Talk:Okapi/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks cool, I'll take it! FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why the binomial is (self) linked under taxonomy?

A mistake, done.

I've often read that the existence of this animal was first thought a hoax in the west, if so, perhaps warrants a mention?

Couldn't find many reliable sources for adequate information about this, actually the sources I have seen say that the animal was initially confused with the horse, but is there any hoax there?

"Harry Johnston is linked several times.

Corrected.

"However, the species has been placed in its own subfamily Okapiinae" When and by who?

Added.

I once heard that a specimen in Copenhagen Zoo died of shock due to loud music being played near it, and that okapis are apparently sensitive in captivity. Anything to this?

I found out about this incident, a report is available here. But there were three okapi present, and the music proved fatal for only one female. Moreover, I could not discover much about the okapi's sensitivity, at least not from reliable sources.

None of the photos appear to show specimens with horns, could one be added? Perhaps a close up of a head?
This photo may be nice as it shows both the horns and the striped rump well:[1]

Added this photo, it's great!

Perhaps the sexes of the shown specimens should be mentioned in the captions?

The sexes have not been specified in the file descriptions of the images, but since all of them lack clear horns, may be they are females?

Unless young males also lack horns? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we take the risk of guessing these things arbitrarily?

Nah, not if it can't be done with certainty. But we do know for sure that the horned ones are male, though. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this up. Eager to resolve all issues, Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"While both sexes in the giraffe possess horns, only males bear" Sentence seems incomplete.

Corrected.

" and shares more similarities with the deer and bovids than with the giraffe." May this statement not be a bit extreme? I'm sure that people looking at skeletal morphology and genes would disagree. Maybe reword to "more external similarities with" or some such? FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modified

"who walk by moving alternate legs" Is it appropriate to refer to animals as "who"?

Changed to "that".

Perhaps this image of the tongue[2] is more interesting than the one currently under ecology?

But the tongue has not been mentioned under ecology.

Well, you could argue that it should be mentioned under diet? How does it use its tongue? And well, feeding comes under ecology. Anyway, the point is that the current image is kind of boring in comparison, the article already has many pictures like it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The okapi is sometimes referred to as an example of a living fossil." Isn't this more relevant under taxonomy? And could there be more info on its evolution maybe? When did it split off from the giraffe line?

Researched a bit. I have added a new section including the relevant info. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, some stuff was added by another user, just make sure it matches what's in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is inconsistency in whether you say "okapis" or "okapi" in plural.

I don't add "s" in the plural, and have tried to use "okapi" throughout the article. I hope there are no deviations from this.

In that case, there are still four places where s is used. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"They often rub against trees and leave a brown exudate." From where?

Added

Could Flehmen response be explained very briefly?

Done

"Rut in males and estrus in females" Links?

Done

"have false eyelashes" What is this?

Not so clear in the source, but most probably pseudo or apparent in nature.

"They are endemic to the tropical forests of Zaire." Why use the obsolete name Zaire?

Corrected

Now that country is "overlinked" twice too much it seems.

Done

Perhaps some of this info about the first western depiction is worthy of inclusion: https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsofzoo19012zool#page/n51/mode/2up

Interestinlgy, it seems soemoen propsoed it was a living Helladotherium, which I guess is why it is considered a living fossil. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's awesome help! Done my best with this.

Isn't that the same image (see plate 1 in the source) we have on the article? But it is not clear whether it is Harry Johnston or Sclater who painted it. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's the same, Johnston sent a painting, and this seems to be a lithograph based on it. Searching for a larger version of the image is what led me to the source. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: I think sources 11 and 13 are unreliable. In particular, 11 can be replaced with the actual Hunt and Skinner sources. The Skinner source can be found here. LittleJerry (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13 seems somewhat unreliable, though not 11. If you can find the original sources, it would be a great job. I tried to access this link but it seemed dead. Perhaps you could assist with the citation? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, I'm ready to pass when the source issue is somehow resolved. Anything to add, LittleJerry? FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both 11 and 14 (my mistake not 13) are anti-evolution papers, so I think they should be replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed both the indicated sources; they were indeed creationist productions of debatable standing. As for the content based on the cites, I found the original journal source for the 2nd half (Skinner - okapi interpreted as Palaeotragus) and added that reference; couldn't find the source for the former half though (Hunt - Giraffa / Okapia) and have thus removed that bit for the time being.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading is tech - LittleJerry provided the Skinner link already, natch. If someone can rustle up the Hunt reference, we are good (all I'm getting is an old TalkOrigins post w/o specific refs).-- Elmidae (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TalkOrigins is it, added. All good now FunkMonk. LittleJerry (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, not sure if TalkOrigins would suffice for FAC, but it is ok here, so I'll pass the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]