Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hippopotamus

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

---

Hippopotamus

• I believe the article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. Significantly, please note that the article contains extensive citations from Boisserie, who has done the most important recent research into hippo evolution. As such, the article is very current.
• Complies with WP:LEDE, and uses ref tags and cite templates throughout.
• In particular, I would like to note the exceptional quality and variety of the images on this article, all of which are appropriately licensed. The main image is a featured image. It features several of the creative drawings of User:Apokryltaros, the wonderful "Beware of Hippopotamus" sign, Ancient Egyptian hippopotamus art, and even the historical photo of the first zoo hippopotamus!
• The article weighs in at 30K.
• This article received an unofficial peer review through a recent GA nomination (after which the article has been dramatically expanded) and the thoughtful guidance of User:Casliber.
• I have ready access to nearly all the sources used in this article, and can quickly expand any section, if reviewers feel it necessary. --JayHenry 07:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yippee, another biology article to review :) - it needs some fine tuning. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

:The hippopotamus is recognizable for its barrel-shaped torso, hairless body, stubby legs and tremendous size. They are roughly the same size as the White Rhinoceros, only elephants are always larger. - Singular then plural subject doesn't sit well, also some word substitution may make it sound better - how about "The hippopotamus is recognizable for its barrel-shaped torso, hairless body, stubby legs and tremendous size; similar in size to the White Rhinoceros, only elephants are consistently larger. "

Taxonomy and naming bit needs refs. I can pull out OED later ('bout to go off and have dinner here). Hippopotaminae should not be italicised - genera and species only

Taxonomy and naming - para 3 - shouldn't the whole bit about relationship to whales be here too? Actually I'd say something like "Hippopotamidae were classically classified along...." and then remove the origins haeding as it can all go under taxonomy and then segue into evolution. Under Evolution all the prehistoric genera need to be italicized and capitalized. ..common, semi-aquatic... - can lose the comma

skinny - aargh - try "slender", "lean" or... (?)

There is fossil evidence that many Malagasy Hippos were butchered by humans.. - butchered sounds a tad emotive. just "hunted"?

• Oh wow, thanks for all this fast and constructive feedback! I'm headed off to bed here, but will address all of this tomorrow. I never know what to italicize, but that's an easy fix, and the taxonomy section is mostly from the Linnean Journal. As for "butchered," it is my understanding that this literally means there is evidence of butchery, i.e. the preparation and cooking of meat as evidenced by burnt or chopped bones. --JayHenry 07:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Butchery reply) OK, I'll be interested to see what others think but it has a pretty negative connotation to me but I'm happy to concede if I'm the only one that thinks this :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll read more later but it s enough to go on for now. Remember the lead needs to summarize all important points in article, so needs something about aggression in it too. Back later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Lots of good stuff, but we're not there yet:

• The taxobox should be sourced to the IUCN (you have the link already, ref 14) and/or the MSW3. You might ask User:UtherSRG for help with the latter source. Any subspecies and range listings should use these sources as a base, qualified by more specific sources.
• As noted, the lead is not quite full enough. Give a nod to each of your main sections. Nothing on Culture or Conservation status, for example.
• Most closely related to cetaceans?! Even-toed ungulate suggests differently.
• Why does Conservation begin with a description of subspecies genetics? This should be up under Evolution (which should itself be retitled 'Evolution and taxonomy') and a subspecies list broken out.
• A prose example: "There are estimates of their running speed varying from 30 km/h (18 mph) to 40 km/h (25 mph), or even 50 km/h (30 mph). The hippo can maintain these higher estimates for only a few hundred meters or yards." First is better as "Estimates of their running speed vary from..." Audit for redundant phrasing more generally. In second, the hippo does not maintain estimates, but maintains estimated high speeds.
• Only one ref for the Description section? Compare a couple of sources for physical statistics. You also have "experts are split" unsourced. I would call it 'Physical description.'
• "The hippopotamus is recognizable for its barrel-shaped torso, hairless body, stubby legs" is mentioned in the lead, and this needs more filling out under Physical description. Tell us, for instance, what adaptation advantage the body structure provides.

