This article is about an African antelope. The article is very comprehensive and supported by a large number of credible sources, it is interesting throughout and goes well into almost all facets of the topic. Though this article did not do well in its initial FA nomination, I have improved it substantially since then. I believe this article greatly deserves to be a Featured Article. Thanks! Sainsf<^>Talk all words 16:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First impression, is there no better image for the taxobox? Seems a shame the legs are cut out. FunkMonk (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you lay stress upon the legs, how about these: 1, 2, 3? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 10:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the second and third are the best, because the first one has a l0t of intrusive branches... The third one doesn't show the legs, but at least it's because of the grass, not because they're out of frame... FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, because seems the red hartebeest was already overrepresented among the images in the article. By the way, some captions don't mention the subspecies shown, is it possible to fix this? FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the juvenile image. Not sure about the herd image, but it is most likely red hartebeest. No idea about the image in Diet, and I think the caption might get spoiled if I add subspecies name to it. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"could have originated from the obsolete Afrikaans word hertebeest" Which means what?
It was the name for the hartebeest in the old language. Could not see how exactly to put it in. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no explanation of the component words in the source? Beest still means beast, at least... FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No idea from where "Harte-" originated, your guess about "beest" is correct though. Still can't see how to put it. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Alcelaphus can be partitioned into three major divisions on the basis of skull structure: A. buselaphus division (nominate, also including A. major division), A. tora division (also including A. cokii and A. swaynei) and A. lelwel division.[2] An analysis of cytochrome b and D-loop sequence data show a notable affinity between the A. lelwel and A. tora divisions.[10]" I'm not sure I get this. Those are subspecies or species? If this is divisions of the genus Alcelaphus, where are the other two species then that are not covered by this article?
The two controversial subspecies were omitted in the source. These are all subspecies, don't know who changed them to species. These are just morphological and not phylogenetic divisions. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be "Alcelaphus buselaphus can be partitioned" then? FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done. Anyway Alcelaphus is synonymous to A. buselaphus, its sole species. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well not all will agree that the red and Lichtenstein's hartebeest are not independent subspecies, but in the line we were discussing they all have been treated as subspecies and A. buselaphus as species. In this article we assume mention the two controversial subspecies and continue to treat them as subspecies. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 02:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Many taxa were introduced as syntypes for this genus, due to which fixing a lectotype was required." Only specimens can be syntypes, so I'm not sure what is meant...
Some jargon-like legacy, unsourced as well. Removed. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"would render A. buselaphus paraphyletic" Most readers won't know what this means.
Though I do understand paraphyly, I am not very much of an expert about this and can not explain this well. The reason mentioned in the source is all I have mentioned in the article. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can just say "an unnatural grouping" in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's a conscious choice that you don't do this, but it's possible to embed range maps in the taxobox, thereby saving space for other images in the article (if that is wanted).
"It is regarded as a hybrid between the Lelwel and Coke's hartebeest. The African Antelope Database (1998) treats it as synonymous to the Lelwel hartebeest." The second sentence makes the first one seem to sure in its formulation.
Just noticed that this nomination isn't transcluded on the FAC page, anything wrong, Graham Beards? Oh, on second thoughts, I guess Sainsf just didn't add it to the row... FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten, sorry for my negligence! Added it to the list now. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The Jackson's hartebeest, another type of hartebeest," isn't the second part stating the obvious?
Now that the map is in the infobox, perhaps move the subspecies head compilation image up to the subspecies section? Then space under description could be freed for some unusual or distinct anatomical features or similar... FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Hartebeest have been known since the Natufian and Neolithic times well into the Bronze and Iron Ages." What do you mean with "been known"? By humans? If so, doesn't it make more sense under Relationship with humans? If you mean they have existed since then, it should be clearer. And what does "well into the Bronze and Iron Ages" mean? I'm sure it was known after that as well...
Looks like something confusing, or rather about the origin in a locality in Israel. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and oddly shaped horns." This seems a bit subjective, and not very descriptive.
I think that refers to the various shapes of the horns of hartebeest that are not usually seen in other antelopes. But it is not stated explicitly in the source. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any subspecies not shown in a photo? Could perhaps be nice in the empty space under description. Or an anatomy detail.
Only the Tora hartebeest is not represented, but then it does not have any image. I could not find any interesting image on anatomy. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The hartebeest has preorbital glands" Perhaps mention this is near the eyes, as the regular reader won't know what orbital means.
Doesn't the following paragraph make more sense under behaviour? "The hartebeest has several adaptations that allow it to survive even under adverse conditions and in poor habitats. The thin long legs are probably an anti-predator mechanism helpful to animals inhabiting open plains, clearings or grassland-woodland ecotones. The elevated position of the eyes enables the hartebeest to continuously inspect its surroundings even as it is grazing. The mouth is specially adapted to derive maximum nutrition from even a frugal diet.[15] Thee horns are used for defence from predators, and during fights among males for dominance in the breeding season;[16] the clash of the horns is so loud that it can be heard from hundreds of metres away.[15]"
"Hartebeest are remarkably alert animals with highly developed brains." and "The hartebeest is more alert and cautious than other ungulates." Seems repetitive.
