Talk:Megaherbivore

Megaherbivore 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: January 12, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 26 December 2022 by reviewer UtherSRG (talk · contribs).

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.

Aiming to improve the article

Let's talk about what to add, fix or improve about this page. 20 upper (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megafauna

You should ensure whatever you have here is in alignment with what's at Megafauna. For instance, that the category isn't locked at being 1000kg and larger, but rather a lower weight of as low as 46 kg. Keep consistencies like this in mind as you gather your information and do your writing. Also, that article is a great source of reference material as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is in perfect alignment with the article Megafauna. In that article they said an animal that is 46 kg or more is considered to be a Megafauna not a Megaherbivore. Megaherbivores are a very large type of Megafauna and the largest herbivores on Earth. 20 upper (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what it says. While megaherbivores are a type of megafauna, it is just a subgroup based on diet, not based on size. UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers

20 upper thanks for the page numbers here. But a problem/question:

Owen-Smith is cited 6 times in the article:

a b c d e f Owen-Smith, R. Norman (1988). Megaherbivores: The Influence of Very Large Body Size on Ecology. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-521-42637-4.

Ray is cited 3 times in the article:

a b c Ray, Justina; Redford, Kent H.; Steneck, Robert; Berger, Joel (2013-04-09). Large Carnivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity. Island Press. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-59726-609-3.

When you are citing books, or multiple page numbers in a journal article, using cite templates can be cumbersome. Are all six instances of Owen-Smith found on page 1, and are all three instances of Ray found on page 87? If the page numbers are different on each instance cited, you can use instead the {{rp}} template to specify page numbers, or you can switch to the sfn method of citing (see for example Palladian architecture for sfns in action). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, at this stage, my recommendation would be to use the rp template, as learning sfn might be more than you want to take on right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20 upper now you're cooking with gas on page numbers. I did not flag them all, but I see you have the gist now; there are more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Example lists

Do we need these? I find them excessive. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That somehow slipped under my radar; I'll be reverting the IP's edits shortly. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - UtherSRG (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]