That's my first glance. You have most of what you need and the page is in good shape, but still some work to do. Cheers, Marskell 09:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On Description vs. Physical description I'd disagree with my chum Marskell as I feel the adjective in this case is redundant and should be dropped for succinctness - all of the articles I've (successfully) put up for FAC have had the former rather than latter - but this FAC is going to get pretty messy if we discuss that in detail here. Otherwise M. is right as well about other issues. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In Evolution, should we mention the European Hippo, H. major? It was an important species in between the Ice Ages in Europe.--Mr Fink 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I like Marskell's suggestion to combine the taxonomy and evolution sections because with a hippopotamus they are so closely related. I have a question: is the evolution of hippos section getting long enough that it might be worthwhile to make it an Evolution of hippos sub-article, much like: Evolution of whales? Mr. Fink brings up an excellent point, that it doesn't mention H. major (which is sometimes considered a sub-species of H. amphibius, rather than a distinct species) at all, and indeed it doesn't mention a handful of the extinct hippos which are mentioned at Hippopotamidae. But the section is already rather long. To split? --JayHenry 15:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If we start an Evolution of Hippopotami article/sub-article, then we should also look into expanding Anthracotheriidae and related articles, too, as the anthracotheres are the direct ancestors of hippos.--Mr Fink 23:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid an 'Evolution of' article unless you feel you absolutely must make one. Evolution of cetaceans deals with an entire Order. Marskell 05:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I need to stop for the evening, but I've been cleaning and clarifying my sourcing -- I still need to address Marskell's point about the adaptation advantage of their body structure -- but otherwise I think I've covered concerns above. If there are things you'd like me to further address, please let me know and I'll work on it tomorrow evening. Quick fixes and a general copy-edit would be greatly appreciated as well, I've been looking at it so much my eyes are "sweat-bleeding" and I've no doubt introduced basic grammar errors throughout. --JayHenry 04:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have more:

• Hippos have been known to be aggressive towards humans, and it is often claimed that hippos are the deadliest animal in Africa; - again - singular to plural in bolded bit

• I'd rename Ancestry, classification or drop subheading altogether.

• I'd like the subspecies bit expanded - so was it 5 and now 3? It isn't quite clear in the article - also where do the subspecies each occur - see other FAs such as Common Raven for a look at how it's laid out there.

• Weak oppose there is little mention of their social structure and habits, and the behavior section in general fails to be very comprehensive. If the Guinea pig article can go into so much detail, then surely the article on one of the most memorable African mammals can as well. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly expand this section a little bit, and I will do so tonight. If, however, it's your impression that the hippopotamus has been more studied than the Guinea Pig, I'd like to gently disabuse you of that notion. The guinea pig is among the most studied animals in the history of science -- their name is in fact synonymous with research and testing. You can buy a guinea pig for pennies and run all sorts of controlled experiments. A hippopotamus is tremendously difficult to study. They are massive, dangerous animals that inhabit murky rivers in regions that are often themselves dangerous. No zoo has ever attempted to maintain an entire pod of hippos, thus their natural social structure can only be studied at great expense. I'll work hard to expand and improve this section, but please give me a hurdle that's possible to clear. There hasn't been 1/10th the research of hippos that there's been of guinea pigs. --JayHenry 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that it's easier to study guinea pigs than hippos. But it seems that (from my experience) there is more comprehensive info already available on their behavior that is not present in the article. That's what I was getting at. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And you are also correct! As I read through it, I think I can break out a separate subsection on "Social structure" or something like that. I'll take another read through the field studies and see what is missing. I'll add more detail here tonight. --JayHenry 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good work on the behavior expansion. I'd now agree that the article is comprehensive in its coverage. But several sections - Description, Behavior, and "Hippos and Humans" - lack a proper intro to give a summarizing overview. This makes for a jarring read, as the article bounces from subject to subject without transitions. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK Support - no deal-breakers left for me. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment continued. Struck most above. Good catch on describing the anatomy via adaptation—just the sort of info that can raise a Wiki page above generic net stuff. Refs have increased and diversified. (Are you missing volume and issue number on some of the journal sources, however?) The taxobox needs sourcing and the lead still doesn't seem enough to me. I'd like to go through prose more closely, as well. All in all, very responsive work on this nomination JayH! Marskell 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm not going to have a chance to work on the article tonight, but I wanted to say thank you for all your constructive feedback and patience during this process. It was my first FAC (but not my last!) and in the future I'll have a better idea of where to get an article before bringing it here. I know I've left some comments unaddressed, but I will get to all of those soon! Hopefully by the end of the weekend we'll have this sparkling. If you see any minor stuff, please don't ever hesitate to jump on the article and fix it (of course, it's a wiki, you don't need my permission!) --JayHenry 22:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support Harlowraman 11:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support Now that some changes have been made, looks good. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. WP:DASH problems throughout, and WP:MOSBOLD problems. Hyphens are used where emdashes are needed, hyphens are used on date and number ranges where endashes should be used, and spaced emdashes are used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  I just read through WP:DASH and WP:MOSBOLD. (It's amazing that WP:CREEP hasn't been marked as rejected, when it's even dictated that we have no spaces around emdashes!) I gave the article a careful line by line reading and fixed every single MOSBOLD and DASH error that I could find. --JayHenry 03:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.