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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2016 [1].

---

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), Sainsf (talk), & 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little-known, but interesting antelope; the first large African mammal to be exterminated by humans in historical times. The article is a GA, has been copy-edited, and was recently featured on the main page as a DYK, so it has already had a few eyes look over it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the External links, the Extinction website is a deadlink   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, and merged the further reading and external links sections, not much of use in the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general the article is looking good. A few points I noticed:

• "British zoologists Philip Sclater and Oldfield Thomas pointed out that the blackbuck (A. cervicapra) was the type species of the genus Antilope, and instead moved the bluebuck and its closest relatives to the genus Hippotragus in their Book of Antelopes from 1899." - This seems like a non-sequitur.

It explains why the bluebuck was moved from the genus Antilope to the genus Hippotragus. Not sure why that would be irrelevant, such info is rather standard in taxonomy sections? FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its not irrelevant, but there is a gap in the reasoning. Why does having the blackbuck as type species prevent the bluebuck being included in the genus? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I was wondering about that too, but the source doesn't actually explain it. The source says "and placed it as the first species of his genus Antilope. We have already, however (Book of Ant. III. p. 3), given the reasons why another species — the Black-buck of India — should be deemed to be the type of Pallas's generic term Antilope, and in accordance with ordinary usage we employ Sundevall's name Hippotragus for the present species and its allie".[2] It refers to a page in the former volume, which just says why the name Antilope refers to the blackbuck:[3] I guess it is because the blackbuck is quite different from all other antilopes[4], and should therefore have a genus for itself, but the source doesn't state this explicitly... You think I could add something like "pointed out that the blackbuck (A. cervicapra), which is distinct from all other antelopes, was the type species of the genus Antilope"? I just did, hope it isn't too "synthetic"... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems Sundevall was the first to move them to the genus Hippotragus, I'll see if I can hunt the source down... FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, seems the case is much more complicated than indicated by the main literature about the animal, with IUCN taking action[5][6], I'll see if I can sort it out... So thanks and no thanks for pointing this out, hehe! FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solved that mystery then, well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has also been pointed out that the name was already published on a list of South African mammals in 1681." - What name?

Changed, better? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " at each of the Hunterian Museum and the Zoological Museum of Amsterdam" - I think that "at each of" sounds awkward and would prefer the use of "both".

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "A pair of horns is present at each of the Natural History ... " - ditto.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Roan antelope ((H. equinus)" - There's a stray "(" here.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The coat was a uniform bluish-grey, with a pale whitish belly and similar flanks." - What colour are the flanks, then?

Not sure where "similar flanks" comes from, perhaps Sainsf knows, the source simply says "Belly dull whitish, not contrasted on the sides", which I'm assuming is the basis for the statement, so I rewrote it as: "with a pale whitish belly, which was not contrasted on the flanks". FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Its limbs had a faint dark line own their front side." - Sentence needs attention!

Rewrote as "Its limbs had a faint dark line along their front surface". FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The second paragraph of the description section needs to be consistent as to whether it refers to the characteristics as "its" or whether it just uses the definite article "the" - "its lip" or "the lip".

Fixed (took "the"). FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the same paragraph, the last two sentences need to be consistent as to which tense is used.

Think I fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Its horns were significantly shorter " - Since the previous paragraph had Pennant as the subject, the present one needs to establish what it is about and not start with "It".

Specified. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "receives rainfall throughout the year while rainfall" - Perhaps you could replace one of these "rainfall"s with "precipitation".

Replaced the last one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Such locations could be the western margin of the CFR during winter and the western margin of the CFR during summer." - Is this really what you mean?

What is wrong? The source says "It is anticipated that blue antelope preferentially calved when rainfall promoted maximum grassland productivity; that is, in the western margin of the CFR during the winter or in the eastern margin of the CFR during the summer." But Sainsf is more familiar with that source... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sentence again! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, double western! Good catch, fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "A 2013 study" - Since you refer to this study in several places, my inclination would be to give it a name (Faith, 2013) or somesuch. I might be wrong here.

Did it, I think it looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The aforementioned 2009 study" - Ditto.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The bluebuck population had already declined significantly and its range had contracted when Europeans settling in the Cape Colony in the 17th and 18th centuries first came across this antelope." - This is just repeating information earlier in the section.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Around the time of its extinction, the bluebuck occurred in what would be known as the Overberg region (Western Cape), probably concentrated in Swellendam." - This information could be relocated to earlier in the section.

