Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hartebeest/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by 10:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC).

Hartebeest

 * Nominator(s): Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked long to make it much comprehensive and a perfect article. It has undergone a copyedit, has all the necessary information about the animal and has great images. Thank you. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments by from Squeamish Ossifrage
As my usual, focusing mostly on referencing and reference format consistency:
 * Publisher locations, in general. They're optional, but need to be consistent. Right off the mark, I see no location on reference 2, and then a location on reference 3. This needs to be standardized one way or the other throughout.
 * Done.


 * Not a serious issue, but ref 2 is the only place you give both ISBN and OCLC. I don't normally give OCLCs when ISBNs exist.
 * Done.


 * It took me a sec to figure out what's going on with ref 4. The title cited there is actually a chapter title. The full work is called The Influence of Low Dutch on the English Vocabulary. Also, this reference isn't templated, and so the format doesn't quite match the rest of them (see how location is displayed, for example, and how the online source is linked).
 * Thanks for letting me know the title, done.


 * For ref 6, I'm pretty sure this journal should be cited as Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B.
 * Done.


 * Ref 8 is a reference to an older edition of the IUCN redlist. It's also not formatted the way the rest of the redlist entries are formatted, and has a 2006 (!!) access date. Any reason this can't just be replaced with another link to ref 1 (which, yes, is going to mess up the rest of the reference numbers in my comments. Sorry...)?
 * Well, a mistake. Corrected.


 * Ref 20 formatting doesn't match anything else. Templating this should fix it. Also, needs a real page number reference, rather than what I think is just a count of the total pages.
 * This was, by mistake, a copy of ref 2. Removed.


 * Ref 23 is I think the only entry that gives a publication date instead of year. Any reason for this? Oh, nope, 63 does it also. Still curious if there was a reason for the difference.
 * Made consistent by just mentioning the year. No, no reason.


 * There is something wrong with the title in ref 28. Are there other editions that warrant the tag here?
 * I could noy access the book, and, anyway, the ISBN does not yield anything. So I replaced it with an existing ref.


 * You've got double periods after authors on some of these. 30, 31, 35, 61.  I may have missed some.
 * Corrected.


 * I am not convinced reference 31 is a reliable source. Same applies to 35 from the same website.
 * Alright, I removed it.


 * Most of your references with edition numbers use ordinal numbers, except for 32 (should be 4th).
 * Done


 * Check the capitalization of the journal in ref 39.
 * Done


 * Trichostrongyle in ref 41 isn't actually part of a binomial name. It shouldn't be italicized and can be lowercase here.
 * Done


 * Theileriosis can be lowercase in ref 42. You should probably either adjust the publication year, or let me borrow your time machine.
 * Ha ha, what a thing. Anyway, I haven't got the time machine really!
 * Suuuuure you don't. I bet that's what everyone with a time machine says.  I'm on to you... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the edition necessary on ref 48?
 * Removed.


 * Why is ref 60 a reliable source? iUniverse is a self-publishing house.
 * Deleted


 * There's an online pdf of ref 61. Also, I think that's a conference paper, and so probably needs to be cited a little differently than it currently is.
 * I deleted it as per our talk in a later point (see below)


 * You can link to a pdf source for ref 62.
 * Thanks, used it.


 * Page numbers are missing for a couple of print sources. Ref 4 (Llewellyn) should be p. 163. Ref 5 (Skinner) should be p. 649. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 04:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise:
 * Maybe consider a note with a translation of Jan van Riebeeck's quote?
 * That issue many users have mentioned. Well, I tried with Google Translate, but it was in vain.
 * Okay, I was able to get access to this source and did some digging. Most critically, the quote isn't transcribed accurately from the reference, which hasn't helped with translation. It should read: "Meester Pieter ein hart-beest geschooten hadde". Or, in translation, "Master Pieter [van Meerhoff] had shot one hartebeest". I'm not sure whether van Meerhoff is worth a redlink or not. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of thanks, finally somebody got that translation done! I don't think it is worth to add that redlink really. Well, added the translation. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, he married Krotoa, but that's a pretty dodgy article at the moment, too, so I'm uncertain as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are the subspecies in the list presented in any sort of order? I think I'd prefer alphabetical, but year of description or some sort of geographical order would all probably work. I can't perceive any pattern in the current list, though.
 * Some good Wikipedian has listed it alphabetically now.


 * The redlink in Description can be piped to sassaby (which redirects to topi, but the first term is fine, too). You should probably link to Damaliscus in that same sentence (a specific species was linked earlier, but not, I think, that page).
 * It is fixed.


 * The bit about preorbital gland secretions doesn't appear to have a reference.
 * Sorry, I had forgotten to add it. Done.


