This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Larrayal (talk | contribs) at 01:53, 20 December 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:53, 20 December 2024 by Larrayal (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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distribution and habitat section has the same issues, with the only source used being the not-academically published, not peer-reviewed IUCN website.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.
Good Article review progress box
|
) 1b. 
) 2a. 
) 2b. cites 