Talk:African wild dog/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments
This is an interesting, mature, and well-structured article, and I have rather few comments to make on it.


 * There is a citation needed tag in Hunting and diet. ✅


 * The claim about being an apex predator is inadequately supported. The supporting reference is in any case not really about the species and is doubtfully a reliable source for this sort of claim (and in fact it seems that it only ever supported part of the sentence). However the claim can be supported by [96] Aebischer et al 2020 so please repeat that for the apex predator part (and remove the anecdotal crocodile part). ✅

The first paragraph of "Threats and conservation" from "Surveys in the Central" to "trading lion skins" is mainly off-topic (lions not dogs). Please cut it down to focus on the dogs. ✅


 * Refs [4], [11] need publisher. ✅


 * Refs like [4], [5], [7], [55] are basically WP:PRIMARY (wild dog and similar charities) and as such are rather poor sources if indeed we can use them at all: normally we can only use that sort of thing for basic facts about the charities themselves, not for science. It would certainly be better to use proper research papers as has been done for most of this article. ✅


 * Refs [14] Scott, [25] Wang Tedford, [39] Castello, [40] Kingdon, [65] Creel Creel, [94] Grenard. and [95] Jackman Scott are missing page numbers. ✅ Couldn't find a page for the last one


 * Ref [51] needs author, date, website (Phys.Org). ✅


 * Ref [66] Walker et al should cite the research paper not the image. ✅


 * "The fur ..... It gradually loses its fur" => "Adults gradually lose their fur" ✅


 * "Tigrean shepherds would repel" => "Tigrean shepherds used to repel" ✅


 * Several instances of "also" in text and tables are redundant and should be removed. ✅


 * I'm a bit surprised to see Hugo van Lawick and Jane Goodall's excellent book relegated to "Further reading". I suggest we at least wikilink both of these famous authors; better would be to add a mention of the book in the main text (maybe adjust the In media heading...), as it has been cited by numerous scientists as a pioneering work on the species. ✅


 * The other three sources in "Further reading" seem odd choices: the two papers should either be used in the text and cited there, or removed, while the book "Mammal species of the world" seems simply misplaced and should be removed. ✅


 * In External links, the AWF link should be https://www.awf.org/wildlife-conservation/african-wild-dog. ✅


 * In External links, the WCN link doesn't discuss dogs at all, please remove it. ✅


 * The "Distribution and habitat" section occupies a large part of the article. The title is somewhat of a mismatch with the content as most of the section is taken up by a series of enormous tables going into minute and probably WP:UNDUE detail on local distribution, while habitat is mentioned only in the first two paragraphs. The material is however derived almost entirely from one paper, [47] Fanshawe et al 1997. Further, the use of national flags in "Distribution and habitat" is non-standard (see MOS:FLAGCRUFT). These features reinforce the impression that the material is undue; excellent as the 1997 work may have been, it is now quite old and probably superseded in many parts of Africa. I think we should remove all the tables and replace them with a) a SHORT summary of [47], and b) the addition of some more recent work on African wild dog distribution, even if this is only fragmentary (e.g. South Africa, Botswana, Tanzania, Zimbabwe where I see work has been done). ✅
 * The list of Indigenous names is inappropriate for a species article on English Wikipedia, which is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). Unless there is good reason to mention a name in another language, such as that the name is the origin of the English name, it's basically wandering off-topic (Criterion 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). ✅


 * Image usage is appropriate and from Commons; licensing appears to be appropriate.

Summary
This is a largely well-constructed article on an important topic. With the few changes indicated, it should soon make a worthy Good Article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ALMOST done.  Dancing  Dollar ( let's talk ) 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All of your points have, I believe, been covered.  Dancing  Dollar ( let's talk ) 17:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)