Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giraffe/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 21 December 2011 [1].

Giraffe

[edit]

Giraffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is now ready. Since it gained GA status and it's last FA nomination, it has been expanded, peer reviewed and copyedited. It now has a fairly complete overview of the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranges should use endashes
Where? LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, someone else fixed it. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 1: which volume is being cited here?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I've restored it in corrected form. {{MSW3 Artiodactyla}} is the standard way to reference it, and implies the volume. I've corrected the page number. Grubb published in 1971, so hardly supplants MSW3 as a reference for current views on subspecies. --Stfg (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how page ranges are notated
Please be specific. They look fine to me. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with hopefully better sources. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 10: need more info. What kind of source is this?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
Will work on that. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Working. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johns Hopkins University Press or The Johns Hopkins University Press? Check for consistency in naming. Nikkimaria
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikkimaria, (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who chopped Nikkimaria's sig and what else was chopped here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you're looking at the right one? Ref 27 is already a {{cite book}}. LittleJerry (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well-written and seemingly well-sourced. ceranthor 13:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally, giraffes can coexist with livestock, since they feed in the trees above their heads. - citation?

Mammal encyclopedia I believe. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In comparison with other ruminants, such as deer and cattle, the giraffe has proportionally larger eyes, with which it can locate food and distant predators from its great height. - This comes from Mammal Anatomy, I assume. Could you clarify?
Yes it does. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Southern Africa, giraffes feed on all acacias, especially Acacia erioloba. The tongue and lips are tough enough to allow them to feed on trees with sharp thorns. - Do these both come from Mammal Anatomy as well?
The latter does. I can remove the former if it will be a problem. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, the name of the tree means Camel Thorn or Giraffe Thorn, but if you wish to use a citation one's available at [2] -- simply type 'giraffe' in the search bar provided. ceranthor 16:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but no thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments this is looking a lot better than when I last saw it (I was trying to read it on my android). I do think we're in striking distance of FA status at first look. Will have a proper read-through and jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now one of the interesting issues about a subject with a broad body of material to draw from is that we could keep expanding this article to a huge size, so obviously we have to draw the line somewhere. It currently stands at around 4800 words/29kb of prose, which could be a little bigger if we found content worth including. It'd be good to get a consensus on optimum size here.
The giraffe has been prized by various cultures.. - "prized" sounds really weird in this context - I am trying to think of a better word "The giraffe has intrigued by various cultures..." maybe...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite its popularity, it has been extirpated from many parts of its former range, and some subspecies are classified as endangered... - I think a great many "popular" animals have suffered..including just about all megafauna. I'd lose the first bit and flip so we put the sentence which says "least concern" first followed by the one with extirpation and vanishing subspecies. More sober and depressing that way..
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked some convert templates - it looks funny if you have one unit abbreviated and other not. I suggest you abbreviate the rest.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Neck section you have both the word and symbol for "per cent" - I'm not fussed which one you use but it should be consistent for the whole article.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, it is looking much better on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. I am just thinking about that again and reading over. These big articles are tricky when trying to figure out what else we need including. I am waiting a bit to see what others think too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The episode on the giraffe for Inside Nature's Giants mentioned that the giraffe's neck is held up by elastic muscles that make the neck revert to it's default position after it is done lowering it's head to the ground. Unforunately I could not find this fact in the literature I have. I also wish there was more information on the portrayals of the giraffe in African cultures. Also, atleast two sources say that the giraffe has to breathe more regularly than expected for an animal of it's size but other sources suggest that the giraffe breathes slowly and it's anatomy prolongs the time it takes to inhale and exhale. I don't know if there's a contradiction here. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I agree that those three points are worth including in the article. I might be able to find something with fulltext/uni access and will try a bit later today. I'd definitely feel more comfortable on comprehensiveness-grounds with those items in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I managed to solve all three isolves. I contacted Graham Mitchell and he informed me that the studies now show that the giraffe is a slow breather. The Mammalian Species mentions the ligment and I managed to find a little more information on the giraffe's role in African culture. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. There is a lot of matching content here: [4] but most of this site's content seems to have been copied form Wikipedia without attribution. Graham Colm (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the sexual selection paragraph against the sources: :*The other main theory, the sexual selection hypothesis, proposes that the long necks evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic, giving males an advantage in "necking" contests (see below) to establish dominance and obtain access to sexually receptive females.[11]

*Supported by the source

:*In support of this theory, males have proportionally larger necks than females,[40][11]

