Wikipedia:Peer review/Camel/archive1

Camel

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is one of the essential 1,000 articles of Wikipedia, and in contrast to articles such as Domestic Sheep, Bird or Bacteria, it is nowhere near GA or FA standard. I'd like to hear ideas for new sections to be added, details to be polished, and so on.

Thanks, Fish-Bird (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point the article needs a lot of work before it's close to FA or GA status. This isn't a very detailed review, but here are a few ideas of where to start: That should be enough to keep you busy for awhile. I'd be happy to come back and do a more detailed review at that point. --JayHenry (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll probably want to rename Genetics to Evolution, and start with a narration of its evolution. This is a more accessible way to present the information.  One or two good sources that explain Camel evolution are all that are needed here.
 * Distribution should probably include information about their historical distribution as well as the present. The map should be bigger--a picture is only worth one thousand words if you can see it :)
 * Avoid technical section titles like "eco-behavioral adaptations". It would be better to have this be "Ecology and behavior".  Start out by saying why this is such interesting information--camels live in hostile deserts!
 * For this to even start getting close to GA standard, a big challenge will be finding reliable sources that contain all the information that is marked: Citation needed. If the information cannot be cited, it will have to be removed.
 * A section should be created explaining the basic biological differences between Bactrians and Dromedaries.
 * All citations will need to be in a consistent format. I would suggest using,  and  for all the sources.
 * If there are conservation efforts for camels you'll want to mention them. A brief outline of camels in zoos and camel racing would also be good.

Here are my points about the article, thinking about how I wrote Domestic sheep. Overall, It's helpful in sectioning and looking for things to expand, to ask what a reader who didn't know anything about camels would want to know. Examples: what do they eat? what is their behavior and social structure? how big is a camel? what makes a true camel different than other camelids, and what makes camels different from each other? I hope this helps! I'll try and poke around to help you once you go for GA (and beyond?) Steven Walling (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good first sentence! It states the obvious well and defines the subject in a scientific manner.
 * Create an In sport section that overviews camel racing and camel wrestling, making sure to include a link to Animals in sport.
 * Instead of an "Eco-behavioural adaptations" section, try and start with a Description section that catalogs all the physical dimensions and attributes of a camel. Don't forget to state the obvious here (weigh/heigh etc.) in focusing on the amazing physical adaptations of camels. Anything then not a part of a Description can then go in either two separate Behavior and Diet sections, or one Ecology section that combines those topics.
 * In Description ideally, you need to talk more about the differences between Camels and other camelids, as well as the difference between the two true camel species.
 * I concur about renaming Genetics to Evolution.
 * Obviously Camel farming needs to either removed as a section or expanded. I would suggest taking it and combining it with Dairy/Meat in to a general Agricultural importance (or uses) section, rather than cuisine.
 * Jay is 100% correct about standardizing the refs. I would suggest putting in-line references in to one section (like Footnotes or Notes) and general listed sources in a References section. One important point: GA will not usually require page numbers for direct citations, but FA will.