"llowed the hartebeest to prevail over other animals millions of years ago, which eventually led to its successful evolution." The order seems wrong here, if it had already evolved. Perhaps successful distribution is meant?
Reworded. It is radiation, not distribution. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The hartebeest is extinct in Algeria, Egypt, Lesotho, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, and Tunisia." Isn't this more relevant under status than habitat? I wouldn't say a country counts as a habitat... But you could maybe add distribution to the title instead ("Habitat and distribution").
A somewhat overlooked (but important) issue, it seems some subspecies have separate articles (bubal hartebeest, red hartebeest, perhaps more). Generally, such are merged into the species article, so not sure what you want to do. If not, they should all be linked at first mention, at least, and in the taxobox and captions. I'd prefer merging them all, especially if only some of them have articles.
They have been linked at first mention in the Subspecies section. I do not know what to do about the merging, anyway all have their own articles, and some are well expanded as well. Like a consensus? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Pictorial as well as epigraphic evidence from Egypt suggests that in the Upper Palaeolithic age, Egyptians hunted hartebeest and domesticated them." Sure could be nice with an ancient Egyptian image of them! Some can be seen here[2], but of course, we might not have free ones. There are some free images of banknotes which could maybe be interesting.
I could find one on a Namibian banknote, nothing else. Did you find something? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All looks good then. I can't help but feel it would be nice with an additional image, for example a good head-shot close up, under description... To show some of the details, for exaple the horns and the gland. FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Now that you speak of head-shots, how about this (another red hartebeest) or a closer one (that's one more red). I found a great one of Jackson's hartebeest, but I placed it in Hybrids where it looked better. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 06:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second one, because it focuses much more on the head (and is a promoted "quality image"), whereas the first one doesn't really show anything new compared to the other photos. also, these serve another purpose, since the former head-shot is a stuffed animal. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using the second. Anything to do with the first? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 06:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the one you added seems to be a different one than those listed, but looks nice! I was thinking the side view could be used under description, by the paragraph starting with "both sexes"? FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now? I hope the "that's one more red" image was what you meant. I seem to be getting images wrong here....Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, now it clashes a bit with the herd image below, but you could either move that image a paragraph down, or introduce the upright parameter to the vertical images... FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a week without any activity here. Following FunkMonk's example, I would like to ping some animal reviewers; I am humbly sorry if I disturbed any of you. Casliber, Cwmhiraeth, J Milburn, Jimfbleak. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 11:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just returned from a fortnight in Mexico, will review as soon as I catch up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I am afraid you accidentally deleted all the comments of the earlier reviewers. I have restored them now. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 15:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging is fine. Just heading out. Will be back later. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have copyedited the lead. I think we can lose the comment about the Western subspecies being the largest as I can't slot it in to make it flow nicely. See edit summaries and let me know if you are happy with the changes.
To make the Etymology section less listy, do we have any more info on what kongoni means or who uses the word?
Nothing but the addition that this name is often used exclusively for Coke's hartebeest. Added it now.
The second para of the Taxonomy section is confusing - Is Sigmoceros for this species, the other hartebeest, or both? If they are the only two species in hte genus I don't understand why we're renaming it...also the meanings of the scientific name should be added to the first para. I can probably hunt that down.
Corrected
Why is Leichtenstein's cosidered a separate species? reason should be added. found it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried but I could not find anything more than what is already mentioned. Seems it is just a dispute, though I don't know the reason the species-supporters have. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 05:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on it - there is some more info there - but I need to sleep as late here. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganisedtaxonomy so all the intraspecific material is together - it was in two different places before. Check if you're ok with it.
That's a marvelous job. You were right when you said sometime back that if one constantly looks at an article one may not notice flaws and better formatting that someone else can. Thanks for your edits. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 03:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, any more comments? It seems there is some trouble with the line She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram, and that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes., which I think was added by you. Cwmhiraeth (below) suggests that this should be reworded.Sainsf<^>Talk all words 10:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, might need a reword. Will look later. I will do that but wait to complete my review once others are done as it will get a bit chaotic. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber I think the editing is not so stormy now. I and two others are working on the formatting of the citations and some tidbits. Perhaps you could finish the job here... Sainsf<^>Talk all words 11:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I know these can get a bit busy. Will resume now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A. lichtensteinii has been classified as a subspecies of A. buselaphus by zoologists Jonathan Kingdon and Theodor Haltenorth, but was placed by Vrba in a separate genus Sigmoceros.[2] Gentry placed it as an independent species in Alcelaphus in 1990 - this sentence is problematic - the first and second facts we know already, and the third is not good placed at the end as subsequent genetic studies show it is wrong and that the taxon is nested within the hartebeest complex. I need to think on what to do with it.