Moved up to the end of the first paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "They show six antelopes faced by a man," - Perhaps "facing towards"?

I think the point is that the man is also facing towards them, a meaning that would be lost if we only said they face towards him. How about "facing a man"? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments we'll respond soon. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All issues should now be addressed, Cwmhiraeth. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, Cwmhiraeth, I've now added a bunch of new text, probably needs a check! FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am happy with the changes made to the article and now support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I love when reviews lead to more content being added to articles... FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "too incompetently known": ?

Changed to "since too little is known about the bluebuck". FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Faith et al. 2013" (multiple instances), "Kerley": Generally, if you mention a name rather than saying "a 2013 study", we're asking for a full name (at first occurrence in the text) and some kind of quick description, rather than just dumping a last name into the text. After the first occurrence, "Faith et al." will be good enough, because the "et al." distinguishes it from Faith (2012). "Faith et al. 2013" is academic jargon, and best avoided at FAC.

Presented. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally, more links would be appreciated. For instance, how many will know what "afromontane" means?

Linked some words, more? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the two that jumped out at me, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I enjoyed learning about this animal. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will fix these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to say here; the article is in very good shape.

• "Its mane was not as developed as in the roan and sable antelopes, and its ears were shorter and blunter, not tipped with black, and it had a darker tail tuft and smaller teeth": three statements joined by "and". How about: "Its mane was not as developed as in the roan and sable antelopes; its ears were shorter and blunter, not tipped with black; and it had a darker tail tuft and smaller teeth"?

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "four mounted skins of the bluebuck are in existence": suggest "four mounted skins of the bluebuck remain".

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "In addition, a mounted skin": I think you can cut "In addition".

Cut. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you add citations to the captions that do more than simply name the picture?

Added to the drawing under description. Do you also mean the images that identify the subject as specific skins? FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now added to all drawings that identify the specimen in captions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A map including some of the locations mentioned would be helpful in the "Distribution and habitat" section.

Yes, another map would be nice, but it will take some time to get it done, I don't have the right software for detailed maps with legends (would preferably be some kind of SVG map). But I can ask about it somewhere soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I won't hold up support for that, but I think it's worth getting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "the blue antelope showed similar habitat preferences as the Cape buffalo": suggest "the blue antelope's habitat preferences were similar to those of the Cape buffalo". Any reason why you use "blue antelope" here and nowhere else in the article?

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about the rewording? I think it flows a little better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, seems I forgot the first part after fixing the second, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- These are all minor points, and I expect to support once these are dealt with. One non-FAC question; any idea why the lighting in the infobox picture is so odd? Looks like they were having a disco in the museum. This makes it seems likely that the colour of the skin isn't well represented by that picture. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will fix these soon! And yeah, as you point out, the lighting seems to give everything a blue tone, even the quagga in the background, which should just be brown... Unfortunately, those are the only actual photos we have of a specimen... Would it be ok to note that this is not the actual colour in the caption? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be fine; not sure you even need to do that, really, as a reader can figure it out (as I did). Since that specimen I linked to seems to be not weirdly lit, and quite photographable, you might consider posting a request on the Swedish Wikipedia for someone to take a picture of it. But not necessary for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Sandstein who took the photo, perhaps there is some info to be gained there... FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as one can see, the specimen was in a glass box that was lit with blue light from the top. I don't know why they did that, perhaps to protect the skin?  Sandstein  14:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps in formulating a caption, I can say that it is the lighting itself that is blue, and not some kind of artefact of photography... FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note to the infobox caption saying "The strong blue colouration is caused by the lighting". As for pictures of other specimens, I'm sure some will come along over time (as has happened with other articles), specific requests rarely lead to anything in my experience... FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All looks good; I do think a map would help but it's not a requirement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, as is explained in the text, the prehistoric range of the species was also much larger, which could be useful to include in such a map, so I'll see what I can do... FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can do simple SVG editing, so if you find an unannotated map of the right area that's copyright free I might be able to add labels for you. I use Inkscape, which is free; it does have a little bit of a learning curve, but it's not too bad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I'll write on your talk page when I have collected the right sources and maps... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

• All images are licenced under Creative Commons, or Public Domain due to age - OK.
• Sufficient source and author information, active source links - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source comment (not a full check)

• Groves, Grubb (2011) with "page 278" in "Sources" isn't used (however, an offline reference for this book with "page 198" is used as ref #19). Needs some cleanup - if page 278 is no longer used (?), the redundant entry should be deleted. GermanJoe (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not sure what happened there, but should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.