Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pygmy Hippopotamus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 15:06, 14 August 2007.
[edit] Pygmy Hippopotamus
I learned a lot from my first FAC, and I tried to incorporate as much of that experience as possible before nominating. A few notes: this is not as extensively sourced as Hippopotamus, only because there is so little information on the pygmy hippopotamus (beyond those sources contained in the article already). Research on the rare and inherently difficult to study animal has been rendered nearly impossible in the past 20 years by civil war. Since the 1950s only three field studies have been conducted, and one of them is unpublished and another in German. I'm confident that this is more or less the extent of what is known about the animal. But, as before, I will work hard to address, clarify and clean-up as needed! --JayHenry 05:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fixes needed - just started looking through it and fixed a couple of straightforward things. The LEAD suffers a little with repetition of "The Pygmy Hippo is...." - need to mix up the prose a little. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I rearranged the article in a more appropriate manner treating the subject as a biological organism. Having said that, I'm still bordering on a minor oppose vote. As it is, it still sounds too informal. Calling the organism "the pygmy hippo" throughout most of the article just doesn't seem right to someone coming from a scientific background. More mention of the scientific name within the bounds of prose should make the article more educational for readers. The anatomy section (renamed it from a mere "description") is too incomplete. It straight away mentions that it is "half as tall as the hippo" without establishing what the animal actually looks like. (Heavyset, quadrupedal mammal following the xxxx body plan etc) Shrumster 12:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Many many articles are laid out the other way, including many FAs. We're not dissecting the animal and morphology isn't as widely understood as the more succinct description. I do agree about describing the appearance first though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since this is a general interest encyclopedia, while the information is written with academic level sources and adheres to the highest standards of accuracy, I don't believe the language should itself be exclusively academic. Two, "pygmy hippo" is widely used, even within academic literature, on second reference. As for the structure, I simply mirrored previous FAs and I'm unsure how to address this, again I'm just trying to follow Wikipedia conventions? That said, I'm happy to follow whatever conventions are agreed upon here, regarding both language and structure. I'll definitely add variety to the language, but I'm unsure how to proceed if FA reviewers disagree on the basic structure. As for the final point: I will definitely write a more fundamental description to top that section (and the majority of readers can, of course, look at the pictures to establish what it looks like!) --JayHenry 13:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. While the language in articles don't have to be exclusively academic they shouldn't be exclusively non-academic as well. That having said, one more point for my oppose vote: the systematics section needs much work. The article doesn't have any particular in-line citations and/or reasoning for the dispute with the animal's scientific genus. It states that the current genus is Choeropsis and not Hexaprotodon. However, the article, in its rare mentions of the animal's scientific name, keeps mentioning both, leading readers to believe that both are in use. Either way, something must be done within the classification section to prevent such confusion. Either stick with Choeropsis as seems to be the case with the article (and discard mentions of Hexaprotodon except in an appropriate taxonomic history section) or update the article's infobox, etc. if indeed that both are truly accepted synonyms of the same species. Shrumster 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Just because other articles are one way doesn't mean that particular way has to be followed or better. It just so happens that one particular way seemed to work at one time, then everyone just copied that one and it all cascaded from there. re: description Hence the word that preceded it, "anatomy." Anatomy is more than mere dissection, you know. But then again, that isn't within the scope of this FAC. In which case, as it currently stands I'm going to have to vote oppose. The article as it is right now is too zoo/human-interest-centered and many of the sections/topics are rather incomplete. Shrumster 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um..the fact that you find it necessary to name a section Anatomy and Morphology highlights the fact that you understand the term anatomy as you want people to understand it requires other words to explain it - hence the use of the succinct description rather than the cumbersome one you've placed on many articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Ok, description it is. What about the animal is being described though? The animal's behavior? Its diet? The range in which it can be found? That term actually sounds too general now. You can shorten Anatomy in the same way that you can shorten Range and distribution to just range. They're still describing something more specific than just a general catch-all header though. Shrumster 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- PS: You don't have to vote anything - and highlighting what you feel has been left out specifically would be more constructive. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- 'Comment'. No, I don't have to. But I apparently have. Whoops. Anyways, I've looked over the article and even with the new revamp, it's still a tad messy and disjointed. The overall flow doesn't feel right for FA-quality. Feel free to discount my vote above though as I might not be able to check this anymore in the next few weeks. Shrumster 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy to work on improving the flow if you can point me to the sections you feel are inadequate. Unfortunately there's not much I can do about the "zoo-focus" of the article, because, to put it simply, almost all research on the animal is from zoo research. I understand how it might seem too human-focused, but this is the only context in which the animal is known. They are nearly impossible to study in the wild, as noted in the lead. --JayHenry 06:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- 'Comment'. No, I don't have to. But I apparently have. Whoops. Anyways, I've looked over the article and even with the new revamp, it's still a tad messy and disjointed. The overall flow doesn't feel right for FA-quality. Feel free to discount my vote above though as I might not be able to check this anymore in the next few weeks. Shrumster 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um..the fact that you find it necessary to name a section Anatomy and Morphology highlights the fact that you understand the term anatomy as you want people to understand it requires other words to explain it - hence the use of the succinct description rather than the cumbersome one