Eight subspecies are identified, of which two — A. b. caama and A. b. lichtensteinii — are often considered to be independent species. - change to "Eight subspecies are identified, of which two — A. b. caama and A. b. lichtensteinii — have been considered to be independent species. " - we cannot assume the "often"
Casliber So far these two parts appear problematic:
"In 1979, palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba supported Sigmoceros as a separate genus for Lichtenstein's hartebeest, as she assumed it was related to Connochaetes (wildebeest). She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram, and argued that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes."
"A. lichtensteinii has been classified as a subspecies of A. buselaphus by zoologists Jonathan Kingdon and Theodor Haltenorth, but was placed by Vrba in a separate genus Sigmoceros.[2] Gentry placed it as an independent species in Alcelaphus in 1990."
I have repaired the "often" you mentioned. Now, for the first line about Sigmoceros, Cwmhiraeth was not sure what the reference to the skull meant; I guess it is clarified now. Another reviewer here, MPS1992, pointed out the obvious repetition of the fact in the second line (about the classification of A. lichtensteinii). From what I have read from the sources, Gentry believed that this species/subspecies should not be in a separate genus and supported its inclusion in Alcelaphus as a species, just like A. buselaphus. So can this issue not be resolved by merging the second line into the first para of Taxonomy, so that the Taxonomy section would look something like this (I have made certain changes in this text, please check them):
"The scientific name of the hartebeest is Alcelaphus buselaphus. First described by German zoologist Peter Simon Pallas in 1766, it is classified in the genus Alcelaphus and placed in the family Bovidae. In 1979, palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba supported Sigmoceros as a separate genus for Lichtenstein's hartebeest, a kind of hartebeest, as she assumed it was related to Connochaetes (wildebeest). She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram, and argued that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes. However, this finding was not replicated by Alan W. Gentry of the Natural History Museum, who classified it as an independent species of Alcelaphus. Zoologists such as Jonathan Kingdon and Theodor Haltenorth considered it to be a subspecies of A. buselaphus. Vrba dissolved the new genus in 1997 after reconsideration. An MtDNA analysis could find no evidence to support a separate genus for Lichtenstein's hartebeest. It also showed the tribe Alcelaphini to be monophyletic, and discovered close affinity between the Alcelaphus and the sassabies (genus Damaliscus)—both genetically and morphologically." Sainsf<^>Talk all words 06:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is much better. The genetics in the evolution section beneath it add strength to treating it as a subspecies. I need to read that again and think but I think you should proceed with this change at the very minimum. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I think we're there or nearly there. I can't see any outstanding issues so a cautious support from me, though other editors might pick up things. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think "including two controversial ones" is a bit odd for the opening lines. Perhaps you could say something like "including two sometimes considered independent species".
OK, done.
"mainly of grasses, with small amounts of Hyparrhenia grasses and legumes throughout the year" A little odd- why are you listing Hyparrhenia grasses separately from others?
The source stressed upon this grass, so I thought this should be the item especially preferred for diet. Other species were recorded in separate studies. If you say I will remove its "special" mention.
An update. This part has been removed as it came from an unreliable source. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The short sentences in the final paragraph of the lead come across as a little choppy
Done some reordering, it should not be troublesome anymore.
"The vernacular name "hartebeest" could have originated from the obsolete Afrikaans word hertebeest,[3] while another supposed origin of the name is from the combination of the Dutch words hart (deer) and beest (beast).[4]" Surely, given that the languages are so close, these are hardly competing accounts.
I did not take any risks, and sources do not mention these two points together. If you think it right I will combine them.
"Kongoni is often used to refer almost exclusively" Weaselly
Reworded
The first paragraph of the taxonomy section is a little choppy.
Much rearrangement has taken lace in the taxonomy section. Could you elaborate what exactly the problem is?
Link (and perhaps explain) Connochaetes at first mention?
Missed it, done.
(Sorry- got completely distracted. I'll try to find more time!) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sparing time for this. You were surely not distracted, these flaws need a close view to be noticed! Sainsf<^>Talk all words 03:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments:
It strikes me as a bit odd that you say "There are two common cross-breeds between the subspecies" and then have a three-item list.
Missed it. Fixed.
Is Alcelaphus lelwel x cokii an occasional crossbreed, or is it a hybrid population? It's introduced as the former, but seems to be described as the latter? Same with Alcelaphus lelwel x swaynei- or am I misunderstanding something here?
It is an occasional crossbreed as far as I could understand; I guess it is the part about their range that makes them appear a hybrid population. The sources do not state anything clearly about this.
"several previous forms" A form is something fairly specific in taxonomy; I don't think using it in this non-technical way is a good idea
I am not sure what word can best replace "form".
"a particularly close relation" This doesn't quite work.
Tried to reword, how does it look now?
"with a dark face and several black markings all over its body, that are a sharp contrast to the broad white patches mark its flanks and lower rump" Clumsy
Fixed.
"Parasites in the hartebeest generally alternate between living off gazelles and wildebeest" And hartebeest, presumably!
