Talk:Mexican grizzly bear/GA1

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

Reviewer: Burklemore1 (talk · contribs) 04:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * G'day, I'll take a look at this one. I note this is my first review, but I'll try and see what needs to be fixed. I will add some comments in a moment. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Mexican grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) is a extinct population of the Brown bear. All grizzly bears are brown bears." This sentence has multiple problems. First, the lead says it is extinct, but the body says it is presumed to be extinct or is extirpated. We need to make this clear there is a possibility that a few of them could be alive. Nothomyrmecia is a good example of a species that was thought to be extinct until its rediscovery btw.
 * "The Mexican grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) is a extinct population of the Brown bear." a -> an
 * "All grizzly bears are brown bears." There is no clarification with this statement. If this is a variant of the Brown Bear, then it is a subspecies. Having a look at the image, the name Ursus arctos nelsoni pops up so this must be a subspecies, which the article fails to state. Along with that, the binomial name should be changed and its subspecies name should be incorporated into the taxobox.
 * "Only the notable distinctions of this population from other populations are discussed here." Or perhaps you could write a sentence or two in the lead that explains how these two bears are different from each other?
 * The taxobox needs the author who described this bear.
 * Why is there no taxonomy section? You have info such as "The holotype was shot by H. A. Cluff at Colonia Garcia, Chihuahua in 1899.[1]" that should be incorporated into a section. The lead shouldn't have any unique info. Also, there are synonyms, and it seems this bear was once treated as a full species at one point. You'll need to expand the taxonomy history with who described it and where it is from (already given, so add it in). You should also explain why (if the bear was once a full species) was classified as a subspecies later on.
 * Why is one of the references duplicated in the biology section?
 * "The extinct California grizzly extended slightly south into Baja California Norte. The bears in Durango, Chihuahua, and Sonora and central Mexico were likely more related to the bears of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas than to those of California." Again no unique info should be in the lead. Also, what is the relevance of these two sentences? I'm not sure what it is meant to be implying.
 * I see there is a citation needed in the description. Please fix this immediately.
 * If you create a taxonomy section, I think the names provided in the description should be placed there.
 * The range and habitat is uncited completely, and this needs addressing immediately. You could also rewrite the last sentence as "Its previous native range reached from Arizona and New Mexico in the north and Mexico in the south."
 * The first paragraph in "presumed extinction" is uncited.
 * "Its former range decreased to the three isolated mountains Cerro Campana (Mexico)|Cerro Campana, Cerro Santa Clara (Mexico)|Santa Clara" I suggest you fix this up.
 * "North of Chihuahua in the state of Chihuahua." Redundant, why not just say in the north of the state of Chihuahua instead of saying the name twice?
 * Has the IUCN classified it as extinct? If so, please add a citation that says it on the redlist site. Since we have a source that states the year it went "extinct", the Conservation status section does not need to be removed.
 * "By 1960 only 30 of them were left. Despite its protected status the hunting continued." You should try and combine this into a single sentence to avoid choppy short sentences.
 * "After rumours of some surviving individuals on a ranch at the headwaters of the Yaqui River in the state of Sonora in 1968" I think you should say "After rumors emerged of some surviving individuals on a ranch at the headwaters of the Yaqui River in the state of Sonora in 1968".
 * I have noticed that some words use American English or British English (i.e. color and rumour). Please make this consistent with American English, owing to its distribution.
 * Ref no. 1 is a journal and should be correctly.
 * The link for ref no. 2 is dead, go on archive.org to find a backup link for it.
 * Ref. no 3 is incomplete. What year was the book published? ISBN? What page number?
 * Ref no. 5 needs an ISBN number and page number. Also remove the accessdate, books and journals do not need them.
 * Ref no. 6 needs a page number and an ISBN if it has one.
 * I'm unsure what type of reference ref no. 7 is.
 * Ref no. 8 has a doi that needs to be added. The retrieval date should be removed, and the binomial needs to be italicised.
 * Ref no. 9 is also another journal that is incomplete. Please add in more detail.
 * I have noticed a few cited references appear in the "further reading" section. Please remove them, and you could use some of the sources in that section to find anymore information.
 * Overall, my thoughts is the editor should have done further edits to the article before nominating it. I feel like it is missing some details in some sections that need to be focused on (i.e. no taxonomic section and the distribution and habitat is very brief). The prose may be an issue, but I'll have a look at this later. Biodiversitylibrary, google books and google scholar could provide additional sources. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some more opinions should be requested since this is your first review, and it is a somewhat problematic article. First of all, this animal does not even seem to be a taxon, so the article should not be written as if it is one. The nomination seems to have some relation to this discussion: FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking about getting a second opinion. So far the editor has made zero changes, but I'll leave it until a specific time unless someone suggests the nomination to be closed. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is nowhere near GA status, I can't even see this article as C class; this review should be archived by October 5th Dunkleosteus77   (push to talk)  15:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will fail it by that time if the editor has not made any changes, though I doubt he/she will anyway. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * After no changes to the article in the past seven days, I am going to fail this nomination. I'm sorry, but this article is nowhere near GA status and many additional edits are needed. As well as that, there is a possibility that this subspecies is not notable enough to warrant its own article. I would suggest the editor to follow these issues and renominate once they are done. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think notability is given as to the California grizzly (in particular due its extinction history). It is known since the time of the conquistadors and it was a valid subspecies until recently and there are several publications that mentioned this Mexican variation. By the way the subspecific status of the North American grizzly populations is still a matter of uncertainty. --Melly42 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, rather interesting. If this subspecies is indeed notable enough, I think this article will need to undergo a major expansion. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow, is it suggested that Mexican grizzly bear be merged with California grizzly bear? FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Melly may be implying that, but they'll need to clarify. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)