be combined with the Diet subsection, e.g. "The elongated upper lip assists in the ingestion of thorny vegetation", then in Diet, "They use their flexible lips and front teeth to pluck off foliage." When I read the first sentence I was thinking "how does it help?" So maybe that could use fleshing out.
Good suggestion. Just for the sake of describing I have kept the fact that the lip is elongated in the Description, but its utility has now been fully shifted to Diet. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes it's 'the dibatag' and sometimes just 'dibatag'. I'm not sure if this needs to be uniform but thought I'd mention it.
It would be good if it were uniform. Done. It is difficult to take care of so many tidbits, and even more if you keep glancing at your work, you often stop noticing flaws! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never tried that out in my other articles, but I think your idea is nice here as there is hardly any image. Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lifespan of a dibatag is nearly 10 to 12 years." --'nearly'? What does this mean when a range is offered? Must mean it averages 10 to 12 years right?
Right. Altered. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first para in Habitat and distribution, I think the treelands sentence should go after the first sentence (with grasslands, etc.) and the two sentences that mention red soil should be together. And of course whatever refs apply to them should be copied with them.
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the threat to dibatag from livestock should be clearer in Habitat and distribution. How does "habitat degradation due to excessive numbers of livestock" occur? Is habitat loss the only reason livestock are a threat?
From what I have understood it is due to competition for food. Their diets are similar, grasses and all, and the livestock take away the lion's share. I had to add it under the Threats and conservation section as that is the way I write, mentioning threats separately, with conservation measures. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the third para in Habitat and distribution not in Threats and conservation instead? I would think at least the Somalia info could be merged with the Somalia info in the first para of Threats and conservation.
The latter section is simply about threats, populations and conservation measures, and for the sake of convenience I have tried to keep out all distribution-related details. I know the difference is barely noticeable but I must stick to it if I have to prepare sections. I agree with the Somalia part, though; done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This 1895 book has some sketches, might one be good to add? Particularly the one showing the running gait?
Sorry I am unable to access the sketches. You mean we should upload the images? I am not usually associated with uploading stuff here... Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more info:
    • Female is smaller: Castelló 2016 p. 162.
    • More predators: Castelló 2016 p. 163.
Added.
    • Castelló mentions groups of 6, contradicting the "up to 5" claim here.
Fixed.
    • Former range 200K sq mi. Rafferty, J.P. (2011).
I have got only online access to this book, and for some reason it does not load. Will see when I can get it.

Close paraphrasing

[edit]
  • Looks like some copyright problems still exist, with wording lifted right from sources. e.g.
    • "groups of up to five females and young have been reported." (and close paraphrasing in the rest of the sentence.
See above. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Somalia, where overhunting, droughts and habitat degradation due to excessive numbers of livestock" (close paraphrasing from Rafferty, J.P. (2011). p. 98)
    • "semi-arid, dense to scattered bushes, savannas with low to medium height thornbushes and plains with thickets or grassland mosaics...Sandy to moderately gravelled soil and red soil rich in ferrous oxide (characterised by termite mounds)" close paraphrasing to [1]
    • "political instability and civil and military conflicts over..." close paraphrasing to [2]
      • Reworded. (hopefully good enough--I can't see the source now). 06:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the copyright issues I better take a closer look at all the sources. If you're aware of any other cases where a sentence is lifted directly from a source or is very similarly worded, please fix ASAP. delldot ∇. 08:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More close paraphrasing or copying:

