Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lion/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 13:32, 14 April 2011 [1].

Lion[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats, Wikipedia:WikiProject India, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa, User:Casliber
  • "Recent" subspecies header needs a better descriptor. How recent is recent?
  • Last sentence of first paragraph, and entire second paragraph, of "physical characteristics" are unsourced.
  • Fourth paragraph of "mane" is unsourced.
  • Last sentences in first two paragraphs of "group organization" are unsourced.
  • Last two sentences in first paragraph of "health" are unsourced.
  • [not in citation given] tag under "interspecific predatory relationships" and "in captivity" headers.
  • Lots of one-sentence paragraphs in "Cultural depictions."
  • Several dead links in references, far more than are already tagged with {{dead link}}.
  • What makes these reliable sources?
  • Refs #37 and #76 from Honolulu Zoo are the same website.
  • Many refs are missing authorship and/or work credits, although most are the aforementioned seemingly-unreliable sites.
  • Unqualified "In relatively recent times" under Distribution and Habitat header, and two unqualified "currently"s under Population and conservation status.
  • Link to dab page Tsavo National Park.
  • Cultural Depictions feels like an infodump, using almost entirely primary sources for things like sports teams with lion mascots.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, even with semiprotection, this high traffic article has been tricky to monitor over the years. I recall giving it a cleanout at least once in that time (twice?). I agree with much of what is said above. When it was promoted I tried hard to make a succinct, well-rounded Cultural depictions section, much of which was secondarily sourced. There are still secondary sources which should be referencing a significant portion of it. I do not have a problem with a primary source for an obviously highly notable team such as a national soccer team or NFL team. Source rules are guidelines. I will have a go at finding some secondary ones where possible or relegating material. It has been a magnet, and that is one reason why there is a daughter article. I normally hate separate "IPC" articles but in this case as one of the most heraldic animals of human civilization I felt it warranted it. This might take a while. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Holocene is what recent means. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All isolated paras combined and some less notable examples removed from Cultural depictions section. Ive tagged some items myself and fixed some links. Will look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recent" is actually well-defined in the article—it means Holocene, as usual in historical biology and geology. The distinction between "Recent" and "prehistoric" is dubious, though; the second category would be more consistently called "Pleistocene". Ucucha 11:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. converted to align with preceding Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removed the two currentlys Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good points - it gets hard in big articles at times what to prioritise. I intend to do some juggling between the parent and daughter articles (where I meantioned and sourced the pub name) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say this explanation makes the [2] a reliable source, however, I agree that peer-reviewed material is better where available. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing happening for a wekk, so moved YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern is referencing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
okay, how does that impact on its current status and licence? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed - I suppose I could research the age of the statue but I don't think it is an especially notable one, so will replace with one with suitable licence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Flag of Sri Lanka.svg - Needs a verifiable source. Inappropriate authorship attribution (Zscout370 created only the derivative SVG, not the flag design).
      "'removed. Section is jammed full of images anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Jerusalem-coat-of-arms.svg - Same as above (Eliyahu Koren created the coat of arms, per the summary. Cameltrade cannot release rights to a mere derivative.)
      "'removed. Section is jammed full of images anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Cartercoatofarms.jpg - Bogus license. Creation date is not the same as date of author death. Who was the author? When did s/he die? What is the basis for claiming s/he has been dead 100+ years?
      "'removed. Low notablty anyway. Section is jammed full of images anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See MOS:CAPTION regarding period usage. Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This simplifies things as the article is crammed full of images. I will happily get rid of a bunch of them. 06:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, if the frankly fairly minor referencing issues & remaining image issues are sorted. Unlike most on this page this looks & feels like an FA to current standards. Really more sources should be moved down to "works cited", or those now there moved back to the notes section. But I wouldn't oppose on this. The pub name might be mentioned, but I don't agree more is needed on specifically Brit lion culture - almost every country uses lions in lots of ways & thinks they have a special relationship with them. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is work on this coming? Dana boomer (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! My free time is unpredictiable and I have some RL committments for the next two or three weeks. I need to fetch the Schaller book from the library and review some references. I need a stretch of free time where I can really sit down and review some consilidated bits. Until then I can tinker with it a little (remove some images, replace some Reliable sources etc.). This one is long but is closer to keeping FA status than some others I've worked on. I am also trying to help on Tasmanian devil which is further down the production line... Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still too many images that seem to have been dropped in since the FAC and need to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Luckily, many ones with questionable copyright status make for straightforward removal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I will get the Schaller book from the library this week, to double check numbers and sourcing (can't see the right pages on google preview :( ) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Cas, I know you're busy with your ArbCom candidacy, but how is work coming along on this? Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finally pulled out the book yesterday and double checking. Not sure how long it will take. I'll say three weeks at the outer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've pinged Casliber to ask that very question. For my money, the article looks good - but I can pitch in on some of the minor lingering items, if there are any. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of my biggest dilemmas is what to do about the Interspecific_predatory_relationships section. It needs going over and I have wondered whether it is just too much detail for this page. If we keep it, we need to review the references for it.
  • Boring stuff still to do. Format refs to "Smith, John; " where possible from "Smith J" etc. A few of these...
  • one dead link (groan)

All help appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some progress on the links and images. I replaced the range map with the old one from the time of promotion, fixed the dead links, and fixed some of the redirects. It's tedious work. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, it is a little bit. I will do some more in the next day or so. I do think we are heading towards keep territory, but to be fair need a little bit of housekeeping to do yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we get an update on how this is going? The review is quickly approaching six months at FAR, and there has been no activity on this page for over a month. Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My (involved) vote is for leaning keep pending any changes pointed out by independent reviewers. I would like some guidance from outside voices over whether to keep or remove Interspecific_predatory_relationships. If we keep it, i'll have a go at improving that segment, which I haven't done as I wondered whether it was too much detail for an already large article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just been through it again and I recommend keep. A small worklist can be compiled for future consideration, but that is true of any FA. Cas, I think the section you mention should go—it seems to needlessly stretch the scope of the article. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would keep the section, tighten it (if you hate losing the content do a daughter), move it up right after hunting, and rename it "predator competition". It's really kind of a cool section, but the title is a turnoff.TCO (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now why didn't I think of that? Okay, done. I will look at streamlining content if I can. done some trimming. tightened up the prose...actually upon reading it again I like the subject matter. Anyway, I am feeling better about it and the article as a whole. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A couple minor things that need to be taken care of, and then I think this can be closed:
    • A couple of "not in citation given" tags.
they are duplicated ones of ref 147 where the source has obviously deleted the page. I'll try and find an alternative today. If not I'll remove (which is a bit of a pity) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
update - the WAZA site has been rejigged. One has to click on the "In the Zoo" button to see all the zoo stats in the ref. Not sure how to explain in the inline though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a "note=" field that says something like "click on "In the Zoo" to see zoo statistics"? Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A mix of British and American spelling (meter/metre, behavior/behaviour, etc).
converted to british all colours, meters and -izes. Did you see any others? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing a bunch of "behavior" (shouldn't British spelling be "behaviour"?). Also "defense" ("defence")? And "neighbor" ("neighbour")? Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tackled 8 "Behaviors", 1 "defense", and 1 "neighbor". I left one behavior in a reference (It's how the title is spelled in the original work) and one in a piped link (why bother with the redirect). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, well spotted! Yes I'd keep the original spellings in the refs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have all of the image issues above been taken care of?
yes Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once these are taken care of, the article should be good to go. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at long last. I don't see any other lingering issues, apart from those noted by Dana Boomer. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Lion/archive1&oldid=1138477346"