Talk:Snow leopard/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Praseodymium-141 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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

---

From first glance, article sems fine. Will go through details later.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   See below.

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

   See below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Seems to be.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   See below.

   c. (OR):

   None found.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Only one violation suspected using Earwig's copyvio detector. That's a mirror site though.

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:

   That's fine.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No recent edit wars.

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

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   All images are tagged.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below for details.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments

Picture review

6a. Fine.

6b. Mostly relevant.

• Is there a need to put three different pictures for the Characteristics section? I think that two is more than enough here. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Praseodymium-141: Will fix that. Anymore suggestions? Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 18:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Will appear later, I'm just quite busy right now. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 18:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• As a note, I made a series of suggests for improvement some time ago here to assist another editor who was considering taking this article to GAN. I would appreciate it if these suggestions could be addressed? If you are willing, I can copy my suggestions into this review. Happy editing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that would be great. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Other comments by Praseodymium-141

Mainly prose issues:

• Old French once, which was intended to be used for the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), is whence the Latin name uncia and the English word ounce both originate. - change Old French once to The Old French word once at the start of the sentence. Also whence?  Fixed

• supposing that the cat occurred along the Barbary Coast, in Persia, East India and China. - this sentence sounds strange. Fixed

• Based on phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequence sampled across the living Felidae, the snow leopard forms a sister group with the tiger (P. tigris). - add the before phylogenetic analysis and DNA sequence. Fixed

• Genetic divergence time of this group is estimated at 4.62 to 1.82 million years ago. - add the at the start of the sentence. Explain what Genetic divergence time is. The link has the definition, which is very complicated. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 18:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• The genetic divergence time of this group is estimated at 4.62 to 1.82 million years ago. The snow leopard and the tiger probably diverged between 3.7 to 2.7 million years ago. - why are there external links? The external link is used to show the time periods more accurately; it's within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 17:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Felis irbis proposed by Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg in 1830 was a skin of a female snow leopard collected in the Altai Mountains. - added commas after irbis and 1830.  Fixed

• Lots of short sentences in the first paragraph of characteristics.  Fixed

• In Hemis National Park, a snow leopard was observed approaching prey from above, using rocky cliffs for cover; at a distance of about 40 m (130 ft) from the prey, it walked rapidly for about 15 m (49 ft), ran the last 25 m (82 ft) and killed the prey with a bite to the neck. While squatting on its haunches, it ripped out clumps of hair from the abdomen and then opened it to first feed on the viscera. - sounds like a story.  Fixed

• WP:REFBOMBING at the end of conservation.  Fixed

• There are many instances of the word it in the article. I think most of them should be they. The verbs should be pluralised as well if these change.  Fixed

This should cover criteria 1. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 17:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Do refs 80-84 reference everything before it? If not, more citations should be added. yes Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 15:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Are these reliable:
  • ref 4?  Fixed
  • ref 9?  Fixed
  • ref 35?  Fixed It is reliable. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 11:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

    Sorry, I mean ref 36. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  • ref 80?  Fixed
  • ref 81?  Fixed
  • ref 83?  Fixed ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 10:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• One question - is there a need for an exhaustive list of short statements about the snow leopard's characteristics? This is probably fine for GA though.  Fixed ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 15:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Example: The underbelly is whitish, and its eyes are pale green or grey in color. Its muzzle is short... ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 15:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by SilverTiger

Major concerns:

• The exhaustive list of protected areas is unnecessary. Done I agree.
• The Taxonomy section needs a Subspecies subsection, as there seems to be some consensus for three subspecies. A discussion/comparison of the physical differences between subspecies could also be added to the Characteristic subsection. Not done It is not necessary.
• The lede also needs work, as it does not adequately summarize the article. Could stand to be a bit longer, but isn't bad. Done added one sentence.
• The subsection for the Global Snow Leopard Forum seems unnecessary and overly long, maybe condense/summarize into one paragraph? Not done There is enough brevity in the subsection.
  • The second paragraph of that section needs a citation, then.

Minor concerns:

• Discuss color variation in Characteristics. Not done I don't think there are color variants
  • Not color variants like white tigers and black jaguars, but color variation across the snow leopard's range.
• Etymology section could use some clarification/rephrasing. Done Rephrased.
• There's a so-so source in the Characteristics section ([31]) - it cites NatGeo, but surely a better source could be found? Done Sourced a published book

Possibly expand:

• Distribution & habitat section is a bit short: maybe start with habitat, then cover range by subspecies? Not done The amount of information on snow leopards is far less than that on lions, tigers, or cheetahs. The section, in my opinion, is sufficiently long and merely covers the salient features of its scope without going into excessive detail.
• Characteristics seems a bit short. Not done It's long enough, I also made it a bit longer.
• Cultural significance could almost certainly be expanded. Done Already expanded, and I added 3 more citations.

These are all more general suggestions, originally listed at another editor's request as some pre-GAN/FAC work, so it isn't precise as the usual GAN nitpicks. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Will apply some of these changes later on tonight. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 16:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Made another few comments, but overall this article is very good. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

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.