 * I might move the parasites subsection under ecology, rather than description. I think it makes more sense there.
 * As you wish. Done.


 * The bit in Uses about day and night meat harvesting could use some context for a reader unfamiliar with the general idea. I couldn't find a Wikipedia article to link to on the topic (what would it be called, even?), but a sentence or two of background here might go a long way.
 * I don't understand it much, nor do I believe it relevant. I deleted it.


 * I'm not really fond of the "proven to be good for health" wording. I think it is stronger than the source suggests, if nothing else.
 * Sorry, I overlooked this issue. Perhaps "is considered good for health", if "considered" doesn't sound vague. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm reticent to make blanket health-related claims based on single studies. Perhaps "A 2010 study considered hartebeest meat healthy, ..."? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds much better. Used it. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and boldly changed "good for health" -> "healthy" on naturalness grounds, but I'm not wedded to that change. Proven is gone, which was my biggest concern there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Megalotragus (which needs italics) is linked as a See Also topic. Is there enough available background on hartebeest evolution to give that a little section in this article?
 * I think not. I have removed it.
 * Hmm. I really wish we could piece something together to add more evolution to the Taxonomy and Evolution section. I don't really have access to the full range of potential resources right now, but here are a couple possible starting points (note that my reference formatting here probably doesn't match yours; copy-paste in with caution!):
 * Specifically identifies Megalotragus as related to the modern hartebeest:
 * Brief comparison of modern hartebeests, Megalotragus and the smaller, also extinct, Parmularius:
 * That's not enough to write the section, but might be a start. I don't have the ability to check for journal articles on the topic at the moment. Anyway, I don't think I'd oppose for the lack of the information, but it would be nice to have, especially since the article already touches on evolution. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great idea of yours, let me see if there are any journals for it. I don't have a good access to those books - I can only have online access presently, and that is hard - so if you could get journals it would be easier for me. Nevertheless, if you can sort out the relevant info from those pages, then maybe you could give me a line or two from there. I could use it in the article, you see, indirectly. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 04:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Will see what I can do. Offline stuff has really limited by research and access time at the moment, but I'll try to manage the time to help. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Surely there is no real urgent need of this. You can take your time and contact me for this after the FAC. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine that I'd oppose solely on its absence, but I would like to try to get that in here before the FAC closes; we do have some time, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure why we need external links to both the 1880 and 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Or, frankly, either of them.
 * Ya, removed.