Done.
I understand the policies of Wikipedia, and in the cases you have mentioned it is really difficult to escape paraphrasing, even unintentionally. I could fix only two instances, and the unaddressed ones I failed to reword. Seems I am still too inexperienced, I feel sorry. But I honestly have not copied anything, it must have been that I took up the sentence that first suggested itself to me and added it - I am a quick editor. I shall be careful in the future. I will be really grateful if you could help out here and let me learn a bit. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sleep now and take another look tomorrow. delldot ∇. 08:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must praise you - you are one of the very few reviewers who go into such detail - with the precision of FAC! - and react so positively. You are a valuable asset for the encyclopedia. Also, thanks for all the copyediting you have done in this article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, thanks for the kind words, and the quick response. All the responses are fine except I'm very concerned about the close paraphrasing issue. Many of the sentences I found were almost identical to the source. I know what you mean because I often have the same problem--I'll read something, come up with a sentence about it that seems like my own creation, then look back at the source and find it's near exactly what was written. What I do is check back with the source to make sure (also to make sure I haven't introduced any inaccuracies, another problem I have). Other tricks are to take notes, then write from the notes later (e.g. if you'd had a note "name from Somali: dabu=tail, tag=erect", it probably wouldn't have retained "vernacular" and "derives" or the exact sentence structure of the source.) For the case where the structure of a paragraph is duplicated, relying on more than one source can help. I'm going to focus my efforts on finding all the problematic sentences, and leave it to you to reword them. If they can't be fixed quickly let's take them out for now and work on them over time. I'm happy to contribute specific help where you need it but I'm not going to rewrite each sentence. Is there a chance that similar close paraphrasing exists in other articles you've worked on? It might be good to check, since this is a big concern. delldot ∇. 21:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's so helpful! I won't dare to forget all that you have suggested here. I will attempt to rephrase these lines, it is my responsibility to learn and accomplish this. I am not so regular here, but I will try to check paraphrasing (if any) in my earlier articles. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, ping me whenever you've had an attempt at each one, I can definitely help with copy editing after. delldot ∇. 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked ref 6 and found no problems, so that's good. Still checking the rest. I'm anxious about leaving these sentences in any longer so I'm going to start taking them out until they can be reworded. If you need help maybe I can make some suggestions, just let me know. delldot ∇. 01:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some rewording and stricken sentences I think are no longer a concern. I also removed a few sentences, but I think the information should be re-added in your own words. I can help copy edit the sentences if they need it. I think the para that follows the structure in the para from the source (which I pointed out above) needs to be rearranged to avoid copyright problems. I also added a citation in the middle of a para so left a {{cn}} tag before so it wouldn't look like that ref covered the whole previous para. So hopefully that info is all covered in the ref after the next sentence and that can be added to it. Also, I would like to check the Oryx article but cannot access it. Can you provide a quote here of the sentence ours is based on? I just have to finish checking the last few refs, so hopefully that won't take long. delldot ∇. 06:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been elsewhere for a while. Thanks for all your edits, I am learning from them. Better talk in points:

  • Paraphrasing : Now I see how to deal with paraphrasing, especially the ob you have done in Threats and conservation. I see you removed much of the habitat description; I tried my best to reword it, but it still appears to be a paraphrase. Is there any way we can re-add that info? Another deleted part is in Description
  • Copyediting : Thanks for the copyedits, where else do you think we need it now? I worked on Ecology and behaviour, some more work is there in Description
  • Restructuring : Going to work on Description Done with Description
  • References : The citations are properly arranged throughout the article now. About the Oryx article, I did not access it fully, rather I used the information and saw that the source from where I got this directly cites the Oryx article for this. This is not the case always, though - I often take the conclusions from abstracts of studies if I can not access the articles. I can not really provide a quote. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, I didn't see this info in the source I was able to look at. What sentence or sentences in the source is it based on? (i.e. " Their occurrence has also been correlated with the incidence of Commiphora shrublands." I saw no mention of Commiphora in that abstract.) delldot ∇. 01:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delldot How does it look now? Sorry it has taken so long a time. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, have you added back all the info, but reworded? I will look back at everything asap, sorry I have been busy lately. delldot ∇. 01:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the info has been reworded and the paragraph restructured as much as possible. You may like to check from the source itself. I got the Commiphora line (it is not a paraphrase as far as I can recall) from the Kingdon source, that directly associated it with the Oryx article. I hope that makes it clear. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, the Kingdon source cites the Oryx article. Let's just cite the Kingdon source then, primary sources are not as good anyway, and we can't actually verify that that info is even in the article. I changed the wording of that sentence since I felt it was still too close of a paraphrase (using several of the same words in generally the same order). delldot ∇. 19:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Thanks. It is indeed a great image with the gerenuk included in the background. But I can not find it either. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the image is from the same book as the subspecies illustrations in hartebeest, so I'll ping the uploader, Mariomassone. FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will use it from now on. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion needed

