Talk:Nilgai/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 14:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Will need a bit of time to read through. Will post my comments soon. Shyamal (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review! It has been a while since I worked on this, and I have learnt a lot since then. I will copyedit it a bit. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * neelghae or nilgau - I am not convinced that these names should be included the lead (or bolded as they are not incoming links either) - they sound like bad English transcriptions.
 * Removed


 * The phonetic transcription does not look right (I believe it should be /ni:lga:ɪ/)
 * I got it from the Merriam Webster dictionary. I am not sure about these pronunciations, though.
 * verified that, will check if there is a suitable Hindi-English dictionary alternative.


 * Structure
 * A lot of the etymology is actually taxonomy - could be reorganized and is better located after the taxonomic introduction
 * Should I shift the first para of Etymology to the Taxonomy section and make it the 2nd para there?
 * I have tried to reduce some of the confusion by changing the section headings and moving some paras. Please see if this is acceptable.
 * Thanks, that looks better. But the part in Taxonomy as of now, The generic name Boselaphus...and kamelos ("camel"), seems to belong more to Etymology. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 07:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy = the naming of taxa (which implicitly includes an element of etymology). An alternative is to merge the current etymology as a last part of the taxonomy section - after all taxonomy does not mean just the Latin binomial but also the folk taxonomic nomenclature. Shyamal (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I get it. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 08:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Some of the content in "Interaction with human beings" seem to be more suited for "Threats and conservation"
 * I see, you mean the 20th century hunting and crop damage? I am confused how to separate them out, could you please help? Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Content and sourcing
 * "Coyotes and dholes generally attack juveniles" - I think it is worth separating the situation in India and the situation in introduced areas should not be a priority.
 * I am not sure what you mean. I try to identify local predators by their location wherever possible, but here I am not sure if this is the situation in the wild or in captivity.
 * Coyotes do not occur in India. Shyamal (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the source, "coyote" is not mentioned, it focuses on the situation in India. Someone else may have added it, removed for now. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 08:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * tubular tuft, pennant - I am unable to find a reliable source for calling this "tubular" it is a small tuft of hair along the dewlap ridge. Again unable to see a technical reference using the word "pennant" for this. (The most likely scenario appears to be misspelling of hair pendant as used in some old descriptions (example 12)
 * Switched to pendant. I wonder how "tubular" came in, removed. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have made several edits, please check if there is anything badly messed up in the process. Shyamal (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have checked them, they have indeed improved the article. Thanks a lot. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Review
 * Overall this passes GA criteria. For FA, this needs to improve on structure and include more on diseases, parasites and cover several other aspects in ecology. There is a lot more to incorporate in cultural relations as well apart from the politics of renaming it.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thank you. I will remember those points if I plan an FAC for this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)