 * Worth mentioning Sigmoceros as a junior synonym in the taxonomy? Maybe cite the phylogeny study that confirmed the validity of Alcelaphus, relegating it to the dustbin of junior synonym history? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added this and some more of what I could find. You can have a look. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 04:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking pretty nice. Add the Sigmoceros synonym to the synonyms list in the taxobox? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a twist! I looked up at the online version of Ungulate Taxonomy (2011) here. That's the particular page I refer to at GoogleBooks. In short, it says of Vrba having reversed her decision on Sigmoceros-in fact she herself decided to dissolve it back into Alcelaphus. Now, it agrees with the study above, you see. What do you say? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're good here. Sigmoceros is in the synonym list for Lichtenstein's hartebeest, but probably is correctly omitted from the taxobox here, since it was never applied to the wider category of hartebeest. I might have "is still disputed" to "has been disputed", though, in light of the fact that the issue seems pretty well put to rest by both Matthee and Vrba herself. Regardless, striking the objection. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're good here. Sigmoceros is in the synonym list for Lichtenstein's hartebeest, but probably is correctly omitted from the taxobox here, since it was never applied to the wider category of hartebeest. I might have "is still disputed" to "has been disputed", though, in light of the fact that the issue seems pretty well put to rest by both Matthee and Vrba herself. Regardless, striking the objection. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really examine overall prose quality. I don't think any of this should be particularly difficult to correct. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, replied to all. No, none of the above was difficult. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 10:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Struck corrected issues, commented on a couple, and added a few more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I like you Wikipedians, who give truly great journal articles as help for articles. You have made my work easier! Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe there is only one real issue left now - the Sigmoceros one. There is an update there, needs further discussion.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 02:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Making my support official. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Alcelaphus_recent.png: what was the underlying map used to create this image?
 * Sorry, could not find it. Could you help?
 * I am currently talking with the uploader. I believe he would remember the base map.
 * Got it, Nikkimaria. The uploader has informed about the base map - that is, File:BlankMap-World.png - in the file's description page. Thanks for your patience. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 02:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Hartebeests.jpg should name the original as well as immediate source and should state the date of death for the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, could you clarify your point a bit more? I could not understand what you meant by immediate source. As for the date of death, it was in 1912 (from here). How should I write it? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 10:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The immediate source is where the scan comes from. Ward's date of death should be noted on the file page, and the template can be changed to PD-100. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. But I'm not good concerning images. Unless Ward's date of death has to be mentioned in this article, if that is what you mean, then why add this issue here? We had better talk to the uploader(s) about the problem with the file and not the article. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 04:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FA evaluations sort of look at the entire package, which means images have to be all tidy and in order along with the references and text. I went ahead and added the 1912 date and updated the licensing template, though. Trying to lend a hand. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. An FA nominator has to be held responsible for everything in the article, including the images. Images with unclear copyright statuses should not be used in Wikipedia's "best work". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The immediate source is shown in the URL under source, and the date of death of Ward has been added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. The immediate source mentions where the image was scanned from - I'm suggesting that should be added to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean the name of the book? That is already in the file description. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me understand, I hope the first issue of the base map is resolved now. Thanks to FunkMonk who is helping with this. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 02:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by John
At fist pass, this is a very nice article. The coverage is good, and the prose is decent. One question (there may be more!): what is the plural of "hartebeest"? Online sources differ, but I'd be inclined to go for "hartebeest" rather than "hartebeests" (cf. Wildebeest). In any case, it should be consistent. --John (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I used "hartebeests" as the plural everywhere as I decided to follow the Wikitionary entry. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 15:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary isn't always that good a source as it's user-generated like our project. In any case the entry you linked to says: "(plural hartebeest or hartebeests)". --John (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And at the moment we have instances of both plurals, which looks weak. We should standardise on one, and I prefer "hartebeest". --John (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of standardising on the "-eest" plural; although that is my preference I wouldn't mind unduly the "-eests" form. It's just that we mustn't have both. I also gave it a medium-heavy copyedit, and found quite a few infelicities, mis-spellings (this article is British English, right?) and so on. I still think it is a nice article but because I know I am not perfect, and I was easily able to find these problems, I've got to assume there were others I did not spot. So for now I have to tentatively
 * Oppose on prose. The cure will be to get another copyeditor or two to look at it. --John (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have had concentrated more while editing. Nevertheless, I made more edits, I could spot only an error or two; you can have another look. I guess now you should not find any errors. Meanwhile other editors may come in. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 02:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now struck my oppose based on the improvements in the article's prose. --John (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per improvements. --John (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments - I'll take a look and copyedit as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The status of the red hartebeest in the Taxonomy and evolution section is confusing. You mention it as a separate species in the beginning and then list it as a subspecies. It is better if the article veers towards one position (is there a consensus or is it really a 50/50 split?) and stick to it, still outlining the reasons for each position.
 * I have done some digging, but sadly no exactly good sources are available online. This article should mention it as subspecies. The same dispute is with Lichtenstein's hartebeest, which I resolved earlier with Squeamish Ossifrage's help. Nevertheless, this may have something - look here. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I might see what I can find - I have university access to journals etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we link Elandsfontein, Cornelia, Florisbad or Kambwe to anywhere?
 * Though other articles mention them in some of their lines, only Florisbad has a real link of its own. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * red and western hartebeests should not be capitalised.
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In the description section, sentence one is short. I'd append sentence 3 to it. I'd do this myself but am not sure what inline ref covers the first sentence.
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  The tail is 300 to 700 mm (12 to 28 in) long, ending with a black tinge -why in mm and not cm? Looks odd....best to align all into cm. Also, swap this sentence order with "The other physical features of the hartebeest are its long legs, short neck, and pointed ears." so that you get a bunch of sentences with numbers and measurements followed by all the stuff detailing what it looks like.
