Talk:Asian elephant/GA1

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

Nominator: 18:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 05:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Will be taking this up for review. Expect comments soon. Thanks!

Lead
1. India in the west to Borneo in the east and Nepal in the north to Sumatra in the South? 2. smaller ears than African elephants or lateral folding is different compared to African? 3. and/or? 4. Normal lifespan of wild elephants? 5. Lead can have a line on intelligence?
 * Fixed (modified it, ✅)
 * Specified (modified it, ✅)
 * Or (✅)
 * Added (modified it, ✅)
 * Added (modified it, ✅)

Taxonomy
1. a. IUCN source does not talk about sub-species? b. The table gives four sub-species when it is indicated as three? c. The usage of table is suspect here. If a table is used, better to split into species/image/description/distribution d. There is no explanation on the demarcation between the sub-species
 * It does (✅)
 * The last one (Bornean) is uncertain
 * Fixed (modified it, ✅)
 * No need, removed table (✅)
 * There's no need for that
 * Added something

2. Primary source does not have link/page nos. 3. source? 4. a. The source indicates that Deraniyagala identified 12 sub species 8 living but the classification (above 3 + Borneo + below 3 = 7) does not match. There is no naming of the species. b. The list is again based on the source already indicated with no link/page nos. 5. Source does not mention this, page no.?
 * Added (✅)
 * Added (✅)
 * That is from 1955. Today there are only 3 subspecies not 8. And most sources concur that only those 3 extinct subspecies are valid. (Modified, ✅)
 * The link is there (✅)
 * You need to pay to access the whole study
 * Fixed (✅)

6. No page no. or link provided for the book source
 * Added (✅)

Description
1.  These lines quote a book source with page no. 208. As per the contents of the book, elephants are described in page 141 and it cannot be verified as well. 2. Please add page no. 522/523 to source 3. Add page no. 17 to Guinness book source
 * Fixed (✅)
 * Fixed (✅)
 * Fixed (✅)

Distribution and habitat
1. Same as lead 2. They inhabit 3. no page nos. 4. Updated data available for 2017, please refer to Project Elephant 4. This is in India or worldwide?
 * Fixed (modified, ✅)
 * Fixed (✅)
 * Added (✅)
 * Added (✅)
 * Specified (✅)

Ecology and behaviour
1. Sourced from a single book source with no page no.
 * Page no is 142 (✅)

Reproduction
1. three weeks 2. Source?
 * Fixed (✅)
 * Added (✅)

Intelligence
1. source? 2. Sources with no pages/links e.g. "Elephant Bill", "Thirteen years among the wild beasts of India."
 * Done (✅)
 * Done (✅)

Threats
1. Few sources need links/relevant identifiers e.g. "An assessment of the human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka.", "Elephant raiders and rogues." 2. Source for it being prime elephant habitat? 3. Data for which period? 4. source? 5. captured from where? 6. The section of handling should come with captivity. In fact, as the captivity section talks nothing about conservation, it is better to merge and place it under threats. 7. What is EEHV? 8. period?
 * Added (✅)
 * Source already there (modified, ✅)
 * Added (✅)
 * Source already provided (✅)
 * The wild (✅)
 * Moved handling section, but made In captivity into its own section (✅)
 * Fixed (modified, ✅)
 * Fixed (✅)

Conservation
1. Section needs expansion. It barely talks about conservation measures in countries with elephant pop. India having the largest pop. has no mention, Project Elephant? What about conservation of other sub-species in SL, SE Asia? 2. Source says hectares and not km2? 3. Should be part of threats?
 * Added info (✅)
 * Fixed (✅)
 * Wouldn't make much sense there (✅)

Captivity
1. The entire section talks about issues w.r.t to captive elephants in zoos rather than conservation. Also, it does not talk about the usage of elephants (section on handling briefly mentions some instances) in captivity for other uses such as for recreation, work, religious activities etc. 2. source? 3. 18.9 years for zoos, and 41.7; 18.9 is not half of 41.7! Better to mention the nos. 4. 2.3 and 3.4 times greater as per source 5. No page no/link
 * Source there (✅)
 * Addressed. I do not want the phrasing to be too close. (modified, data can be specific, ✅)
 * Addressed. (✅)
 * Replaced (✅)

In culture
1. Source has no page no./link
 * I don't have access to that
 * Fixed (✅)

2. Source has no page no./link 3. Apart from the last line, most of the paragraph is not sourced 4. The source does not have page no/links; Not sure if the source attests to the facts in the paragraph. 5. None of the sentences are sourced
 * The link and page numbers are already provided (✅)
 * Fixed (✅)
 * Yes & addressed. (✅)
 * Added sources (✅)


 * Added (✅)