Talk:Fennec fox/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: HMallison (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no quick fail[edit]

The quick fail critera [[1] are not applicable, so no quick fail for this one :) HMallison (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

minor changes[edit]

this is a list oft he minor changes I and other made and the reasons for them:

"breed" --> "Species". Breed refers to animals produced by human breeders through slective breeding. The artcile talks about a wild animal, thus not a breed. Also, there are dog breeds smaller than the fennec.

Sorry about that, mostly been editing dog breed articles so "breed" must have been stuck in my mind. Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh how well I know that kind of Freudian slips!HMallison (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

language: some sentences showed bad style or were confusing.
Africa and Asia, not just North Africa

weight: source [2] is cited saying "1.5–3.5 kg (3–8 lb)", while [5] says "three to 3.5 pounds". What's correct?

Just double checked the reference and that was an error that crept in - the template had it set up to covert from kgs into lbs when it should have been lbs to kg. Figures match better now. Miyagawa (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for checkingHMallison (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sources: there is a citation ([1]) in the lead, needs to be moved down to the appropriate section.

Rejigged the lead and moved citation into description section. Miyagawa (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Tx!HMallison (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Classification" should be re-written; the content is good but the text reads a bit roughly.

Just redrafted, I think it flows better now - didn't realise it was so disjointed before. Miyagawa (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will look at that in a few hours.HMallison (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now :) HMallison (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pet" section: good, I tweaked a bit.
I de-wikilinked several terms that are basic vocabulary, for which there is no possibility of unclarity or further explanation (coins, keys, watches). HMallison (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

open matters[edit]

this lists matters that need to be checked and improved. I will do what I can; please feel free to help!

reference check: I will need to acquire several works from the library to check the accuracy of the citations. If anyone happends to have PDF of the offline sources, please help.

Added Google Book urls to the offline sources. Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Superb! This is on a very good path! HMallison (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMallison (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

zerda - I will try to get the original publication next week and see whether the etymology is explained there.
good point on the talk page about Fennec Foxes in Iraq; I will check on that next week when in my office (oh how I love free online access to practically any journal on biology and a huge library) HMallison (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that'd be great! Miyagawa (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delay[edit]

sorry, something unexpected popped up; I will be much more busy than expected the next few weeks. I will try to get this done as fast as possible, but I cannot promise that next Friday will see me done with the literature check.HMallison (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. :) Miyagawa (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more comments[edit]

Overall, the article is quite concise. Some people may call it too short, however, I'd rather point to the lack of drivel as a positive feature.
However, issues that need some more data, are

* social structure - too short, too little. There is no description of the social role of suabdult and adult offsprings. There is nothing on the interaction between neighboring groups, and nothing on interaction within groups. Please add!

Unfortunatly this seems to be a major gap in research. I've added a short section on what is known regarding their social interactions in captivity and regarding the gap in social information regarding the groupings in the wild. Miyagawa (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Does anyone prey on the fennec?

Will add a section this evening as I've just done a quick google search and there seems to be plenty of information out there (primary preditor appears to be the Greyish Eagle-Owl. Miyagawa (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section on predators added. Miyagawa (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would appreciate pictures of fennecs in the wild. I know they may be hard to get, but right now there is not a single one.What about fennec cubs?~~

Managed to find a shot of a fennec in the wild with appropriate permissions on Flickr. It's now added to the article replacing an image of one at a safari park. Miyagawa (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more to come, I am sure.

Haven't been able to find a picture of a cub but have added an image of a ten-month old Fennec. Miyagawa (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the language needs a make-over. Nothing bad, it just does not read well currently. Someone should make sure that pronouns are used correctly, i.e. that when 'it' or 'they' are used, the noun is indeed 'fennec(s)', and not something else.

all for now. :)HMallison (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate: the language needs a make-over. For one thing, the animal should be talked about either in the plural or singular consistently throughout the article. Alternatively, the context should be made clearer for each sentence. Sometimes, it is unclear if the sentences addresses the fennec or its ears, e.g.! Thanks for the updates! HMallison (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a copyedit and some grammar tweaking. Have asked a colleague to have a look and check the flow of the article. Miyagawa (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! HMallison (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a quick go at the grammar. Be aware of singular/plural changes in mid-sentence: going from a singular fox at the beginning of a sentence to more than one fox at the end of your sentence (and vice versa) will cause your readers confusion. Also, there were a lot of problems with possession and the use of the apostrophe; "it's" where "its" is meant, "breeders" where "breeders' " is meant, etc. Thanks for all your work on this article. Also: the picture of that pet Fennec is sooo adorable. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and the help from Neekeem in sorting out the grammar on this article - it's never my strong suit! Miyagawa (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. By the way, I removed the periods in partial sentence captions that a subsequent editor added in afterwards. They're not supposed to be there, according to the Manual of Style. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Could I get an update on any outstanding issues? Thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, work, sick kids and other stuff have slowed me down a lot. Here goes:

some sentences still are grammatically unacceptable. For example: A Fennec's burrowing can cause the formation of dew, and it is also known to absorb water through food consumption; however, it will drink water if available. Who absorbs water through food? The burrowing? Please check for such things.

let's see:

  1. Well-written:

         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

a) see above - this is the main point right now! b) check

  2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

         (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
         (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
         (c) it contains no original research.

a) check b) check c) check

  3. Broad in its coverage:

         (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

check

  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]

         (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

check, check, check

Overall, the situation is not easy, because information on many points is lacking, but that's not the problem of the authors here. Research not done can't be cited or included, so no need to blame the article. I'll go over the refs with regards to the MOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMallison (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a couple more gramatical errors including the dew one.Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no updates in a month; what's going on with this? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, family matters and chaos at work keep me from doing anything productive here right now. I intend to go over the text again for grammar and style, check everything one last time (inculding finally getting hold of the original description) and then pass the article. HMallison (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read this article and copy edited a few things. I think it is a very nice article and provides a good overall view of the Fennac, an animal that I had never heard of previously. Tuxedo junction (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy with this article passing GA. It is simply much too short, with many important things left out. What, for instance is fennec "singing"? Providing a file featuring of a behaviour not mentioned in the text is bizarre. —innotata 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article also does not explain what the fennec's habitat requirements are. —innotata 21:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True - this has totally escaped me, as did the "singing" issue. Knowing the answers make me blind. HMallison (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the "singing" as from looking into it, it seems to just have been a bit of poetic licence by the original uploader. Miyagawa (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The description of habitat remains unsatisfactory. The part about burrows really ought to be under behaviour,. —innotata 13:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sectioning is bizarre. Isn't reproduction behaviour? Why is etymology under description as well, surrounded by the actual, very brief, description? Why are predators under "habitat"? Why isn't "habitat" called something like "distribution and habitat"? I also think there should be a full-scale section on "relationships with humans", covering cultural depictions and fennecs in zoos, as well as fennecs as pets. Overall, I entirely disagree with the comment "Some people may call it too short, however, I'd rather point to the lack of drivel as a positive feature". Several recent GA reviews, such as Eurasian Sparrowhawk, have been put on hold for one of the deficencies I've pointed out. —innotata 13:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The range map, range map caption, and text on distribution all contradict each other. Ucucha 15:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article should use the Mammalian Species account on the fennec as a source (link). (Not sure whether this would fall under the GA criteria.) Ucucha 15:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final[edit]

I just read through the latest copy editing, and things have improved a lot! Minor things only remain, very minor. If I now finally manage to extricate the original description from the uni lib and can thus check out the etymology this baby is ready for GA. HMallison (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; hopefully this can be fixed in the next day or two. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to withdraw the GA application on this one. I don't have access to sources that cover the information innotata mentions above, and frankly I don't really have the drive to work on this article anymore. Miyagawa (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A shame, since it seems it was almost there. Alas, another casualty of reviews taking too long. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry that I did not get this thing going. Family matters took all my available time, and each time I hoped to get things back on track something new popped up. I must, however, at this point chide some of the other people who commented: if you had expended the same time it took to comment to improve the article instead, things would look much better now. HMallison (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're all volunteers here. I am willing to spend some time to leave a note before an article that contradicts itself and does not use one of the most important sources available is recognized as a GA, but not to spend time on a species that really doesn't interest me. The text used at WP:GAN when a page is being reviewed says "additional comments are welcome", but you do not thank the people who assisted in the review by noting problems and instead blame them for failing the article. Ucucha 12:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking to you. HMallison (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er...not sure how to do this...new to editing Wikipedia...but there are two mentions of longevity in the article, and one says it's a measure of lifespan in the wild, the other in captivity. SLOW93 (talk) 0103, 09 JUN 2010 (UTC)