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * link pelage
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are there any other differences which define the subspecies other than coat colour and degree of sexual dimorphism?
 * Could not find more. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Support
 * "The name was first used in South African literature in Daghregisier, written by Dutch colonial ...". What was Daghregisier? A book or magazine or journal or something else?
 * Sorry, no clear idea about this. Most probably it is his book (wherever I searched it appears as his Daghregisier, seems to imply it) but nothing clear about it. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 02:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a typo in at least one source. It should be Daghregister. I believe it literally means something like "day note"; it's the title given to van Riebeeck's journal on its publication. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, corrected. Surely it looks right now? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 16:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can "clade" be wikilinked, please?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 02:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments. Mostly a prose review, as I have no expertise in this field.
 * The infobox gives the conservation status as "Least Concern", but the article gives information about the status of each of the subspecies. Does the IUCN give conservation statuses at the species level independent of the subspecies?  I assume so, and I assume that's what this is referring to.  I'm not familiar with the usual approach to this data in articles on individual species, but do you think it would be useful to have the infobox indicate that the conservation status varies across the subspecies?
 * I think it right to mention the species-status by IUCN. You can see the website, it mentions it so - an overall ranking, it seems.  It was allowed in an FA of mine, Giant eland, too.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, but the overall species designation as of least concern should be mentioned in the "Status and conservation" section too; at the moment you only give the status of the subspecies in that section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "can be divided into three major divisions" is a little ugly; how about "can be assigned to" or "consists of" to avoid the repetition?
 * can be assigned to is better, added. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The northern lineage split into the eastern and western lineages, perhaps due to the expansion of the central African rainforest belt and the loss of savanna habitats due to global warming": I don't think the link to global warming works well here, because that article explicitly states it's about the warming of the climate in the last 200 years. I'm not sure what to suggest instead -- perhaps a link to paleoclimatology?  It might also be worth rephrasing to avoid the use of "global warming" in this context.
 * Best is not to link the word at all. Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That fixes the link problem, but not the problem with the word itself, which is primarily associated with recent changes in climate. The text needs to make it clear that the climate change being discussed was contemporary with the split in the lineages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I would have a rephrase. i myself am confused. I think it better to delete the cause - it itself is a suggested theory. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like to see material cut that is in the source, just because it's hard to phrase. I think in this case you could use the phrase "period of global warming"; I know that's directly from the source but I think it's short enough that it's not a close paraphrase problem, and saying that makes it clear we're not talking about contemporary global warming.  It's relevant, and the article goes so far as to say this is probable, so I think it would be good to include. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library)
 * Well, I would wish you to have a freehand at it, sorry for I don't know how to fix this. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "In an observation, red hartebeest and Swayne's hartebeest populations from Senkele Wildlife Sanctuary and Nechisar National Park were studied ...": what does "in an observation" add here? Could it just be cut?  Or perhaps recast that sentence and the next: "Both the red hartebeest and Swayne's hartebeest populations in Senkele Wildlife Sanctuary and Nechisar National Park have been found to have a high degree of genetic variation."
 * Nice rewording, added. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The populations were suggested to be conserved to maintain the genetic diversity in the animals, and a breeding programme was proposed" is a little awkward. How about "As a result, conservation and breeding programmes have been suggested to maintain the genetic diversity of these populations"?
 * You are great at rewords, done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "More populations gather in places with plenty of grass": perhaps "Larger numbers gather ..."?
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Their numbers have fallen from 18,300 in 1984 to 5,200 in 1998 due to habitat destruction, hunting, human settlement, and competition for food with domestic cattle": this seems at odds with the "Least concern" designation; surely 5,200 is too small a population to be classified as least concern? This is also in conflict with the numbers given in the next section.  A separate point: I'd suggest changing this to "fell from", since the "have fallen" phrasing implies that the end of the time range is close to the present, which is not the case.  The time period given is 14 years; in the succeeding 14 years the population might have changed dramatically again.
 * That's a confusing figure. It is best to mention the figures of the subspecies separately, so I have simply deleted it. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The way you have it now is fine. However, the original text you had in the article was incorrect; the source specified that it was talking only about the populations in Comoé National Park, but your text omitted that qualification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "While the other hartebeest are decreasing in numbers, the three endangered subspecies are the Tora, Lelwel and Swayne's hartebeest": how about "All the hartebeest subspecies are decreasing in numbers, with three subspecies regarded as endangered: the Tora, Lelwel and Swayne's hartebeest"?
 * OK, done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "A study found that the size of hartebeest subspecies was correlated to habitat productivity and with rainfall": single sentence paragraphs are ugly; could this be tacked on to the end of the first paragraph in that section?
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "German explorer Heinrich Barth says in his works of 1857 that some reasons for the decrease in the Bubal hartebeest's populations were firearms and European intrusion": I don't really like "some reasons ... were"; how about "German explorer Heinrich Barth, in his works of 1857, cites firearms and European intrusion as among the reasons for the decrease in the Bubal hartebeest's population."
 * Good one, added. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Having undergone great habitat destruction, about 42,000 of this subspecies occur today ...": the subspecies didn't undergo the habitat destruction; they suffered from it. How about: "This subspecies has been greatly affected by habitat destruction, and about 42,000 Coke's hartebeest occur today ..."?
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm reading the numbers incorrectly, there are 70,000 Lelwel's hartebeest, and it's listed as "Endangered"; there are 42,000 Coke's hartebeest, and it's listed as "Least Concern". This seems odd.  Am I misreading?