Fixed.
"host species of Cooperia, Impalaia nudicollis, Parabronema, and Trichostrongylus" First, you say "species of" and then list a particular species, and, second, in this line and others in the section, you seem to miss a few links which would be appropriate. Don't be scared of red!
Absolutely. Done.
"to parasites of Rhipicephalus evertsi and Theileria species" This needs to be rephrased
Done.
"These were named Longistrongylus meyeri after their collector, T. Meyer, and proposed to be placed in the genus Longistrongylus" Redundant
Fixed.
I think the text is a little choppy in places, but I did learn a lot. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton for your edits! I have learned a lot from them. It is indeed difficult for me to add such a lot of literature and then be patient enough to go through it to check the style and copyedit issues. I am glad that I am improving, thanks to painstaking and hawk-eyed editors like you! Sainsf<^>Talk all words 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn A lot has been going on here since the past few days. You may like to look at the article once again to see if you have more comments. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I'm taking a while- I'll make every effort to find time for this in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
""Problems with identifying meat? The answer is to check the barcode". BioMed Central. 2013. Retrieved 10 March 2013." The link doesn't go anywhere useful
Removed along with the controversial info it supported. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Hendrickx, S; Adams, B. (2004). Egypt at its Origins : Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams : Proceedings of the International Conference "Origin of the state. Predynastic and early dynastic Egypt", Krakow, 28th August - 1st September 2002. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies. p. 111. ISBN978-90-429-1469-8." Surely, if you're citing conference proceedings, you need to cite the particular paper. Also, more than just "Leuven" would be good. (You generally seem to be inconsistent on how you cite locations. Some have city and country, some just city. Or am I misunderstanding?)
Sorry for the inconsistency. I have mentioned the paper now. I have added a link where it can be viewed in a collection at Google Books. But do I mention the year when the paper was presented (2002) or the year it was published in the book (2004)? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Published in the book. Occasionally, people will cite conference papers themselves, but here you're citing the published paper. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Hoberg, E.P.; Abrams, A.; Pilitt, P.A. (2009). "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". The Journal of parasitology 95 (3): 702–17. PMID19228080." Your italics are off
Repaired.
"Verlinden, A. (1998). "Seasonal movement patterns of some ungulates in the Kalahari ecosystem of Botswana between 1990 and 1995". African Journal of Ecology 36 (2): 117–28. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2028.1998.00112.x (inactive 2016-02-06)." An "inactive" doi is a useless doi. Can I recommend that you find the right one, or, if that is the right one, report it as not resolving?
The DOI is right, I don't know why it doesn't work. Could we remove the DOI? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've reported it. I've come across a few like this recently; I'm surprised, to be honest. I think publishers are more concerned (understandably) with ensuring that their new papers have working DOIs than adding them to their old papers. In terms of your options, perhaps you could leave the DOI as if it worked but also add the URL it likely would point to. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let us see what comes out of it. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Guggisberg, C. A. W. (1972). Crocodiles. Their Natural History, Folklore and Conservation: David and Charles (Publishers) Limited, Newton Abbot." Your formatting's all over the place here
I don't think I added this. I have replaced it with another properly formatted citation. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Capellini, I. (2007). "Dimorphism in the hartebeest". Sex, Size and Gender Roles: 124–32. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208784.003.0014. ISBN978-0-19-920878-4." This is a book, not a journal. We'll need the editors, location and publisher. Also, you tend to include subtitles, but do not here.
This appears to be a paper (Chapter 12 as per this) in the journal Sex, Size and Gender Roles. I think the ISBN should be removed. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies- yes, you should lose the ISBN and add volume/issue information. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Kingdon, J. (1989). East African Mammals : An Atlas of Evolution in Africa (Volume 3, Part D:Bovids). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN0-226-43725-6." Your formatting could be neater, here
I was not sure how to put Vol. 3 and Part-D, so I inserted it in the title. How can I write it better? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a separate "volume" parameter. It bolds shorter answers (like "4") but leaves longer ones. I've changed it; I think it looks a bit neater, but you may disagree. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Castelló, J.R. (2016). Bovids of the World: Antelopes, Gazelles, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, and Relatives. Princeton (USA): Princeton University Press. pp. 537–9. ISBN978-0-691-16717-6." Another inconsistent location
" Llewellyn, E.C. (1936). "Chapter XIV The Influence of South African Dutch or Afrikaans on the English Vocabulary". The Influence of Low Dutch on the English Vocabulary. London: Oxford University Press. p. 163." If this is a monograph, you don't need the chapter name. Do you need the number? If it's an edited collection, you need the editor.
Not sure if it is a monograph, removing chapter number. It appears to be a book, so I am keeping the publisher. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M., eds. (2005). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 674. ISBN978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494." Location?
