Wikipedia:Peer review/Fauna of Australia/archive1

Fauna of Australia

I've rewritten this article from a list to probably the only article on Wikipeida that comprehensively covers the diversity of fauna from one country. I'm looking for comments about the text, is there anything confusing, or that you though would be mentioned and isn't; and also for comments about the balance of topics covered. Thanks. --nixie 02:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, that first sentence threw me a bit. When it says, "including over 83% of mammals, 89% of reptiles, 90% of fish and 93% of amphibians", does that mean 83% of mammals, &c., native to Australia? Or 83% of mammals, &c., world-wide? You may want to split off the part of the sentence that begins with "including" and clarify to what it applies. Otherwise it's a good-looking article. Thanks. :) — RJH 14:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

RJH is right about that phrase; maybe "many Australian animals are found nowhere else including over 83% of the country's mammals, 89% of its reptiles, 90% of its fish and 93% of its amphibians"? Even that's not right (presumably), because it's probably talking about number of species, not population. Also, it's bad form to use summary style for an article that doesn't exist (Natural history of Australia). The article also needs a thorough copyedit -- there are fragments and other structure/punctuation errors throughout. --Spangineer (háblame) 17:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed the last sentence of =Invertebrates= section: "Australian lobsters do not have claws." That sounds bad, just tacking it on like that. Is there a notable australian crab lobster species that could be discussed, to which could be added the phrase "this lobster, like all australian lobsters, does not have claws". --Spangineer (háblame) 17:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've cleared up the problem with the lead, and copyedited the bulk of the article, although I'm sure other editors will pick up more errors. The summary style link is there since I intend to have that article up in the next few days. Thanks. --nixie 03:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• I like it a lot. But -
  • "Many" of the animals are found nowhere else? 83-93% is a "most".
  • Estimates of endemism of the inverts would be nice (if available)
    • Since most of the inverebrates are unknown there isn't a general estimate, the best I've found is 90% of mollusca and 90% of insecta, and unknown for all the other groups, I'll include the known ones in the text, and the fact that they're mostly unknown :)
  • The last line of the "Origins..." section - "The establishment of the fauna and speciation was effected by the flora, which in turn was shaped by the climate and the old and nutrient poor soil, by selection and by population genetics." - this seems like an overly general statement about evolution as a whole, and the "and by population genetics" seems like an afterthought takced on.
  • In the "Mammals" section, the statement "Australia has been inhabited by humans since the Pleistocene (20,000-50,000 years before present) during that period the Australian megafauna, which included giant marsupials, and an unknown number of mammals became extinct due to human activites and climate change." is a little long, and would probably be better split into two.
  • "The Thylacine, commonly known as the Tasmanian Tiger, was the last living specimen of the family Thylacinidae, however it is believed to be extinct after systematic annihilation by the European settlers of Australia." - I think that "systematic annihilation" is a tad strong for something that is only "believed to be extinct" - annihilation is total, and the extinction history is probably a little more complicated than that.
  • In the "Placental mammals" section, "Other domestic species have escaped and over time have produced wild populations.... Only three species of placental mammal were introduced to Australia by accident..." These statements appera to contradict each other, since "escape" is "accidental".
  • "Birds" - third paragraph, sentance starts with "23 species..." - should be "Twenty-three species..." since you don't start sentaces with numbers.
  • "Fish" - do Australian fish belong to freshwater families, or do they belong to marine clades? If available, this would be interesting.
• Guettarda 15:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• • I struck out the complete points so I can keep track, I'm still working on some of the trickier points.--nixie 11:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Fishes are done.--nixie 12:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean: "After the Miocene, fauna of Asian origin could have become established in Australia."? Does it mean Asiatic fauna possibly became established in Australia or does it mean they had the opportunity to?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• It means both. I got rid of the could--nixie 12:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)