 * I am afraid you have misread. I rechecked the data - that's what IUCN mentions. It says for Coke's that 42000 exist in the mentioned N.P.s, and 70% thrive in protected areas. The 42000 figure is within 70% of the populations protected, and so 30% still exist in wild - now that is able to be listed as of Least concern, or at least near somewhere. As of Lelwel hartebeest, there are >70000, not about 70000. I believe that figure is OK to be listed as Endangered. Anyway, my estimates can be wrong, but that is what IUCN informs. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like I misunderstood. However, there is still something odd going on: the article reads "There are fewer than 70,000 individuals left ... most populations are now restricted to Southern National Park (1,070 individuals) and Boma National Park (115 individuals)" which makes no sense.  If that's most of the population, then the population is not accurately described as "fewer than 70,000"; it would be more like "fewer than 3,000". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see what I can do. I don't want to mess with figures, I have only put forward the IUCN data. Or perhaps delete the disturbing "70,000"? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't like to see the number deleted without understanding it. I don't have access to that source; what's the context for the 70,000 number?  That's a 2013 source, so it's presumably more recent than the IUCN data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So which do we balance? Seems the 70000, being old, should be removed? 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused about the sources; you have the IUCN source referencing the smaller numbers, but when I look it up it has the 70,000. What's the actual source for the smaller numbers?  Is it the travel guide, "Ethiopia"?  I'm not sure that would be a reliable source for something like this. I've also asked a conservation scientist I know what sources they would rely on for this data and will pass that along if I get anything from them. In the meantime, can you correct the citations in the article so we can see what the right sources are for this data? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ethiopia book only tells that the hartebeest occurs in the Omo part, not about its numbers. I found it out - the smaller figures are based on a 2007 study by the IUCN, and the source is the basic IUCN page for A. buselaphus and not the subspecies A. b. lelwel. I have added it now. Shuld we keep the smaller figures? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's correct; the numbers listed in the park are for Lelwel's, not the overall species. I think that Fay 2007 is cited because it indicates a decline in the Lelwel's population at that location, and so is indicative of an overall decline.  So your current phrasing of "most populations are now restricted to" is incorrect.  I would cut the smaller numbers, and just leave the note about southern Omo. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look in my 1984 copy of MacDonald's Encyclopedia of Mammals; I don't know if this is too much of a popular work (or too old) to be usable as a reliable source. If it's an acceptable source, there are a couple of things in it that might be useful.  He mentions "Cape hartebeest" as an alternative name for the Red hartebeest, and provides some information on territory size that might be useful.  If you're interested, I can send you copies of the relevant paragraphs.
 * The alt name is not relevant, it has already been mentioned. But the territory info can be added. You may send me those. Thanks for the offer! Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, you are a great help. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the text in MacDonald that might be useful, with [brackets] used to mark my text explaining an earlier reference. "Though less selective feeders [that is, less selective than topi or gnu] of medium and long savanna grassland, hartebeest are particularly fond of the edges of woods, scrub and grassland. Although basically sedentary, the female hartebeest in Nairobi Natinoal Park, Kenya, are locally quite active, moving in small groups within individual home ranges of 3.7–5.5sq km (1.4–2.1sq mi), which are not particularly associated with any one female group.  In fact, the average female home range includes over 20–30 male territories."  (pp. 564–565).  Then a couple of pages later: "Hartebeest: Alcephalus buselaphus.  Hartebeest or kongoni.  Coarse grassland and open woodland.  Senegal to Somalia, E. Africa to S. Africa.  HBL 195–200 cm; TL 30 cm; SH 112–130cm; HL 45–70cm; wt male 142–183kg, female 126–167kg.  Coat: uniform sandy fawn to bright reddish, lighter on hindquarters, sometimes with black markings on legs.  Frontal region of head drawn up into a bony pedicel.  Horn shape diagnostic of races.  Subspecies: 12, including bubal or Northern hartebeest (A.b. buselaphus) ranged N of Sahara, extinct: Western hartebeest (A.b. major), Senegal and Guinea: Lelwel hartebeest (A.b. lelwel), S. Sudan, Ethiopia, N. Uganda and Kenya: Tora hartebeest (A.b. tora) (endangered), Sudan, Ethiopia: Swayne's hartebeest (A.b. swaynei) endangered, Ethiopia, Somalia: Jackson's hartebeest (A.b. jacksoni), E. Africa, Rwanda: Coke's hartebeest (A.b. cokii), Kenya, Tanzania: Cape or Red hartebeest (A.b. Caama), S. Africa, Namibia, Botswana, W. Zimbabwe."  and "Lichtenstein's hartebeest: Alcelaphus lichtensteini.  Tanzania, SE Zaire, Angola, Zambia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe.  Open woodland.  HBL 190cm; TL 46cm; SH 124cm; HL 45–62cm; wt male 160–205kg, female 165kg.  Coat: bright reddish with fawn flanks and white hindquarters: dark stripe down front legs.  Frontal region of skull does not form pedicel".  The Hartebeest description above is pp. 570–571; the Lichtenstein's hartebeest description is p. 571.  The citation for Macdonald is .  Not sure if any of this is useful, but here it is if you can use it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops; meant to add this: HBL = head-body length; TL = tail length; SH = shoulder height; HL = horn length. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Used the info of yours, though only once because most of the facts are already present and may create contradictions. Just one more thing, is the fact of the average home range about the females at the Nairobi N P or applies in general to all hartebeest? If the former, I wouldn't like to mention the fact. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, your guess is as good as mine, but my interpretation is that it refers only to the females in the Nairobi NP. I think you can still use the information though; you just have to qualify it as applying to a particular population.  That's often the way with behavioural studies.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, added. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose  More comments I've switched to oppose; I see several supports above, but I do think there are few more necessary fixes, or at least replies, so I thought it was better to register the oppose.
 * I have struck my oppose, but I don't feel able to support. The many changes and corrections don't make me confident that this article is comprehensive and accurate, but my knowledge of the subject matter is too limited to be able to evaluate the article on those criteria. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you've labelled the picture as "Western hartebeest"; the picture itself doesn't give a subspecies. Is it the location, in Benin, that allows you to deduce the subspecies?
 * You've compressed the coat descriptions a little more than I think is right. The Lelwel's, for example, is described by your source as "reddish tawny on the upper body, with hips and legs lighter"; you simply have "reddish-tan".  I don't think that's accurate enough; the distinction between upper body colour and the legs is repeated in several sources and seems to be a standard way to describe the coat.  Another example: the source for the Lichtenstein's says "The upper body is reddish brown, the flanks a lighter tan, and the rump whitish. There is a dark stripe on the front of the legs."  You say "The Lichtenstein's hartebeest is red to light tan."  I think the additional detail is necessary. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite; needs a couple more tweaks. "Dorsal" is an adjective, not a noun, so you need a noun there; and "lateral side" is redundant; a side is lateral. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be such a pain on this, but you've added it to the wrong species; the "stripe" description applies to the Lichtenstein's, not Lelwel's. Also, you don't seem to have cited Macdonald for the additional descriptive text you added -- can you add those cites? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, added. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I had to add the SCI reference to one sentence since Macdonald didn't quite cover it. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Any reason why you have not used the measurement information from Macdonald that I quoted above? Seems to me that it would make a worthwhile table.  Well, strike that; I see it's really only for the overall species and then for the Lichtenstein's, so a table won't really work.  Useful information to include though.
 * The Description already mentions it, perhaps citing this would result in contradictions. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick look does reveal some differences. I will take a look later and see if I can come up with suggestions for how to merge the data from the two sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck this point; the ultimate source for the information you give appears to be Kingdon 1989, East African Mammals, which is at least as scholarly as the Macdonald and a little later, so I think can be left as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you add "Northern hartebeest" as an alternative name for "bubal hartebeest", per Macdonald?
