| Revision as of 02:04, 20 December 2024 editChristieBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors104,315 editsm Adding nominator information← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:11, 20 December 2024 edit undoWolverine X-eye (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,473 edits →GA Review: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile editNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| While there are few issues with the prose, some phrasings are strange and need to be improved. The nominator also seems to have had only a small impact on the prose of the article overall, despite the frankly massive amount of edits done. Adding onto this, all of these edits are based almost fully on sentences in the abstracts of the sourced articles. Fennec fox gives 2700 results on Google Scholar; Vulpes zerda gives 2940; I think more than 30 sources could easily be found. There's no copyright violation that I could detect, but some heavy paraphrasing could do with being reworded; the article has been relatively stable, but it was nominated mere hours after the nominator started editing it, with all 48 edits happening in the six hours prior to GA nomination. Edits made by the nominator are, in my opinion, not sufficient to warrant GA status. Due to all issues listed, to me this article does not seem to be near ready for undergoing a GA review. I suggest adding more information from both present and new sources, and potentially running it through peer review beforehand, and once it passes that, resubmitting it to GA. | While there are few issues with the prose, some phrasings are strange and need to be improved. The nominator also seems to have had only a small impact on the prose of the article overall, despite the frankly massive amount of edits done. Adding onto this, all of these edits are based almost fully on sentences in the abstracts of the sourced articles. Fennec fox gives 2700 results on Google Scholar; Vulpes zerda gives 2940; I think more than 30 sources could easily be found. There's no copyright violation that I could detect, but some heavy paraphrasing could do with being reworded; the article has been relatively stable, but it was nominated mere hours after the nominator started editing it, with all 48 edits happening in the six hours prior to GA nomination. Edits made by the nominator are, in my opinion, not sufficient to warrant GA status. Due to all issues listed, to me this article does not seem to be near ready for undergoing a GA review. I suggest adding more information from both present and new sources, and potentially running it through peer review beforehand, and once it passes that, resubmitting it to GA. | ||
| :{{re|Larrayal}} I think this review is a bit overzealous. First off, this article is near GA-status and most of the concerns you listed are trivial to say the least. Regarding the lead concerns, I've addressed them with no issues whatsoever. Over to Taxonomy, you were right in that I did not add enough information about their connectivity to other Vulpes species. I've done so now. However, your comments about the fossil species are completely wrong. The information I copied from Vulpes are entirely relevant in this article as they discuss the common ancestors of fennecs and other African fox species. We now arrive at distribution, and whatever you're on about that's a you problem. I've used the IUCN source for well over 2 years with no issues, that is until I met you. The IUCN is a reliable source and so I do not have to explain why it was included. There is also nothing wrong with the canine distemper information but since you have such a problem with it being generalized I've changed the wording a bit. For the predation part, I removed the caracal information since it was not supported by the cite, but other than that I do not see the ''subpar'' part of this section. Moving to threats, I added a little something but that's it. There is not a whole lot to add since the global population is relatively safe. The conversation material part is appropriate, as the conversation of this species largely focuses on captivity. And lastly, the Cultural significance section is that small, in large part due to the fact that there is virtually no information on the cultural depictions of fennecs. If you do find something, please let me know. | |||
| :What I'm seeing in the GA progress below is questionable. Like I don't get why I'm being failed on reliable sources. Seems a bit harsh in my opinion. I'm also being failed on stability even though you said above that the article is stable. Just wow. In addition, you also fail me on the grounds of not staying focused and providing broad coverage? This seems sus to me. Is this all about the message I left on your friend's talk page? You don't do much reviewing and judging by this review you also don't seem to be an experienced reviewer. This review has been unfair and your judgment on multiple aspects are off by a long shot. | |||
| :Finishing off my comment, the broadness issue is unsubstantiated. I've done my research and included as much information as possible. Not that much is known about the species, hence the relatively small size. And most of the fennec fox or ''Vulpes zerda'' results on Google Scholar are mere mentions. I think you need to reconsider your decision here. ]] 11:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{GAProgress | prose =u | mos =n | reflayout =y | reliablesources =n | originalresearch =u | {{GAProgress | prose =u | mos =n | reflayout =y | reliablesources =n | originalresearch =u | ||
| | copyvio =y | broadness =n | focus =n | neutral =y | stable =n | freeortaggedpics =y | | copyvio =y | broadness =n | focus =n | neutral =y | stable =n | freeortaggedpics =y | ||
Revision as of 11:11, 20 December 2024
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Wolverine X-eye (talk · contribs) 21:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Larrayal (talk · contribs) 01:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello Wolverine, I've looked at this article, and I don't think its at GA-level. At all. Mainly, I think this article is much too short considering the scope of the topic and available sources.
The lead section contains information that is not sourced or even included in the body of the article, such as the kidney adaptations, the fur trade, and the lifespan in the wild. Please make sure that the lead reflecs the tekst of the body, and expand on all topics that you include in the lead within the body of the article with the necessary sources.