I use the MSW3 template for this. I don't think it can be altered. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but it needs to be consistent; you could just type it out manually and add a location. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't promise that I've caught every sourcing issue; I suppose the take-home message is that they need some attention. There are also some less-than-ideal sources; travel guides and hunting associations are nothing on peer reviewed research or books from good publishers. I'm not saying they have to be removed, just that they catch my eye. They certainly should not be used for any controversial information. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing with another reviewer if the BioMed Central citation and the controversial info should be kept, I think we should remove it completely. All right, I will go through the citations and try to make them consistent in their format. In most of the articles I have improved I had to use travel guides for a few interesting facts, but often supported by better books. The Safari Club International is a major source for the description of the subspecies, plus it is not really controversial, so I guess we should not remove it. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 11:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn I have gone through all the references and tried to repair them, please see my replies above. For the sake of uniformity I have named places in the form "city, country". How is it now? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram., and that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes." - There seems to be an extra punctuation mark here, but the meaning of the rest of the sentence is unclear.
I think Casliber added this, I will talk it over with him/her so that the meaning is not changed. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to explain who "Gentry" is the first time you mention him.
Done. I have also identified Arctander now. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"She later dissolved the new genus later in 1997 after reconsideration." - Too many "laters" and it is unclear to whom this refers.
In the Subspecies section, you need to be consistent so that each of your subspecies is referred to in a similar fashion. A. lichtensteinii should be A. b. lichtensteinii
"A study proved the male hybrid between the red hartebeest and the blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus) sterile." - This sentence should not be placed in the middle of a discussion on the hybridisation of subspecies.
Perhaps it would look good at the end of the para? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I should think so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The hartebeest has several adaptations that allow it to survive even under adverse conditions and in poor habitats." - I find the sentences following this statement unconvincing; How do long, thin legs help? How is the mouth specially adapted for a frugal diet? It might be better to rephrase the information, something like "Its long legs enable it to run swiftly and if attacked, its formidable horns ...".
"Fights are rarely serious, but might turn fatal if they are." - I would think that the fights are always serious, but that they are not usually fought out to a fatal conclusion because one contestant retires.
It seems as if the fights are either normal or, in rare cases, fatal. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"These parasites regularly alternate between hartebeest and gazelles or wildebeest." - Do you mean that the same parasites are common to these different groups?
Yes, that is perhaps the best way to put the fact. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The section on parasites is rather listy and uninteresting (and Cooperia is inappropriately linked). Not all animal species FAs have sections on parasites, Pinniped and Blue whale do not for example, and I would have thought a single short paragraph would have sufficed here.
I see. I have summarized the section into one para now. How does it look? I was not sure about what examples to add, so I have not mentioned any at the moment.Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The long thin muzzle of the hartebeest assists in feeding on leaf blades of grass swards and nibble off leaf sheaths from grass stems." - This sentence needs attention.
"Jasminium kerstingii is part of the hartebeest's diet at the start of the rainy season." - I'm not sure that the Animal Diversity Web is a reliable source. The articles are written by students and in this instance, I think it is just plain wrong. For a start, the species is spelt wrong and should be Jasminum kerstingii, but jasmines are shrubs and are not native to Africa.
I have corrected the spelling, but the ADW source is not involved here, is it? But I agree with you, I will remove the ADW sources and make the necessary fixes. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ADW source copied the erroneous spelling from its original source, and I find that this species of jasmine does occur in Africa. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A study found that the hartebeest can digest a larger quantity of food than topi and wildebeest." - I think you mean a higher proportion of its food.
"females roam home ranges of over 1,000 km2 (390 sq mi) area, with male territories 200 km2" - I think you mean male range not territory.
I understand that there is a difference between home ranges and territories. Males are territorial, and guard their home ranges. So it should be proper to refer to their range as territory. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to accept these facts, can you check the source? A male could not possibly assert his dominance over 200 km2 (77 sq mi). (Black wildebeest for example have territories that are 100 to 400 metres apart.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source is firm on this. You can see it here. If you have doubts about the definitions, this article explains them well. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see that a territory has a broader definition than I thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Reproduction section is very bitty, with a lot of short sentences.
I have tried to improve the situation, how is it now? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the population nowadays is found mainly in Salamat and Zakouma National Park (Chad), latter of which has witnesses improved protection and increase in population since the 1980s." - This sentence needs attention.
"There have been unconfirmed reports of sightings of the tora hartebeest southeast of the Dinder National Park by locals, from where this hartebeest had disappeared before 1960." - This sentence needs attention.
Thanks for sparing time for this FAC. I have responded to all your comments. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth I have revised the article. I have done away with the ADW source and added better-sourced info wherever possible to make up for the loss. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copyediting in the Reproduction section. You had better check that I have retained the meaning. In the lead you have three sentences that are somewhat contradictory. I suggest you replace them with a single sentence.
"The time of mating varies seasonally, and depends on both the subspecies and the population."
"Mating in hartebeest takes place throughout the year, with one or two peaks."