 * Done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that Macdonald lists the Jackson's hartebeest as a separate subspecies, but this is not given in your later sources. Is there any information available on how this status changed?  You give history for some of the changes in taxonomy and I think it's good information; it should be possible to find out. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The status is disputed. Here is a PDF on the hartebeest. It says it is a hybrid between Lelwel and Coke's. Many refer to it as an alt name for Lelwel. Supporting the Macdonald claim is a journal discussing reproductive features of the subspecies, here is online access. What do you think right to do? Expecting improvements I have removed the mention of Jackson's hartebeest as an alt name in the Subspecies part for now. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that the sources contradict each other should be covered in the article -- there's no reason not to say so. I see quite a bit of information in the antelopetag source; is all that included in the article?  I'll read it through later to see if there's more that could be used.  And it mentions the studbook; I'd completely forgotten about studbooks as a source.  I have a couple of studbooks (mandrills and tigers, not hartebeest, unfortunately) and they often contain good information about conservation and status in the wild as well as information about zoo populations, genetic diversity, and so on.  I think you might consider consulting the studbooks as a source.  If you have trouble tracking them down I have contacts that can probably find out what the most recent editions are for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes the best thing is to state that source A says X and source B says Y. Have to be very careful not to generalise here either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: I see this, which should be somehow investigated and included. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. As far as I can tell from the IUCN site, that's the only studbook for any hartebeest subspecies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also just noticed that the "Status and conservation" section doesn't give the status of the Lichtenstein's; it should be listed as Least Concern.
 * "All the hartebeest subspecies are decreasing in numbers": this isn't accurate: the red hartebeest is increasing, as discussed in the text just prior to this sentence, and the Lichtenstein's population is stable according to the IUCN.
 * Fixed. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The antelopetag.com PDF you list above has some information in it that doesn't appear to be in the article, and which I think you should be using. For example, I didn't see the comments about male/female sparring in the section on behaviour, or the fact that defecation is used for boundary marking.  I also think it would be worth listing the Species Coordinator, which at that time was Stephen Shurter, but might not be by now.  And have you been able to consult the article by Spratt listed in the references there?  It appears to be a behavioural article and might contain relevant information.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be returning to this PDF work in a day or two. I have never come across, and thus don't know how to interpret, studbooks. anyway, I have planned to add a paragraph about the Jackson's hartebeest in the "Subspecies" - not as a bullet in the list, surely. I have found some book sources describing it, too. What is your idea? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus at WP:ANIMALS that studbook information should be included, so I wouldn't oppose on that basis, but I agree with Casliber that you should find the Jackson's studbook he mentions above and look at it to see what information it includes, as well as going through the antelopetag source. There may be nothing you need to add from the studbook, but you won't know till you look at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added info. But how am I to find that studbook? I have no idea how to. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't oppose on the basis of you not having consulted it. The only remaining issue I think you need to fix is the wording on the Lelwel's; see my comments above about Fay 2007 and southern Omo.  Once that's done I will strike my oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks found some problems:
 * "A total of about 600, only 300 of which are mature" - source says less than 600 and doesn't appear to mention number of mature individuals at all
 * Fixed. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The body hair of the hartebeest is about 25 mm" - this number does not appear on the page cited
 * Fixed, citation problem. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The northern lineage split into the eastern and western lineages, perhaps due to the expansion of the central African rainforest belt and the loss of savanna habitats due to a period of global warming" is quite similar to "The northern lineage has further diverged into eastern and western lineages, most probably as a result of the expanding central African rainforest belt and subsequent contraction of savannah habitats during a period of global warming"
 * Added the reword. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The red hartebeest is very widespread after reintroduction to protected areas and ranches" - source does not mention reintroduction
 * Fixed. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Many of the mitochondrial haplotypes and microsatellite alleles present at high frequencies in the Senkele hartebeest were absent in those from the other population" is quite similar to "Many mitochondrial haplotypes and microsatellite alleles present at high frequencies among the Senkele individuals were missing in Nechisar"
 * Added the reword. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Another theory put forward for this defect..." - the source seems to suggest that these elements support the initial theory rather than being an independent potential cause
 * Fixed. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose pending more complete checks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note from another reviewer: The "period of global warming" phrase (just those four words) was added by me as I felt it was necessary to reflect the source and couldn't think of an accurate way to rephrase those four words. I didn't notice the similarity of the rest of the phrase and agree that as a whole it's too close. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good phrase. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- This has been open nearly six weeks, so I'm trying to get a sense of how close we are to consensus. It appears to me that Mike's comments are steadily being resolved and struck; Nikki, were you planning on making the more complete spotchecks you mention? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sainsf has been diligent about fixing the issues I've identified, and I will strike my oppose when everything is dealt with. The high number of errors I've seen don't give me confidence that it is comprehensive and accurate, so I don't feel I will be able to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd had an initial look and felt there was more needed comprehensivenesswise (always a risk with big articles!) - I am not familiar with the subject matter so wasn't clear on what was missing. I would have checked more sources myself but my free time has been patchy. I am waiting for the source checking process to conclude before having a look at content again (didn't really want to add more stuff and muddy up the checking). I think this still might take some time. It would be good to see it get through - question is whether it sits here "on the boil" or goes off for two weeks..not sure.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now struck my oppose, but am not supporting, per my comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A small comment, perhaps the lead should say "The hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) is an African species of grassland antelope"? To the layperson, it might not be clear what "rank" this article covers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, done. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Lit search. I found the following articles that aren't used as sources, and was wondering if they had been consulted in the preparation of this FAC candidate: Sasata (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Title: Population status and human impact on the endangered Swayne's hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus swaynei) in Nechisar Plains, Nechisar National Park, Ethiopia
 * Author(s): Datiko, Demeke; Bekele, Afework
 * Source: AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Volume: 49   Issue: 3   Pages: 311-319   DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2011.01266.x   Published: SEP 2011


