Talk:Mountain Gorilla
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Corrections to first paragraph
I'm going to make some corrections to the first paragraph - since the Bwindi population has yet to be firmly classified as a separate subspecies, they deserve to be included in the count, meaning that we can add their 320 in to make 700 in the world.
[edit] Edit Summary - 21 May 2004
I added the taxobox and updated the classifications. The article contents is only a very rough beginning, and I will continue to work on it. (I have seen works in progress dealt with in a few different ways, if one is preferred, please let me know.)
The following thoughts are in addition/response to the guidelines given at WikiProject Primates and used in primate articles (see Lemurine Owl Monkey & White-throated Capuchin -- both great examples).
- Description (physical, behavioral) - what makes this (group of) critter(s) different from its close relatives? Include here evidence about cognitive capacities.
These descriptions should be separated (at least for any/all of the Hominids), both due to the amount and significance of related information.
- Habitat - where does it live? how broadly does it roam? maps are good
Some articles group habitat and diet as a heading. Again, these should be separated. Possibly. There are a few different angles that a description of habitat could be approach from, including:
-
- Research & Population Estimates - Include here any significant field research and census data.
This (along with the following) is my addition to the list.
- Research & Population Estimates - Include here any significant field research and census data.
-
- Conservation - What impact have humans had on this species? Include here any threats (habitat destruction, poaching, disease, etc.) and conservation work.
Unless I have missed something, they are either vague or absent from the current one. The importance to/impact on humans should be addressed here.
- Conservation - What impact have humans had on this species? Include here any threats (habitat destruction, poaching, disease, etc.) and conservation work.
- Cultural, Religious, Economic, etc. Importance - what impact has it had on humans? Include here use for experimental purposes that do not relate to other headings.
Experimental purposes and/or captive life are significant topics (again, at least for the Hominids) for reasons which include: the majority of gorilla subspecies do not survive in captivity, the knowledge gained from lab research.
These thoughts are primarily in reference to the Mountain Gorilla article, but may apply to the others (esp. those mentioned). I would appreciate any (constructive) comments. Lea 13:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I changed my mind about / reworked some of the things I mentioned above. Regardless, I have put up what I have so far. I know it needs a little work as far as format (at least). Lea 03:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Sleep Habits
The current article says "Only infants sleep in the same nest as their mothers." But Dian Fossey, in Gorillas in the Mist, describes adults sleeping together on numerous occasions. --DavidNYC 20:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tourism
Should this article maybe go into more detail about Gorilla Tourism? and possibly threats to the Gorilla with regards to the Rwanda War? One of the reasons for the gorillas continued surivial is arugably due to the gorilla tourism and the exposure it creates and economic benefits for the local communities? I'm not a expert, but maybe an expert could create a section on this? --Mezaco 16:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scientific name
There are tons of conflictions from sources regarding the scientific name of the mountain gorilla. Anyone know which one is actually acurate? Cabound 22:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The listed name is correct, according to the last few publications at least. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good article candidate
I've nominated this article for GA status. I actually just came across it randomly while looking at endangered species. It looks to be stable, well-sourced, well-written, and overall a very interesting read. ♠ SG →Talk 14:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I passed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alientraveller (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 June 2007