you've placed on many articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Since this is a general interest encyclopedia, while the information is written with academic level sources and adheres to the highest standards of accuracy, I don't believe the language should itself be exclusively academic. Two, "pygmy hippo" is widely used, even within academic literature, on second reference. As for the structure, I simply mirrored previous FAs and I'm unsure how to address this, again I'm just trying to follow Wikipedia conventions? That said, I'm happy to follow whatever conventions are agreed upon here, regarding both language and structure. I'll definitely add variety to the language, but I'm unsure how to proceed if FA reviewers disagree on the basic structure. As for the final point: I will definitely write a more fundamental description to top that section (and the majority of readers can, of course, look at the pictures to establish what it looks like!) --JayHenry 13:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Many many articles are laid out the other way, including many FAs. We're not dissecting the animal and morphology isn't as widely understood as the more succinct description. I do agree about describing the appearance first though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Well done to Casliber for helping out. I've significantly refactored the article [1] and would suggest cropping the last image to focus on the juvenile. Make sure that all images are also uploaded to Commons with appropriate listings in categories and/or pages. 82.71.48.158 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy to help with transferring images to Commons, but it's not a process for which I know the rules. If someone can point me to the procedures, I'm happy to work on this. Also, would anyone object if I re-added Image:Pygmy hippo edinburgh zoo 2004 SMC.jpg, which got taken out during one of the refactors? It's a better image of the animal's actual shape than any of the others. Thanks everyone for all the help so far! -JayHenry 06:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I've massaged the text to improve flow and am happy with how it sits now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The section "Prehistoric species" is not at all related to the species "Pygmy Hippopotamus" (capitals for distinction), but to current and past small-sized hippopotami species in general. It only mentions one species from that is directly related to this one, notwithstanding the two possible placements. Similarly, "Evolution" is far more detailed than needs be, and although it would belong very well in Hippopotamidae, it looks entirely out of place in the current article.And while I'm commenting, I agree that "Description" is the way to go. We want to avoid unnecessary jargon, and this would be exactly that: unnecessary jargon. Circeus 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)- Comment. If there is one thing the House hippo commercial taught us, it was to check your sources and question what you are seeing. So I will:
- What source calls the Madagascan Pygmy Hippopotamus a "Choeropsis madagascariensis"? The sources provided all call it "Hexaprotodon madagascariensis" and google is draws a blank.
- What source says that "Their meat is said to be of excellent quality"? --maclean 07:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sharp observations. Thanks for reviewing so closely! The complicated taxonomy of this species is explained more thoroughly at Malagasy Hippopotamus. It's especially complicated by the fact that the Madagascan pygmy hippo was initially classified as Hippopotamus by Stuenes, placed in the same genus as the Liberian Pygmy Hippo in 1992 by Harris (when the species was more commonly considered Hexaprotodon), and nobody has written exclusively about Malagasy Hippos since pygmy hippos were returned to Choeropsis by Boisserie in 2005. At any rate, here's one Taxonomy and Conservation Status which uses Hexaprotodon (=Choeropsis) Madagascariensis and others use this sort of parenthetical formulation. A two-year-old reclassification is a blink of an eye in taxonomy (my favorite example is Brontosaurus, a genus that was still used more than 70 years after the fossils were recognized to be Apatosaurus.) As for their meat? "Pygmy hippos are hunted for their meat; they are regarded as a very desirable food species, resembling wild pig in taste and texture."[2] The alleged tastiness of all hippos is also mentioned in Eltringham's "The Hippos." Not sure if I should make this clear in the text or if its sufficient to note here for reviewers -- but Robinson conducted one of the only field studies of the animals, and is considered by some the foremost expert on the species. --JayHenry 17:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- From Eltringham (1999), speaking of both species, "Hippo meat is generally considered to be excellent and is readily eaten over most of the hippo's range." May I be the first to say, in my best Homer Simpson impression, "Mmm... hippo" --JayHenry 18:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sharp observations. Thanks for reviewing so closely! The complicated taxonomy of this species is explained more thoroughly at Malagasy Hippopotamus. It's especially complicated by the fact that the Madagascan pygmy hippo was initially classified as Hippopotamus by Stuenes, placed in the same genus as the Liberian Pygmy Hippo in 1992 by Harris (when the species was more commonly considered Hexaprotodon), and nobody has written exclusively about Malagasy Hippos since pygmy hippos were returned to Choeropsis by Boisserie in 2005. At any rate, here's one Taxonomy and Conservation Status which uses Hexaprotodon (=Choeropsis) Madagascariensis and others use this sort of parenthetical formulation. A two-year-old reclassification is a blink of an eye in taxonomy (my favorite example is Brontosaurus, a genus that was still used more than 70 years after the fossils were recognized to be Apatosaurus.) As for their meat? "Pygmy hippos are hunted for their meat; they are regarded as a very desirable food species, resembling wild pig in taste and texture."[2] The alleged tastiness of all hippos is also mentioned in Eltringham's "The Hippos." Not sure if I should make this clear in the text or if its sufficient to note here for reviewers -- but Robinson conducted one of the only field studies of the animals, and is considered by some the foremost expert on the species. --JayHenry 17:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I see you're back at it Jay. Good job! I'll try and go through this more fully, but I'll only suggest for now to audit for repetition in the prose. This confused me: "All research on living pygmy hippos is from Choeropsis liberiensis liberiensis (or Hexaprotodon liberiensis liberiensis) from..." This introduces subspecies but there's been no mention of them previously. Or am I missing something? Marskell 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch, Marskell, I'll make that clearer about the subspecies. I think it was introduced earlier in the text in an older version, but accidentally got edited away... I'll also go back and give it another copy edit to try to reduce repetition and generally improve the flow. Any more tips are greatly appreciated! --JayHenry 20:12, 11 August 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.