 * Title: Daily activity pattern of the endangered Swayne's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus swaynei Sclater, 1892) in the Nechisar National Park, Ethiopia
 * Author(s): Vymyslicka, Pavla; Hejcmanova, Pavla; Antoninova, Marketa; et al.
 * Source: AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Volume: 49   Issue: 2   Pages: 246-249   DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2010.01243.x   Published: JUN 2011


 * Title: A comparison between the effects of day versus night cropping on the quality parameters of red hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) meat
 * Author(s): Hoffman, Louw C.; Laubscher, Liesel L.
 * Source: SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH Volume: 41   Issue: 1   Pages: 50-60   Published: APR 2011


 * Title: ROBUSTOSTRONGYLUS AFERENSIS GEN. NOV ET SP NOV (NEMATODA: TRICHOSTRONGYLOIDEA) IN KOB (KOBUS KOB) AND HARTEBEEST (ALCELAPHUS BUSELAPHUS JACKSONI) (ARTIODACTYLA) FROM SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, WITH FURTHER RUMINATIONS ON THE OSTERTAGIINAE
 * Author(s): Hoberg, Eric P.; Abrams, Arthur; Pilitt, Patricia A.
 * Source: JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY Volume: 95   Issue: 3   Pages: 702-717   DOI: 10.1645/GE-1859.1   Published: JUN 2009


