Talk:Giraffe/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay -I will make straightforward copyedits as I go. I will jot questions down below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 *  The family was once much more extensive, with numerous other species.  - a number would be good if possible, even an approximation.
 * Yes check.svg Done can be found in the Giraffidae article. LittleJerry (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The modern species, Giraffa camelopardalis, appeared during the Pleistocene 1 million years ago - needs cite (as noted)
 * Couldn't find a source so I removed it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Alan Turner mentioned is any one of the Alan Turners at the Alan Turner page.
 * Yes check.svg Done Named his occupation and took out the link. LittleJerry (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Subspecies section needs converting into prose. I'll have a go at this probably when I get some time.


 * Please do so. I'm not good at that. LittleJerry (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Legs and pacing section needs references
 * Yes check.svg Done LittleJerry (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As does the Circulatory system section
 * Yes check.svg Done LittleJerry (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, more on the subspecies section - it is a little repetitive as is. Try and add a few facts to it - e.g. which is the commonest, biggest, rarest, most commonly seen in zoos. Just sprinkle a few extra bits in to break up the repetition - and get sources for each subspecies and the statements below it.
 * Yes check.svg Done LittleJerry (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * conform the spellings - i.e. choose either Masai Giraffe or Maasai Giraffe (look into which is better) and stick to it. Both are in the article.


 * Yes check.svg Done LittleJerry (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Be better to get a better source than this
 * Couldn't find any other source on which subspecies is more common only one that says what patterns are common in certain regions.LittleJerry (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorting out the history of its naming and am in the process of getting some sources. There is some other stuff to add. Giraffa was a nomen conservandum and it'd be great to get a scholarly article on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Subspecies: For most common in zoos you can use ISIS, which includes almost all zoos in Europe and North America, and many zoos elsewhere. A suggestion of how ISIS can be used as a reference is already in the lead of Somali Giraffe. Giraffe subspecies in zoos from ISIS data: Around 450 G. c. reticulata, around 450 G. c. rothschildi, around 100 G. c. tippelskirchi, around 65 G. c. antiquorum (some are mistakenly listed as G. c. peralta but see Talk:Giraffe), around 45 G. c. giraffa, around 20 G. c. angolensis, zero G. c. peralta (correct, see comment under G. c. antiquorum), zero G. c. thornicrofti (probably correct) and zero G. c. camelopardalis (actually very small number of this race in captivity, most in Al Ain Zoo ). For subspecies also be careful that distributions in this article are partially wrong. For most part the map in the taxobox got it right (compare for example distributions of G. c. giraffa and G. c. angolensis on map with text), but there are also two mistakes on the map: It completely left out G. c. rothschildi in Uganda (the two dots mistakenly included in G. c. camelopardalis) and west-central Kenya (at Lake Baringo). I guess the person who made the map didn't know that IUCN maps often don't mark subspecies ranges when they are very small and just included these in the nearest subspecies. Secondly, the isolated population in northeast DR Congo is G. c. camelopardalis. Not G. c. antiquorum as indicated on the wiki map. 62.107.214.63 (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is all good to update/add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dealt with the above + a bit more. Added more photos to the gallery, meaning that it now has all 9 subspecies. I think this falls under the use recommended in WP:IG, but if someone believe this is wrong, feel free to remove it. •  Rabo³  • 12:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Be nice to also expand upon taxonomic history. I'll see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ferreting around, this article would be good to add a note on. are you able to get the fulltext? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And [Thhttps://repository.up.ac.za/upspace/bitstream/2263/13994/1/Mitchell_Structure(2009).pdf this] too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC) added that myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Something on this Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * this one for the anatomy section. Agree the anatomy is dry but the fulltext should have some material on how relevant to animal's biology. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * this article is already referenced once, but also mentions in the abstract that origins of the neck are obscure, so the fulltext would be interesting to see. If you can't get it I think I can get fulltext. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are actually 174 references on Web of Science if you type in "Web of Science", many papers are useful and worth incorporating. A few on parasites etc. Tricky to see where to draw the line. i can print out the lsit and we can see what is worth harvesting Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't access the fulltext any more than you but I added more info using some of the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way where should the information on the intestine go? The "diet" subsection? LittleJerry (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, I think that is a good practical place for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done LittleJerry (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * can you find a ref for the tag? Otherwise I suspect the sentence can be deleted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done LittleJerry (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality: I think this is looking okay.
 * Manual of Style compliance: - okay, one thing I neglected to mention thus far is the referencing. I find that formatting the web references using a Template:Cite web template very helpful, as it helps to add author, date webpage updated, publisher, and 'work" (i.e. parent website) all make for a professional-looking and informative reference. There are a few of these and these are the last few things to fix.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects: - there are some bits and pieces on giraffe parasites that'd be good to add, but this is a sizeable article and many I think might be (sub)species specific. I suspect there is more on ecology. Both of those are not deal-breakers for me as I think we've covered quite a bit (for good article but not featured article status). One bit that needs a bit of a fix is the "popular culture" section. I will try to find and add some references but it really needs to be in a paragraph with some cohesive discussion rather than a bulleted list, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)  improved enough for GA status.
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: We're nearly there . You nominated one hefty article and I have tried to give this one alot of thought. Sorry about the delay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem; thanks for taking the time. LittleJerry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I just changed the website links and some of the image captions. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am formatting the refs. They need some filling out. e.g. books need isbns etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)