Talk:Quagga/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well-written
Introduction This article is rather well-written, but it could have used a good copyedit, preferably by fresh eyes: there were occasional prose issues, mainly just little things like "The pattern of the quagga was unique among equids", when it hadn't been established that the coat pattern was being discussed. The sort of errors that are easy to miss if you've been working on the article a while. It also occasionally lapsed into present tense, when it meant past tense, e.g. saying the quagga is the most southern-living species of zebra, when the quagga is extinct, and therefore can't be described as living anywhere. Also, a bit of poor handling of uncertainty, e.g. "The quagga may have been 257 cm long and stood 125 – tall", which reads a bit oddly (I've changed it to "is believed to have been").

Likewise, "The quagga was hunted by early Dutch settlers from the 1600s, and later by their descendants the Afrikaners, who thought the animals were easy to find and kill." - "thought" reads rather oddly in that sentence, and is implied if left out anyway.

All really little things, easily fixed, and they have been; I only mention them because it may be useful for the next good article candidate you do.

Things that still need fixing One thing I couldn't fix, which, even if I don't consider it quite big enough to block GA status, I would suggest fixing, is this paragraph:

On the basis of some accounts and photographs, it has been suggested that the stripes were light, contrary to the configuration in other zebras. But it has been pointed out that this is an optical illusion, and that the base colour of the head, shoulders, and other parts was a creamy white, which is what gives this impression when seen between the actual dark stripes, typical of zebras. However, embryological evidence supports zebra being dark coloured with white as an addition.

While not bad, it'd be good to try a little harder to link the facts together. Of course, you may be trying to avoid Original research, but there's ways to do that, such as saying something like "X states this was an optical illusion; however, embryological evidence states that, in fact, all species of zebras begin dark coloured, with the white being an addition."

Accuracy
The statement that "The technology to use recovered DNA for breeding does not exist" (at the end of the article) is misleading. While the intent is likely to say that one cannot put the recovered DNA into a gamete and use it for breeding that way, it's completely possible to compare DNA of the population being bred for similarity to the DNA recovered from the historical quaggas. I'd suggest rewriting this.
 * How about cloning instead of breeding? FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
Despite the few issues, this easily passes GA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, some of the language issues may be due to two editors working on it simultaneously, I and Little Jerry. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Understandable. As I said, they're the sort of little, minor things that are easy to miss if you've been working on something a while. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. We still have plenty of time. LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)