 * Title: Distribution and Extinction of Ungulates during the Holocene of the Southern Levant
 * Author(s): Tsahar, Ella; Izhaki, Ido; Lev-Yadun, Simcha; et al.
 * Source: PLOS ONE Volume: 4   Issue: 4     Article Number: e5316   DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005316   Published: APR 29 2009


 * Title: Animal breeding systems and big game hunting: Models and application
 * Author(s): Caro, T. M.; Young, C. R.; Cauldwell, A. E.; et al.
 * Source: BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 142   Issue: 4   Pages: 909-929   DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.018   Published: APR 2009


 * Title: Gastro-intestinal parasites of antelopes and buffalos (Syncerus caffer brachyceros) from the Nazinga game ranch in Burkina Faso.
 * Author(s): Belem, Adrien Marie Gaston; Bakone, Emilien Ulrich
 * Source: BIOTECHNOLOGIE AGRONOMIE SOCIETE ET ENVIRONNEMENT Volume: 13   Issue: 4   Pages: 493-498   Published: 2009


 * Title: Gastro-intestinal parasites of antelopes and buffalos (Syncerus caffer brachyceros) from the Nazinga game ranch in Burkina Faso.
 * Author(s): Belem, Adrien Marie Gaston; Bakone, Emilien Ulrich
 * Source: BIOTECHNOLOGIE AGRONOMIE SOCIETE ET ENVIRONNEMENT Volume: 13   Issue: 4   Pages: 493-498   Published: 2009


 * Title: Seasonal reproductive characteristics of female and male Jackson's hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus jacksoni)
 * Author(s): Metrione, L. C.; Norton, T. M.; Beetem, D.; et al.
 * Source: THERIOGENOLOGY Volume: 70   Issue: 6   Pages: 871-879   DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.02.005   Published: OCT 1 2008


 * Title: Morphology, constraints, and scaling of frontal sinuses in the hartebeest, Alcelaphus buselaphus (Mammalia : Artiodactyla, Bovidae)
 * Author(s): Farke, Andrew A.
 * Source: JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY Volume: 268   Issue: 3   Pages: 243-253   DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10511   Published: MAR 2007


 * Title: Mammalian exocrine secretions. XVIII: Chemical characterization of interdigital secretion of red hartebeest, Alcelaphus buselaphus caama
 * Author(s): Reiter, B; Burger, BV; Dry, J
 * Source: JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY Volume: 29   Issue: 10   Pages: 2235-2252   DOI: 10.1023/A:1026218213151   Published: OCT 2003


 * Title: The use of heterologous primers for analysing microsatellite variation in hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus
 * Author(s): Flagstad, O; Olsaker, I; Roed, KH
 * Source: HEREDITAS Volume: 130   Issue: 3   Pages: 337-340   DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1999.00337.x   Published: 1999


 * Title: MYIASIS FLIES OF HARTEBEEST (ALCELAPHUS-BUSELAPHUS)
 * Author(s): WETZEL, H
 * Source: ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGEWANDTE ENTOMOLOGIE-JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY Volume: 98   Issue: 1   Pages: 47-49   Published: 1984


 * Title:The ecology of Swayne's hartebeest
 * Author(s): J.G. Lewis, R.T. Wilson
 * Source: Biological Conservation Volume: 15 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-12 Published: 1979


 * Title: NUTRITIONAL ECOLOGY OF COKES HARTEBEEST (ALCELAPHUS-BUSELAPHUS-COKEI) IN KENYA
 * Author(s): PRICE, MRS
 * Source: JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY Volume: 15   Issue: 1   Pages: 33-49   DOI: 10.2307/2402919   Published: 1978


 * Title: ATTENUATION OF A HERPES-VIRUS (MALIGNANT CATARRHAL FEVER VIRUS) ISOLATED FROM HARTEBEEST (ALCELAPHUS-BUSELAPHUS-COKEI GUNTHER)
 * Author(s): REID, HW; ROWE, L
 * Source: RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE Volume: 15   Issue: 1   Pages: 144-146   Published: 1973

Delegate's closing comment - This has been a difficult one to call, but I have decided that a consensus has not been reached on this occasion and will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.