"Births usually peak in the dry season." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit but you seem to have altered the meaning of the line Reproduction depends on the subspecies and population at the time of mating It means that reproduction varies by the subspecies and the population in the area when the mating occurs. Rest looks fine. Seems it was misinterpreted and added to the Lead. I think we should add it to the Lead as "Mating in hartebeest takes place throughout the year with one or two peaks, and depends upon the subspecies and the extant population. Births typically peak in the dry season." I have checked it all. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 16:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better, though perhaps "extant population" is not ideal, maybe something like "local factors". When you come to think of it, some populations are north of the equator and some south, the climate varies over its wide range and it is unsurprising that the animals do not all calve at the same time of year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taken "local factors". Thanks for your help! Sainsf<^>Talk all words 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The queries that I raised have been dealt with and I am now supporting this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, "They are primarily grazers, with their diets consisting mainly of grasses, with small amounts of Hyparrhenia grasses and legumes throughout the year." I know what this means from reading the body of the article, but reading it the first time gave me pause. The ", with ..., with ... " structure is not a huge problem in itself, but the instinctive assumption on seeing "mainly of grasses, with small amounts of..." is that the diet is going to be grasses with small amounts of something else. The reader then discovers it's actually grasses with small amounts of grasses and legumes. Perhaps a wording based on something like "They are primarily grazers; their relatively small food intake consists mainly of Hyparrhenia grasses and legumes throughout the year"?
I checked for the Hyparrhenia and legumes part but it seems to be from an unreliable source that was to be removed according to previous discussions in this FAC. So this part has now been omitted from the article. I think this should solve the problem. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" but was placed by Vrba in a separate genus Sigmoceros.[2] Gentry placed it as an independent species in Alcelaphus in 1990". This seems to repeat concepts from the preceding paragraph "In 1979, palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba supported Sigmoceros as a separate genus for Lichtenstein's hartebeest, a type of hartebeest with unclear taxonomic status, based on its close affinity to Connochaetes (wildebeest).[10][11] She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram, and argued that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes.[12] However, this finding was not replicated by Alan W. Gentry ... Vrba dissolved the new genus in 1997 after reconsideration". Should this all be combined?
I agree. With so much editing, rearrangement and additions going on, some repetition has occurred. Will look into it with another editor who contributed to the Taxonomy section. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"are often considered to be independent species". Would "separate" be better than "independent"?
"Study... Sterility of the hybrid was attributed to difficulties in segregation during meiosis of the hybrid, azoospermia and fewer germ cells in the cross-section of the seminiferous tubules." I do not understand this sentence even at a high level. Was this a study of a single hybrid which itself was created for the study? Or is the initial sentence indicating that all hybrids of this combination are considered to be sterile? Is this sentence saying that the observation of a cross-section contributes to sterility? Apologies for my lack of knowledge in the subject area, perhaps I have completely misunderstood something.
In the study they made the two individuals mate and produce an offspring - they were not inventing a hybrid, they were trying to check if it could be a possibility. The study does not mean to say that all similar hybrids will be sterile; in the article we simply report the findings of a study relevant enough to discuss here. I don't understand what you meant when you said observation, but the meaning is that three factors caused the sterility (at least in the case at hand) - problems during meiosis, the azoospermia defect and low number of germ cells in the cross-section of seminiferous tubules. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will take this to your talk page, if I may, as I'm still failing to understand the "cross-section" part. There's no need for it to hold up the FAC. MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert on this, instead of discussing with me I think you should read the publication I have cited in the article. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 13:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, I have now re-worded it completely, including removing all mention of "cross-section", which does not fit the context. My edit summaries have slightly more details as to why. MPS1992 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" The chin has a hint of black and the tail tuft black". Does the tail tuft have a hint of black like the chin, or should this be "and the tail tuft is black"?
"An analysis using phylogeographic patterns within hartebeest populations suggested a possible origin of the antelope in eastern Africa." The later part of this sentence does not read well, if it means that the hartebeest might have originated from an ancestor of the antelope in eastern Africa. It is difficult to know what to suggest, since we are encountering a problem similar to the fact that humans are not descended from any sort of monkey or ape, but instead are descended from something from which some sorts of monkeys and apes are also descended. A clear enough concept, but not one that is easy to put into a flowing sentence. I wonder if anyone can help. If, on the other hand, what the analysis indicated was that the antelope (not the hartebeest) might have originated in eastern Africa, then that's fine, but perhaps could be made more clear.
It simply means that the study found evidence supporting the origin of the hartebeest in Africa. As we are discussing exclusively about hartebeest, it is not much likely that our thoughts would be deviated toward antelopes in general or their ancestors. I wrote it so to avoid repeating "hartebeest". I do not feel this should bee so problematic, as this is how it would be typically put. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about wording it as "of the species" instead of "of the antelope"? MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have said Alcelaphus now, that sounds the most proper term. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 13:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" climatic factors, and that there had been successive bursts of radiation...". This is unfortunate wording that will have physicists and climate scientists reaching for their models of past solar behaviour. But there's nothing incorrect about it, and I can't think of any better way to put it. Hmm.