*Supported, but unclear, does "larger" mean longer or heavier or both? Both references do their allometry against neck mass, not length.
Forget about this one. Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Which cite justifies the statement "males have proportionally longer necks than females"? All the allometry in these two papers seems to be against mass, not length. The Tanzanian one did length as well, but found little difference between males and females on that factor. --99of9 (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cite [11] mentions length. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Sure, but can you point to specifically where it justifies the sentence I quoted? The closest I can find is "Neck lengths also differ between the sexes" on p777, but the figure it gives is an absolute average, not relative to the rest of the body, and (unlike mass mentioned immediately after) not controlled for the mass of the giraffe (which is obviously different between m/f). --99of9 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Ok, I think that is supportable, and works ok in the argument. Striking this section.
*and males with longer, bigger necks are more successful in dominance displays and courtship behavior.[45]
*Not supported by the source as far as I can see. The article does mention correlations with age, size, and confidence, but never even height, neck length, or most importantly neck/leg ratios. The concluding paragraphs are fairly clear, and include the sentences "a dominance hierarchy in which each individual's relative standing is determined by his age and size" and "Frequency of courtship was correlated with age of bull."

:*However, a major criticism of this theory is that it fails to adequately explain why female giraffes also have long necks.[46]

  • Possibly worded too strongly (I would strike the word major). Reference [40] replies with "However, sexual selection does not directly predict allometrically longer necks but more powerful ones for males.", and "The critical point is that males need only a long neck to reach high-level leaves (natural selection hypothesis), not a massive and ever increasing one to do so. For sexual selection, this is required and predicted for males and not for females.". But hmmm... isn't the whole point of the theory to explain why the neck is LONG???
Replaced and fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • necking is the only form of combat recorded
Whether it counts as combat or not, it's interesting. Physical combat is expensive to both animals; no point doing it if the outcome is a foregone conclusion; so many species size each other up and only fight if they must. (But I am guilty of WP:OR here; please don't use it unless there's a source). --Stfg (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Combat requires physical contact. Staring would be just intimidation. LittleJerry (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Axl

