Talk:Snow leopard/GA1

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

Reviewer: Praseodymium-141 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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

From first glance, article sems fine. Will go through details later. (Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * See below.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * Seems to be.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * See below.
 * c. (OR):
 * None found.
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Only one violation suspected using Earwig's copyvio detector. That's a mirror site though.
 * 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:
 * That's fine.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No recent edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * All images are tagged.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * See below for details.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No recent edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * All images are tagged.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * See below for details.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * See below for details.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:

Picture review
6a. Fine.

6b. Mostly relevant.
 * Is there a need to put three different pictures for the Characteristics section? I think that two is more than enough here.  141 Pr  {contribs} 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Will fix that. Anymore suggestions?  Dancing  Dollar ( let's talk ) 18:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Will appear later, I'm just quite busy right now.  141 Pr  {contribs} 18:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * As a note, I made a series of suggests for improvement some time ago here to assist another editor who was considering taking this article to GAN. I would appreciate it if these suggestions could be addressed? If you are willing, I can copy my suggestions into this review. Happy editing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be great.  141 Pr  {contribs} 06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Other comments by Praseodymium-141
Mainly prose issues:


 * - change to  at the start of the sentence. Also whence?


 * - this sentence sounds strange.


 * - add before  and.


 * - add at the start of the sentence. Explain what Genetic divergence time is.   Dancing  Dollar  ( let's talk ) 18:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * - why are there external links?  Dancing  Dollar  ( let's talk ) 17:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * - added commas after and.


 * Lots of short sentences in the first paragraph of characteristics.


 * - sounds like a story.


 * WP:REFBOMBING at the end of conservation.


 * There are many instances of the word in the article. I think most of them should be . The verbs should be pluralised as well if these change.

This should cover criteria 1.  141 Pr  {contribs} 17:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Do refs 80-84 reference everything before it? If not, more citations should be added.  Dancing  Dollar  ( let's talk ) 15:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Are these reliable:
 * ref 4?
 * ref 9?
 * ref 35?  It is reliable.  Dancing  Dollar  ( let's talk ) 11:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean ref 36.  141 Pr  {contribs} 11:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ref 80?
 * ref 81?
 * ref 83?  141  Pr  {contribs} 10:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * One question - is there a need for an exhaustive list of short statements about the snow leopard's characteristics? This is probably fine for GA though.  141  Pr  {contribs} 15:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Example:  141  Pr  {contribs} 15:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by SilverTiger
Major concerns:
 * The exhaustive list of protected areas is unnecessary.✅ I agree.
 * The Taxonomy section needs a Subspecies subsection, as there seems to be some consensus for three subspecies. A discussion/comparison of the physical differences between subspecies could also be added to the Characteristic subsection.❌ It is not necessary.
 * The lede also needs work, as it does not adequately summarize the article. Could stand to be a bit longer, but isn't bad.✅ added one sentence.
 * The subsection for the Global Snow Leopard Forum seems unnecessary and overly long, maybe condense/summarize into one paragraph?❌ There is enough brevity in the subsection.
 * The second paragraph of that section needs a citation, then.

Minor concerns:
 * Discuss color variation in Characteristics.❌ I don't think there are color variants
 * Not color variants like white tigers and black jaguars, but color variation across the snow leopard's range.
 * Etymology section could use some clarification/rephrasing.✅ Rephrased.
 * There's a so-so source in the Characteristics section ([31]) - it cites NatGeo, but surely a better source could be found?✅ Sourced a published book

Possibly expand:
 * Distribution & habitat section is a bit short: maybe start with habitat, then cover range by subspecies?❌ The amount of information on snow leopards is far less than that on lions, tigers, or cheetahs. The section, in my opinion, is sufficiently long and merely covers the salient features of its scope without going into excessive detail.
 * Characteristics seems a bit short.❌ It's long enough, I also made it a bit longer.
 * Cultural significance could almost certainly be expanded.✅ Already expanded, and I added 3 more citations.

These are all more general suggestions, originally listed at another editor's request as some pre-GAN/FAC work, so it isn't precise as the usual GAN nitpicks. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Will apply some of these changes later on tonight.  Dancing  Dollar ( let's talk ) 16:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Made another few comments, but overall this article is very good. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)