Seems unless one reads the article from the start and digests what "Radiation" means here, confusion will surely occur. I am afraid this can not be helped. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The red hartebeest is a reddish-brown, with a dark face and several black markings all over its body". I have trouble reconciling "several" with "all over", and also reconciling "all over" with the images of the creature. Maybe this needs re-wording slightly.
Thank you, this is looking better. This is still problematic, though: "Black markings can be observed on the shoulders, hips and legs apart from the back of the neck and the chin. These are in sharp contrast with the broad white patches that mark its flanks and lower rump." To what are the back of the neck and the chin exceptions? What does the pronoun "these" refer to? MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Apart from" means "along with" and not "except for" here. I have reworded it to remove confusion. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 13:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Coke's hartebeest is reddish to tawny on the upper part of the body, while the dorsal side is relatively lighter". I thought the dorsal side is the upper side?
Oops, a blooper. Corrected and checked for similar instances. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Fights are rarely serious, but can be fatal if they are". Does this include the earlier-mentioned fights to take over a territory? The text suggests these are inevitable because all males eventually lose their territory. And presumably they must be serious. Is serious exactly the right word here? Or alternatively, could it be worth qualifying what sort of fights tend to be serious? We say later "The males can fight fiercely for dominance". Should we distinguish dominance and territory, or are they the same thing? Maybe the scientists just disagree. One thinks fights are rarely serious, another thinks pretty much all fights are serious since they are all about dominance/territory.
Dominance and territory acquisition are different. One is to secure the right to mate with the female in estrus, while the latter is to snatch away territories and not necessarily related to rut. "Fights are rarely serious" means that fights are not gory in the case of hartebeest. The description is for all fights in general. In the line "The males can fight fiercely for dominance" I mean to say that it is possible that fights can become serious, and need not always be serious. I have reworded this line to avoid confusion. This is what I have understood and produced here from the sources. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A study found that the hartebeest is able to digest a larger quantity of food than the topi and the wildebeest". Are we sure that this is quantity rather than proportion? Wildebeest are rather larger animals than hartebeest.
""Problems with identifying meat? The answer is to check the barcode". BioMed Central. 2013. Retrieved 10 March 2013." The link just took me to a "Press Center" with phone numbers. Is this a dead link, or is there some sort of paywall or registration. Either case should be better documented in the reference.
I see. I think this citation and the part it supports should be removed. I tried to locate the basic source but seems it has been removed. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"... which revealed severe negligence in meat labelling in South Africa" is perhaps of limited relevance to the Hartebeest, since presumably it was not 100 of 146 samples were labelled as containing Hartebeest when they did not, but rather 100 of 146 samples contained things they did not, of which some were Hartebeest. This was also the same year as the 2013 meat adulteration scandal which affected at least fifteen European countries and focused mainly on horsemeat. I doubt if that is mentioned in the article Horse, but I have not checked. A softer wording might still work, linking or mentioning the South African scandal without making statements about severity of negligence, or perhaps even of negligence.
As above, I think we should cut this part out. The comments on negligence were possibly the views of the author of the publication. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have also made these edits to the article, some of which you should look at carefully to be sure I have rightly represented what is intended. MPS1992 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MPS1992, thanks for your comments. I have responded to all of them and gone carefully through the article. Going through your edits, the line She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram, and argued that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes was perhaps added by another editor whom I am contacting so that they may clarify the meaning of the latter part. Don't you think there was some unnecessary rewording in The genus Alcelaphus emerged about 4.4 million years ago in a clade whose other members were ... Connochaetes? I am learning from the suggestions at the FAC, and I see no trouble if it would have remained "consisting of". Next, the caption under Description has been reworded; but the way I wrote it earlier is the commonest I have observed, perhaps it need not have been reworded. Under Reproduction, A male ... longer than in other Alcelaphini. was reworded, but I think the correct word to use should be "alcelaphines". Finally, under Status and Conservation, the National Park population sounds a bit weird to me. These are my personal views, and, of course, all editors have their own styles. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 07:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will check these. I think the caption is better the way I worded it :) MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just one extra, as of right now the body text says that the weight ranges from 100kg to 200kg, but the lede says it ranges from 75kg to 200kg. MPS1992 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My folly. Actually there is so much shuffling and rewriting going on that I forgot the lead! Corrected. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 09:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MPS1992 How does the article look now? I believe just the BioMed Central issue is standing; should we remove it? Sainsf<^>Talk all words 12:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great, but the Vrba/Gentry repetition/confusion is still an issue in the first two paragraphs of the Taxonomy section, I think. MPS1992 (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MPS1992 Casliber and I are handling this issue. You can join us in the section above. Here, we can talk about other issues you may have noticed. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 06:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This looks fine in your new version, and all of my queries and concerns have been answered. I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:The_book_of_antelopes_(1894)_Bubalis_busephalus.png is tagged as lacking a description. Same with File:The_book_of_antelopes_(1894)_Bubalis_caama.png, File:The_book_of_antelopes_(1894)_Bubalis_cokei.png, File:The_book_of_antelopes_(1894)_Bubalis_lichtensteini.png, File:The_book_of_antelopes_(1894)_Bubalis_swaynei.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the IR, Nikkimaria. I have asked the uploader Mariomassone at Commons to add the descriptions. Let me know what else is to be done. Sainsf<^>Talk all words 05:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It has been ten days and Mariomassone has not responded to my messages. Shall we have to remove the images from the article? Sainsf<^>Feel at home 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was the only issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. @Ian Rose: The image review is complete, awaiting source review. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I have a question. Are the comments given by J Milburn above not like those of a source review? Sainsf<^>Feel at home 06:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, since it appears to check both formatting and reliability, but has Josh signed off on the changes made? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry about this- please do not hold up promotion on my accord. I am not opposed to promotion; I was trying to give some "help along the way" comments in the style of a peer review with the hope of coming back to maybe support later. I see I've not been so helpful, here. My apologies. My original source review may not have been as in-depth as it could have been. Please see below for a fuller review. (But no word on comprehensiveness and no spotchecks completed.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
I think "Animal Burials and Food Offerings at the Elite Cemetery HK6 of Hierakonpolis" should be cited as an article in an edited collection rather than the current journal-style citation.