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "It stands 5–6 m (16–20 ft) tall and has an average weight of 1,200 kg (2,600 lb) for males and 830 kilograms (1,800 lb) for females." I'm not sure why males are weighed in "kg" and females in "kilograms". Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "They are also nearly invulnerable to predation, although lions, leopards, spotted hyenas and wild dogs prey on calves, and lions take adults in some areas." The list of predators that eat calves appears to contradict the the claim of being "nearly invulnerable". Perhaps adults are "nearly invulnerable" to predation? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Males mate with multiple females." Each male mates with multiple females? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Taxonomy and evolution", paragraph 2: "Mathurin Jacques Brisson erected the genus Giraffa in 1762." "Erected"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", the picture "Genetic subdivision in the giraffe based on mitochondrial DNA sequences" is rather complex and needs a more detailed caption. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to simplify and clarify the new caption, including internal links. Despite this, the explanation of the phylogenetic tree is really only intelligible to a biologist. (A similar problem arose at the FAC for "Slow loris".) I wonder if the image would better with the phylogram cropped away? I'm not sure; I welcome other opinions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think only a few sentence have that problem. I give it more internal links. LittleJerry (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Axl invites other opinions, here goes: I am not a biologist; I understand all but the last two sentences; but also, I'm quite happy when articles have some tough stuff -- it's an invitation to explore it if we want. So my vote would go for keeping it (but maybe link "paraphyletic" too. "paraphyletic haplotypes" is by far the hardest thing to understand in this). HTH --Stfg (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", G. c. camelopardalis, G. c. reticulata and G. c. angolensis use the passive present perfect: "It has been estimated...". G. c. tippelskirchi and G. c. giraffa use the passive present "It is estimated...". In my opinion, the passive present is preferable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", I am surprised to see that every subspecies has a population of "fewer than x". While this is reasonable for small populations such as G. c. peralta and G. c. camelopardalis, it becomes meaningless for large populations such as G. c. tippelskirchi. "Fewer than 40,000" means "somewhere between 0 and 40,000". Why didn't the authors of the source include lower limits for the populations? In my opinion, this is a cynical ploy by the conservationist authors to mislead naive readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", G. c. tippelskirchi: "It occurs in central and southern Kenya and in Tanzania." How about "It lives in central and southern Kenya and in Tanzania."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", G. c. rothschildi: "It may also occur in South Sudan." Perhaps "It also lives in South Sudan."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 1: "The giraffe's fur may serve as a chemical defence, as it is full of antibiotics and parasite repellents that give the animal a characteristic scent." "Antibiotics" refer to chemicals produced by micro-organisms. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 2: "The giraffe has the longest recurrent laryngeal nerve." I believe that's true of living animals, but extinct sauropods had longer recurrent laryngeal nerves. It's worth clarifying this in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 2: "The shape of the skeleton limits the static lung volume of the giraffe." This is true for all animals with skeletons. How is this different for the giraffe? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 2: "Its long neck and narrow windpipe give it a high amount of dead space." The long neck does indeed increase the dead space. However the narrow windpipe actually reduces the amount of dead space. Both factors increase the resistance of the airway and lead to increased energy expenditure during breathing. [Disclosure: I am a pulmonologist.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Legs, locomotion and posture", paragraph 3: "The giraffe has one of the shortest sleep requirements of any mammal, averaging only 4.5 or 4.6 hours of sleep per day." When quoting an average, why use two different values? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Physical appearance and anatomy", paragraph 2: "The nerve starts at the brain, runs down the length of the neck and crosses over a blood vessel at the top of the heart before looping back up the neck and ending at the larynx." I now have a copy of "Mammal Anatomy". "Mammal Anatomy" does indeed state "the giraffe's laryngeal nerve ... measures around 15 feet (4.5 m) long. It begins at the brain and runs down the length of the neck." I believe that this is a common misconception. The recurrent laryngeal nerve actually begins as a branch from the vagus nerve. The left recurrent laryngeal nerve crosses under the arch of the aorta. The right nerve crosses under the right subclavian artery. I believe that "The Anatomy and Physiology of the Mammalian Larynx" by Harrison states that the giraffe's left recurrent laryngeal nerve is about two metres [six feet] long. Perhaps it could be argued that the nerve fibres run from the brain, around the aorta, to the larynx. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. I believe the book was measuring both the left and right nerves together. LittleJerry (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that "Mammal Anatomy" was measuring both the left and right nerves together, because it states "It begins at the brain and runs down the length of the neck." As I already stated, the recurrent laryngeal nerve begins as a branch from the vagus nerve. Indeed you can clearly see this on the diagram that you added to the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I added in this information with a new source. I find it hard to believe that the nerve is only 6 feet long. That's the length of the neck itself and if the nerves runs down the neck and loops back up, it would have to be much longer. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The recurrent laryngeal nerve does not run down the neck and loop back up: that is my point. Look again at the diagram that you added. You will see that the recurrent laryngeal nerve arises from the vagus nerve, near the aorta. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham Mitchell informed me via e-mail that the nerve is 15 feet long. I presume he means the entire vagus nerve since the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of it. So I made the appropriate changes. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to remove it altogether. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent text still wasn't quite right. I understand why you deleted it. On the other hand, the information is often used by proponents of evolution (notably Richard Dawkins) as evidence. I'll see if I can draft a sentence or two that is both accurate and supported by a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this: "In mammals, the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is longer than the right; in the giraffe, the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is over 30 cm longer than the right one. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is longer in the giraffe than in any other extant animal; the left nerve is over two metres long." The reference is "The Anatomy and Physiology of the Mammalian Larynx, DFN Harrison, page 165".
    The exact text from Harrison is: "All mammals, however, have recurrent laryngeal nerves longer on the left than the right. Differences may vary from 0.8 cm in the rat, 13 cm in dog, 11 cm in humans to over 30 cm in the giraffe.... The left recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is the longest nerve in the animal kingdom being over 2 m long." Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion. I put it in. LittleJerry (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added some more information with a good reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Physical appearance and anatomy", subsection "Neck", paragraph 1: "This elongation, which occurs in large part after birth, is a 150 percent increase in vertebrae length over similar-sized animals." Does this mean that the length of the vertebral column is two and a half times the length in similar-sized animals? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Habitat and feeding", paragraph 1, the information about the tongue should be in the "Physical appearance and anatomy" section. Also, I believe that the tongue is dark blue in colour? It's worth mentioning this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Social structure and breeding habits", paragraph 2: "During courtship, dominant males will displace subordinates from the presence of the females by staring and walking towards them." The subordinates are males? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Social structure and breeding habits", paragraph 2: "at any given time one in twenty males were engaged in non-combative necking behavior with another male." I thought that necking was their form of combat? What is "non-combative necking behavior"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Birthing and parental care", paragraph 1: "Within a few hours of birth, the calf can run around and is indistinguishable from one a week old.... The horns, which have lain flat since it was in the womb, become erect within a few days." These two statements are contradictory. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Birthing and parental care", paragraph 2: "Giraffes only defend their own young; they form calving herds for selfish reasons." What are these selfish reasons? This statement seems to be rather speculative to me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure if this is suitable as part of this discussion but since it involves a known mistakes in a potential FA article: How about a corrected map in the taxobox? The person that made the current taxobox map made a misinterpretation of the IUCN map. (IUCN have since changed their maps to a format that perhaps will be more useful in the future but presently has some fundamental usage problems.) IUCN divided the range into subspecies but subspecies names were not written over every single dot on the map. The two small dots in Uganda are Rothschild giraffe (not Nubian giraffe). There should also be a small Rothschild giraffe dot in central Kenya at Lake Nakuru. 212.10.91.63 (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, map was outdated. I contacted the author of the current map. LittleJerry (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author of the SVG map (me) has corrected herself now  ›mysid (☎✎) 15:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was like that before. Other animal articles have the same. LittleJerry (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It verifies much of the information in the taxobox. --Stfg (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Giraffe/archive2&oldid=1138461602"