Talk:Scimitar oryx/GA1

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems the GA process is going a bit slow, so I'll take this one too. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It might be good to mention earlier in the intro that it is extinct in the wild, otherwise the sudden use of past tense will appear puzzling to the reader.
 * Done.


 * Instead of saying the unicorn could be based on an "injured oryx", perhaps state "an oryx with a broken horn"? "Injury" seems a bit too general. And is there anything on how the horns usually break?
 * Fixed. Sorry, no. I couldn't find literature for it.


 * On a related note, here are some free photos of specimens with broken horns, could maybe be added under behaviour or something. The first is interesting, since it both shows how a one horned specimen, and one in semi-profile where the horn behind is partially covered, look like.
 * The first image may be used, but I believe it should be used when we relevantly discuss the topic of broken horns, which we don't here.


 * Is there an explanation for why Oryx algazel was "unsuitable"? It seems a bit handwavey as it is described now. For example, the genus name of the Dodo, Raphus, was considered unsuitable by Richard Owen, so he coined Didus, which was used long onwards, but the former name is the one used today, because it is oldest.
 * May be there in the PDF (available here), but I do not have access to it. To fix the issue of the writing, what do you find handwavey about it? I think it is because it is so plainly put.


 * Reproduction, diet, etc., are usually subsections under behaviour, not full sections.
 * OK, I have made them subheadings.


 * Are the holes they dig for resting mere depressions in the earth, or actual hole?
 * They're mere depressions. I have mentioned it now.


 * Maybe give a date for when they became extinct in the while, instead of just "not seen for 15 years". This article will likely last many years into the future, which would make "15 years" meaningless. An approximate date should also be included in the intro.
 * I couldn't find an approximate date, so I removed the "15 years" fact.
 * And that's it from me, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have replied to all your comments. Well, I just wished to ask you if you judge this article as having good potential for FAC. What do you think of the article in that view? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will pass the article now, as for FA, I think you should try to find out why the oldest name is deemed unsuitable, because it is not really an easy matter to abandon a name which has priority, so something interesting (for people interested in that sort of stuff) must have happened. You can ask for papers you don't have access to here, you get it quickly most of the time: Apart from that, sourcing looks good. I agree that some better images could be used some places, for example the infobox image is unsharp and low res. These issues might be mentioned during a FAC, or they might not. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's not ideal to say of a zoo photo "grazing in herds in a grassland". Either along the lines of "a (captive) herd, grazing." or something about "Scimitar oryx are herd animals". But we have 2 photos from Marwell zoo, not quite clear why. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sure there are more interesting photos on Commons. There are some of animals lying down, drinking, etc., not just grazing. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to choose and use any image you think proper in the article. I won't object. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thank you! I would surely take your suggestions for FAC. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 02:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)