Done.
Your Belem/Bakoné paper is here; it's open access. You should probably cite the original and include a link (the template ((open access)) is also nice) and add the translated title using trans_title=
Thanks, that is something new I learned. Done.
Sex, Size and Gender Roles is an edited collection, not a journal, and should be cited as such. The DOI's fine, but you need to include the editors, location and publisher (also, I think you probably need the subtitle to be consistent with your other book sources).
Done.
eprint worth including as a courtesy link, especially as there's no DOI or anything.
"Footscray, Melbourne (Australia): Lonely Planet." Inconsistent location style. Others are just "City, Country: Publisher".
"Chicago: University of Chicago Press" Inconsistent again.
Open access logo for PLOS One?
Done.
"Chalfont St. Peter, Buckinghamshire (UK): Bradt Travel Guides." Again
"Shurter, S.; Beetem, D. "Jackson's hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus jacksoni)" (PDF). Antelope & Giraffe Tag. Retrieved 28 April 2013." What makes this reliable? The URL didn't work for me.
Removed.
The DOI for "Conserving Wildlife in African Landscapes: Kenyas Ewaso Ecosystem" is 10.5479/si.00810282.632. However, your citation is questionable- this isn't a journal article, it's an edited collection. Please cite the chapter as appropriate. (See here.)
Will remember this from now on. Done.
"Princeton, New Jersey (USA)" Again. I'd have no objection to City, US State: Publisher, but you need to be consistent.
In some citations, you space the initials (Milburn, J. L.) in others, you don't (Milburn, J.L.). Consistency is important!
On a similar note, what's going on with "Stenseth, N. ChR."?
"Baltimore, Maryland (USA)" Again.
"Gentry, A.W. (2012). Bubenik, George A.; Bubenik, Anthony B., ed. Horns, Pronghorns, and Antlers: Evolution, Morphology, Physiology, and Social Significance. New York, USA: Springer Science & Business Media. p. 216. " What's the title of Gentry's contribution? Also, you elsewhere refer to the publisher as simply "Springer".
Fixed.
"Flagstad, Ø.; Syversten, P. O.; Stenseth, N. C.; Jakobsen, K. S. (7 April 2001). "Environmental change and rates of evolution: the phylogeographic pattern within the hartebeest complex as related to climatic variation". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268 (1468): 667–77." Why the full date?
Fixed.
"Baltimore, Maryland (USA)" Again
"Baltimore, Maryland (USA)" Again
I note, again, that I'm not keen on using the hunting organisations, and travel guides are less than ideal, but provided the information isn't too controversial... Josh Milburn (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will try to resolve these within the following week. A bit busy at the moment. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 09:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem- I'll push this review up my to-do list. Again- my apologies for being unresponsive. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Thanks for the review, I have ensured complete consistency in all citations. I have removed the travel guides, but I am not sure if the hunter association sources support anything controversial. I could not find the descriptions and a few details on the range for the subspecies elsewhere, so I had to resort to this. If you believe they ought to be removed, I will do it in the interest of the article. Sainsf<^>Feel at home 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note - Sainsf, where are we on Josh's sourcing concerns, including the use of travel guides? We need to see some forward progress and agreement on sources, or we will have to consider archiving the nomination. --Laser brain(talk) 11:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Sorry for the delay, I returned from a busy week just yesterday and was coming here just now. I will fix the issues within an hour. Thanks, Sainsf<^>Feel at home 15:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a further fiddle myself, and I'm happy that the formatting is up to snuff, and all the citations are appropriate. I can't speak to comprehensiveness, and I've not done spotchecks. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: J Milburn has completed the source review, do we have more to work on? Thanks, Sainsf<^>Feel at home 07:55, 8 April 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. --Laser brain(talk) 15:37, 8 April 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.