Talk:Tiger quoll/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Recon rabbit 21:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 21:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 22:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AryKun: nudge. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently drafting some comments on this offline, I'll add them for this article and fishing cat in 2–3 days. Really sorry for the delay, haven't been in the best headspace past two weeks. AryKun (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I understand where you're coming from, and hope you get better. I'll be waiting for comments in the meantime. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AryKun: Hey, are you available right now? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine XI, @AryKun: I can take over the rest of this review if need be. Recon rabbit 20:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm online and will be able to respond to comments. Thanks for volunteering. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could on the train. i'll keep on working later this weekend. Recon rabbit 22:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: Are we good or do you have more to say? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good. I will check sources for the last bit of the review Recon rabbit 23:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: Sorry to bother you again, but I'd like to know what's delaying you from completing this review. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very slow worker. One thing to address and all clear. Recon rabbit 20:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: That should be it. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose notes

Taxonomy

Can a gloss on maculatus be provided so that we can tell what the language is/how it translates to "spotted"?

Done

Description

Do the biggest makes get up to 8.85 kg or was there just a Big one that was weighed as much?

That's more or less the same thing. You can say either and they'll still mean the same thing. The answer to your question is the latter.

Range and ecology

Suggest making a note somewhere around the study that noted feral rabbits in the diet as at least in part due to rabbits in Australia.

There's already information on that: In one study, feral rabbits made up 76% of the diet on the mainland.

I wasn't sure if it was worth mentioning that the increased population of feral rabbits and thus component of the diet is a relatively recent event. Recon rabbit

So should I remove it or leave it as is?

Fine as is. just a suggestion.

Life history

Tiger quolls are generally not vocal, but vocalisations can be heard in any social interaction. This could be read as contradictory - maybe "adult quolls are rarely vocal outside of social interactions"?

Done

~~"Juveniles vocalise frequently when fighting and their mother will hiss when they clamber over her." Awkward to have a quote without context /in text attribution (besides ref).~~

Rephrased

~~Polyestrous, females is the comma supposed to be there, or are only some females polyestrous?~~

Estrous is a female-only thing.

I lost sight of how grammar works in this case (polyestrous is a quality applied to females)

Conservation status

I might be ignorant here but I've never seen "persecution" as a threat to an animal species. what does this refer to?

Changed to exploitation

Leaving off with among other things is an awkward way to end the article.

Removed

References

No immediately obvious errors in list and ref style. Y
~~No link title on the University of Michigan EL.~~

Could you specify which ref it is?

It was the Animal Diversity Web link, I added a description.

I don't know if it's an issue but the "text may have been copied" notice on [32] and [33] has a webarchive link in the middle of the sentence.

Fixed

Check sources

[2] Y
[5] Y
[8] Y
[11] Y
[13] Y Bite force for Dasyurus maculatus only comes out to 153 N in this study, not 308?
- Fixed
[23] Y though it looks like the author spelled "cuscus" wrong.
[32] Y
[33] Y

Reference works are published by groups generally recognized as reliable on the subjects of mammals and conservation of such

OR unlikely, sources followed closely

(marked in progress as ? due to mismatched source)

Summary style through multiple sources makes copyvio unlikely, did not find any in the references I could access full text of and search tool did not detect anything

Neutrality

Written without a letter of promotional language, very descriptive and straightforward. Meets NPOV. Y
No edit wars, almost all recent edits come from one undisputed editor. Y

Broadness

Covers the main aspects expected of an article on an endangered mammal species. No glaring omissions spotted. Y
When the article focuses into detail, it really goes into detail, but not in a way that makes the language impenetrable to an average reader (or at least it wasn't for me, in all cases except those rare notes above). Y

Images

Licenses are good and applicable on all used images. Mostly variations on cc-by. Y
Image use is relevant and useful. A case could be made to swap the positions of images in "Life history" to make the "dens" information closer to where it appears in the text but it might make continuity worse. Up to you Y

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comment: source problems I just checked two sources at the beginning of the "Description" section, and both are inapplicable:

It is sexually dimorphic, as adult females are generally smaller and weigh 1.5 times less.^[1] Males and females of D. m. maculatus weigh on average 3.5 and 1.8 kg (7.7 and 4.0 lb), respectively, and males and females of D. m. gracilis weigh on average 1.60 and 1.15 kg (3.5 and 2.5 lb), respectively.^[2]

The first source covers the northern subspecies only and thus cannot be used to give size relations for the species in general. The second deals with a different species entirely, the Eastern quoll (D. viverrinus), and has nothing to say about sexual dimorphism in the tiger quoll. So, one misleading source, and one simply wrong one. I suggest that this article requires a solid source check before anyone should bother with a broader GA review. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cited the wrong study (my bad), and fixed the other issue. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

^ Curtis, Lee K. (2012-02-01). Queensland's Threatened Animals. Csiro Publishing. p. 342. ISBN 978-0-643-10457-0.
^ "Dasyurus viverrinus". Mammalian Species. 2001-12-26. doi:10.2307/0.677.1. ISSN 1545-1410.

[:0-1] Curtis, Lee K. (2012-02-01). Queensland's Threatened Animals. Csiro Publishing. p. 342. ISBN 978-0-643-10457-0.

[Jones2001-2] "Dasyurus viverrinus". Mammalian Species. 2001-12-26. doi:10.2307/0.677.1. ISSN 1545-1410.

[1]

[2]