The taxonomy section is frankly lacking. Nothing is said on the exact relationships of V. zerda with other Vulpes species. A phylogenetic tree would be a good addition here, and most are easily available. There is absolutely no reason to include information on V. riffautae, or V. skinneri. This is about V. zerda. Please only include information closely related to V. zerda to this article in the future. Including more fossil species would be confusing to the common reader. It appears to me that you got much of it from the Vulpes article, but it is clearly not valid here. The description is well-written but could do with more information. In my opinion, some information on its postcranial skeletal anatomy and desert adaptations would be required to reach GA status. The distribution and habitat section has the same issues, with the only source used being the not-academically published, not peer-reviewed IUCN website. If this webpage provides at least some sources, none of the statements used in the article are sourced. The behaviour and ecology section is good enough, though the lead of that section is unneeded and most could be put in their own subsections.
On the disease section, almost everything on the canine distemper virus infection is paraphrased from Woo et al., 2010. This also can't be generalized for all captive fennec foxes, as some are bred in captivity; the paper focuses on the autopsy of animals captured in the wild. The predator section in particular is lackluster; I don't see mentions of caracal in that part of the article; "nomads" need to be made more specific in this case, as there are quite a few in that area; salukis in particular are traditionally bred in the Middle East, rather than North Africa; as some other sources used in the article mention that attributions from the Middle East likely represent young Rüppel's foxes. The threat section doesn't cover all threats mentioned in the sources used in the article. Conservation section is also probably too short ; In culture section should probably be much more expanded.
The sources are generally fine, but are dramatically underused. The IUCN source, though useful, is uncorrectly used several times over where more precise and academic sources are available and preferred. More sources than the formal description and Asa et al. 2004 would be an improvement, but Asa et al. 2004 is not even used to its fullest in the article's current state. Please expand on all the topics covered in that article, review the sources of this article, not just their abstracts, and include them here.
The placement of the images is quite strange ; the skull should be in the description section ; I don't really see the use of the Two fennec foxes image on that part of the article ; the taxobox image is good, but could be used in the behaviour section, with more visible feet and tail ; on that tangent, there are a lot of great images on Commons which should be used for an improved article.
While there are few issues with the prose, some phrasings are strange and need to be improved. The nominator also seems to have had only a small impact on the prose of the article overall, despite the frankly massive amount of edits done. Adding onto this, all of these edits are based almost fully on sentences in the abstracts of the sourced articles. Fennec fox gives 2700 results on Google Scholar; Vulpes zerda gives 2940; I think more than 30 sources could easily be found. There's no copyright violation that I could detect, but some heavy paraphrasing could do with being reworded; the article has been relatively stable, but it was nominated mere hours after the nominator started editing it, with all 48 edits happening in the six hours prior to GA nomination. Edits made by the nominator are, in my opinion, not sufficient to warrant GA status. Due to all issues listed, to me this article does not seem to be near ready for undergoing a GA review. I suggest adding more information from both present and new sources, and potentially running it through peer review beforehand, and once it passes that, resubmitting it to GA.
- @Larrayal: I think this review is a bit overzealous. First off, this article is near GA-status and most of the concerns you listed are trivial to say the least. Regarding the lead concerns, I've addressed them with no issues whatsoever. Over to Taxonomy, you were right in that I did not add enough information about their connectivity to other Vulpes species. I've done so now. However, your comments about the fossil species are completely wrong. The information I copied from Vulpes are entirely relevant in this article as they discuss the common ancestors of fennecs and other African fox species. We now arrive at distribution, and whatever you're on about that's a you problem. I've used the IUCN source for well over 2 years with no issues, that is until I met you. The IUCN is a reliable source and so I do not have to explain why it was included. There is also nothing wrong with the canine distemper information but since you have such a problem with it being generalized I've changed the wording a bit. For the predation part, I removed the caracal information since it was not supported by the cite, but other than that I do not see the subpar part of this section. Moving to threats, I added a little something but that's it. There is not a whole lot to add since the global population is relatively safe. The conversation material part is appropriate, as the conversation of this species largely focuses on captivity. And lastly, the Cultural significance section is that small, in large part due to the fact that there is virtually no information on the cultural depictions of fennecs. If you do find something, please let me know.
- What I'm seeing in the GA progress below is questionable. Like I don't get why I'm being failed on reliable sources. Seems a bit harsh in my opinion. I'm also being failed on stability even though you said above that the article is stable. Just wow. In addition, you also fail me on the grounds of not staying focused and providing broad coverage? This seems sus to me. Is this all about the message I left on your friend's talk page? You don't do much reviewing and judging by this review you also don't seem to be an experienced reviewer. This review has been unfair and your judgment on multiple aspects are off by a long shot.
- Finishing off my comment, the broadness issue is unsubstantiated. I've done my research and included as much information as possible. Not that much is known about the species, hence the relatively small size. And most of the fennec fox or Vulpes zerda results on Google Scholar are mere mentions. I think you need to reconsider your decision here. ✟WolveríneX-eye✟ 11:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
) 1b. 
) 2a. 
) 2b. cites 