[edit]

I'm sorry for taking so long on this and for not being able to wrap it up myself. I just think that although I looked closely at the prose, I'm not confident that I caught all the close paraphrasing, so it would be good for someone else to look at it. For example, the sentence we discussed above with the Oryx source: it was a couple exchanges before it was clear that it was from the Kingdon source, then when I found the sentence it was based on I felt it was too closely worded. So I'm concerned that there could possibly be more instances like this, so I'm not confident enough to pass it. Thanks for all your hard work so far and I'm sorry I could not be more helpful. Best of luck with everything! delldot ∇. 04:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be sorry. I have created enough inconvenience due to my mistakes, so this was expected. I think most copyvio cases have been dealt with as far as possible, and we need a hawk-eye scan to detect any more instances. I will try my hand at it when I get time. Earwig's copyvio detector might help. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muck for the understanding, I'm glad you're not upset. Yeah I had checked the cv detector before but did not get any hits--I think maybe it doesn't check Goolge Books? delldot ∇. 03:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is "only" a GAN, so an extensive FAC-style source review isn't necessary (unless there is a reason to suspect misconduct). FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my efforts to detect any remaining copyvio, but could not find any. FunkMonk is right about the GAN process, we have already gone very deep into the article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, since there were copyvio and close paraphrasing issues earlier, it would make sense to ask someone experienced in that area to make a check to be sure all is well? I was wondering whether Nikkimaria might be able to take a look before this is signed off. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see some problematic close paraphrasing in Reproduction para 1 and Diet (both from footnote 6) that should be addressed before promotion; there some other more minor close paraphrasing of footnote 6 elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better, and I would say good enough, though keep an eye on footnote 6 if this does end up going to FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, FAC is still a long way to go. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Delldot: ? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Delldot: 15 days since I last pinged you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, super busy IRL. Is there anyone else that can look this over? The fact that more close paraphrasing was discovered after my thorough search and edits does not make me feel confident. delldot ∇. 05:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Delldot: I assure you that I have thoroughly checked for any more paraphrasing. Unavoidable paraphrasing has been removed and the remaining parts are not serious paraphrases after all the rewording that has occurred since then. This article was written and repaired with much effort, and I am certain it meets most of the GA criteria by now. What would happen if it is failed? No more info is to be added at the moment, and I do not really see what we can do further for this article. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Delldot: @Sainsf: If I may be so bold as to add my opinion, and you both may take it or leave it: This article, by definition of the subject area, cannot but turn up a few hits on a copyvio detector. It appears to me that both of you have spent an extended period of due diligence in that regard, which does you both credit. I personally would pass this article as GA, after one really minor clean-up to follow - it is excellent work, and compares very well with other GA (and even FA) articles in the Biology space.
I see really just one sentence that is left of any actual concern in terms of close paraphrasing - with a very simple solution: In the section "Habitat and distribution", where you speak of pastoralists, that paraphrased sentence would benefit from having the term "pastoralists" wikilinked. It's an important term in the context of this section, and to dance around it by rephrasing would be doing the article a disservice - but by wikilinking it, the point is reinforced if the reader wants to delve further into the difference between the northern and southern Ogaden. Thank you for reading! --Concertmusic (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Concertmusic: Thanks for your opinion. It's encouraging. I will add a link.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainsf (talk • contribs)
Thanks very much Concertmusic, that gives me enough confidence to pass it. Much appreciation to both you and Nikkimaria for taking the time to comb through this and make sure it meets standard. delldot ∇. 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dibatag/GA1&oldid=1136310639"