Talk:Alpine ibex/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 07:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I'll review it within a few hours. FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• After looking on Commons[1], it seems that there is a possible large mistake in the article. It appears the Alpine ibex, Capra ibex ibex, is only one of several subspecies itself, so the article needs some reworking in this regard. Either the scope has to be widened to include all subspecies, or it is narrowed to only cover Capra ibex ibex. It is also possible that Commons is outdated, however, but then it needs to be mentioned in this article that more subspecies were at one point assigned to this one.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• The intro needs to summarise more of the article, there is no visual description, for example.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• The following sentence is a bit weird: "It is classified in the genus Capra, Latin for "goat", with which it shares with at least seven other species of wild goat."

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• "In one area they are also found in areas of coniferous forest." What is meant? A specific area, which isn't named here, or in any given area?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• How do kids look like? There's no description, and no image. Here are some:[2][3][4] Such an image could replace the one of a single young specimen, since such are already shown in the "play" and group image.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Behaviour" seems more concise than "life history", so could perhaps be renamed, and split into subsections (for example "reproduction").

The section contains information on growth which can't fit into behavior. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe the paragraph on diet should have its own subheading? And such sections are usually placed under behaviour, not distribution.

Fixed and the section is called "Distribution and ecology". LittleJerry (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's it from me. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• That was quick, looking good! I think the intro could still be a little bit longer, but that won't hold it back for now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: