Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giraffe/archive3

Add links
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 not promoted by Ucucha 19:44, 4 February 2012 [1].

Giraffe[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it gives well-written, well-sourced and fairly complete information on the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question The "Relationship with humans" section does not touch upon attempts by humans to ride the animal. Has there been any? Successful? 109.214.164.25 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No information is available. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense for humans to attempt to ride giraffes. The long neck would obscure forward vision. There are better animals around for riding. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Necking", paragraph 2: "It appears that males that are successful in necking have greater reproductive success." I don't think that the first part "It appears that..." is necessary. Why not say "Males that are successful in necking have greater reproductive success"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Mortality", paragraph 3: "Some parasites also feed on giraffes." This sentence doesn't really follow smoothly from the preceding paragraph about lions and crocodiles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Cultural significance", paragraph 2: "With the fall of the Roman Empire, the people of Europe were no longer able to keep and display giraffes." "No longer able"? Or just that they didn't? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source says that when the Empire fell, so did the ability to keep and house giraffes. I suppose it was referring to Rome's infrastructure. I changed it anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In "Relationship with humans", subsection "Conservation status", the first paragraph is only tangentially related to "conservation status". The article "Galápagos tortoise" has separate subsections for "Historical exploitation" and "Modern conservation". However "Giraffe" does not really have enough text to justify such a split. Perhaps re-name the subsection title "Exploitation and conservation status"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Conservation status", paragraph 1: "Normally, giraffes can coexist with livestock, since they feed in the trees above their heads." Who feeds above whose heads? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Normally, giraffes can coexist with livestock, since they feed in the trees above the latter's heads." This still isn't quite right. The giraffes are not in the trees. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In "Relationship with humans", subsection "Conservation status", the photo ("Giraffe killed by tribesmen") looks quite old. From the Wikimedia Commons info, it was taken between 1906 and 1918. Perhaps change the caption to "Giraffe killed by tribesmen in the early 20th century"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still semi-protected. I'm not sure when this was done or why. Was it subjected to repeated IP vandalism? Would it be reasonable to unprotect it now? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You'll have to talk to the person who protected this. This issue doesn't have anything to do with whether the article should be FA. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many broad articles on animals like lions, giraffes, elephants, whales etc.which are familiar to schoolchildren are often subject to waves of vandalism, and as such, many have been semiprotected for long periods. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. From the previous FAC, I still have a concern about the way that the subspecies populations are estimated. Also, I am slightly uncomfortable with the phylogenetic tree image in "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies". However both LittleJerry and Stfg are happy with the image, and there are no dissenting voices. The pictures are all free images from Wikimedia Commons. I have not checked the references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranges should use endashes consistently
  • Compare formatting on FNs 4 and 5
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations for books
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • "p." should be used for single pages and "pp." for ranges - check usage
  • Don't include both {{citation}} and the {{cite}} family of templates, as this causes formatting inconsistencies
  • FN 61: formatting
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All clear. LittleJerry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have some difficulty accepting the abandonment of the use of {{MSW3}} and {{IUCN2008}} templates, though. They can put things in categories, if wanted, which the straight {{cite}} templates cannot. Template MSW3 creates hyphenated ISBN, but I don't think that outweighs the value of using it (and the new cite is much less complete). I don't see what was gained by abandoning template IUCN2008 at all. --Stfg (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it either, but apparently I can't use both types of citing. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, is this really true? That we can't use templates MSW3 and IUCN2008 (and the other IUCN... templates) and {{cite}} in the same article? --Stfg (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to adjust these templates so that the formatting is consistent with {{cite}}? Actually, I don't believe that any of the problems I noted involved IUCN refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you included {{IUCN2008}} as a {{citation}}. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was an actual {{citation}} there last I checked. IUCN is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I found it and fixed it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, I'm not sure what we can do with {{MSW3}}, as it's very widely used. For example, probably some articles using it will hyphenate ISBNs and others not. But I'm willing to ask Ucucha's view if you like. I've put the original MSW3 citation and the current Cite-book citation side by side in User:Stfg/Sandbox1 for comparison. Please could you let me know which aspects of MSW3 (the top one) you would like changed? --Stfg (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to a non-hyphenated ISBN, it also should'nt list the publisher's locations. LittleJerry (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was really asking Nikkimaria which aspects are of concern, not merely what the differences are. I see you've restored the use of IUCN2008 (thanks) and made the MSW3 citation pretty much as good as the output from the template, but there's a wider issue here. I've asked Ucucha for his view. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and he has replied that he doesn't use Template:MSW3 as there are some problems with it. So what you've done looks good to me now. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'd been meaning to return here - article looking more polished than when I last looked, and a couple of things had been added that pushed it further into "safe" ground comprehensiveness-wise. So I am happy with prose and comprehensiveness now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MOS issues needing attention, on a quick scan, I see a collapsed scroll box in text, I see text sandwiched between images, I see an image gallery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image gallery fits recommended WP:IG use. I provided details elsewhere before I realised the removal originated here. If people prefer they can add comments about it here. –RN1970 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia's reasoning on the talkpage means sense. Plus, the diagram already gives shapshots of the coat patterns for six subspecies, which are pretty much the only thing that distinguish them externally. LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed make sense, and I too think the diagram and the commons are sufficient. --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are nine subspecies (ten if you believe the recent split of angolensis is correct; MSW3 follows a review from 1971 and the three they don't recognise have all been proven valid by detailed studies after the publication of MSW3). That means 1/3 are not shown by the diagram! The latest comment on SandyGeorgia talk page includes a few incorrect comparisons: Most people are unlikely to know there are several distinctly different subspecies and people that work in biology (like myself) are often forgetful about their differences. If this had been a collection of random photos it would have been "don't we all know what giraffes look like", but it isn't. To fit it should be modified to "don't we all know what the giraffe subspecies look like" and I doubt that statement is right. The comparison to the lion article is also incorrect because the typical argument by people who added more photos to it could be summed down to "I think it is a nice image". Are there any places where the giraffe subspecies gallery does not match recommendation in the WP:IG policy, the very basis for gallery use? To my eyes the main difference compared to the WP:IG textbook example of good gallery use, 1750–1795 in fashion, is that the giraffe gallery was not directly linked to each text section describing the subspecies. That can easily be done by adding numbers and switching the subspecies text order to match the subspecies photo order. RN1970 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In two (camelopardalis, thornicrofti) of the three subspecies where some have argued the text description is sufficient, the text description of their appearance is not supported by any citation. They're right but still unsupported. RN1970 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, all fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it's hard to tell the difference between the coat patterns in the gallery as many of the giraffes are not close enough to the camera and some have bad lighting. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on a few counts, the prose is tedious and makes it hard to read pages and page ranges are missing from one of the major sources. When there are 30+ refs tagged to one source the page ranges would be nice.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off the article has gone through a billion fine tunings for prose, it is no harder to read then any of the current FAs. Second, there are no missing pages/page number for "many" of the sources. I presume you're talking about the Giraffe book by Edgar Williams. There are no pages ranges given because I'm citing the entire book not just a section. The books by Estes and Kingdon have specific sections dedicated to the giraffe, so I give the pages ranges. The entire Williams book is dedicated to the giraffe, so it is silly to give ranges, especially since I'm using different sections of the book. An inline page citation for each fact is all that is needed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've been kicked in the nuts over having too broad a range on pages, so I find no page ranges unacceptable for FAC. As for the prose, I know how that happens, but try reading it again, sometimes those tweaks make it as boring as a dog's ass.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When page ranges are too broad or if you're using the entire book, you give inline page citations for the cites, which is what I have done and maybe you didn't. So your objection is invalid. I've read through and fixed the article hundreds of times and I'm not doing it again for some vague claim of it being "boring". LittleJerry (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not boring, actually the body of the article reads well, it is the lede that comes across as tedious. As far as the page ranges, we will have to disagree on that. Like I said, I took your attitude about that once and got nutpunched later. I'm just trying to save you from headaches down the road.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll fix the lede and what if I give the page number for the entire book? LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did some fixes in the lede and gave the page range for the entire book. LittleJerry (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leads can be tricky, but they are important to get as attractive as possible. It looks better now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, sometimes it is only a word or two in the right place...after 5 years I still think i suck at it, but this is looking good now!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

  • 29.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Williams, E. (2011). Giraffe. Reaktion Books. pp. 1-174.

We shouldn't be expected to look through 174 pages to find about 30 different citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Give narrowed down page ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This still doesn't allow readers to easily locate and verify information (over 30 citations to broad ranges of pages, totaling to around 100 pages):
  • 29.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Williams, E. (2011). Giraffe. Reaktion Books. pp. 21-44, 45-71, 116-50. ISBN 1861897642.
Also, pls see WP:DASH, WP:ENDASH and WP:HYPHEN and check article throughout for correct endashes on page ranges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed one of these myself-- please check throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whats wrong with the inline citations? LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your question; the problem is missing page numbers. We need to give readers enough that they can find and verify information-- these page ranges are too broad to be able to locate something. Each item should be inline cited to a tighter page range. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sample
  • Williams (2011), p. 34.
  • Williams (2011), pp. 45–50.
  • Williams (2011), pp. 120–21.
or something similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, when pages ranges are broad, inline pages cite are given. You know, the {{Rp}} template. Why are you guys making this more difficult then it should be. LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ha ... now I see what you mean. Yes, those page numbers attached to the citation in the text are acceptable (even if they are obnoxious and ugly :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS#Captions punctuation review needed (full sentences in image captions should have final puncuation, sentence fragments should not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and spotcheck for accuracy in representation of sources and close paraphrasing pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endahes all clear. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made a few changes, sourcing all clear. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any more hypens in page ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck[edit]

1. http://www.giraffeconservation.org/giraffe_facts.php?pgid=6

Source: The distinctive coat of the Nubian giraffe has large, normally 4 sided, chestnut brown spots set against a slightly off-white background. It has no markings on the inside of its legs or at all below the hocks (knees).
Article: Its coat pattern has large, four-sided spots of chestnut brown on an off-white background, with no spots on the inner sides of the legs or below the hocks.
Source: Sometimes also called the Netted giraffe, it is plain to see why with the browny-orange coat patches clearly defined by a network of thick and often extremely white lines.
Article: G. c. reticulata,[16] known as the Reticulated[16] or Somali giraffe, has a coat pattern of well-defined patches that are usually bright orange-brown.[17] These patches have sharp edges and are separated by bold, bright white lines.
Source: The Angolan giraffe is relatively light in colour (hence the name 'Smokey') with large uneven, notched, spots covering the entire leg.
Article: G. c. angolensis, the Angolan or Smoky giraffe, is relatively light in color and has large spots with some notches around the edges, extending down the entire lower leg.
Source: It is estimated that fewer than 20,000 remain in the wild. ISIS (the International Species Information System, based on zoological data information) records indicate that only about 20 individuals are kept in zoos. (note, not sourced to this article, data comes from another primary source, but text is close to this article).
Article: It is estimated that no more than 20,000 remain in the wild;[18] based on ISIS records approximately 20 are kept in zoos.[21]
Stopped there.

2. http://www.awf.org/content/wildlife/detail/giraffe

Source: The giraffe is a selective feeder and although it feeds 16 to 20 hours a day, it may consume only about 65 pounds of foliage during that time. It can maintain itself on as little as 15 pounds of foliage per day.
Article: A giraffe can eat 65 lb (29 kg) of leaves and twigs daily, but can survive on just 15 lb (6.8 kg).
Source: Although they drink water when it's available, they can survive where it is scarce.
Article: The giraffe can survive without water for extended periods. (what is "extended periods"? Not in the source.)
Source: Giraffe tails are highly prized by many African cultures. The desire for good-luck bracelets, fly whisks and thread for sewing or stringing beads have led people to kill the giraffe for its tail alone.
Article: The tails were used as good luck charms, for thread and as flyswatters.

Stopped there: I'll let others decide if paraphrasing is up to snuff, and one concern about accuracy ("Extended periods"). I'm not sure this is an extensive enough look, but hope others will do a few more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit complicated. Some of the very recent changes to the wikipedia article (e.g. coat descriptions) may require changes but some other parts (e.g. information based on ISIS data) were on wikipedia first. Giraffeconservation.org copied wikipedia. Not vice versa. RN1970 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting-- that's a big problem. If giraffeconservatin.org copied Wikipedia, is it really a reliable source? Doesn't seem likely; in fact, I can't find anything on their website that indicates why we are using an advocacy organization over journal publication sources for a potential featured article, which requires high-quality sourcing. At any rate, a deeper source check might be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that some of the information they provide, notably approximate wild population counts of each subspecies, is very hard to find elsewhere. There are currently two giraffeconservation.org pages used as citations for wikipedia:
"Giraffe - The Facts: Giraffe subspecies" is a relatively new page that became a wikipedia citation less than two weeks ago. It appears to incorporate information from wikipedia or at least some of the information was on wikipedia before the same information appeared on their page. Based on the wayback machine, the first proven appearance of the Giraffe subspecies page is July 2011 (Giraffe subspecies in left bar, absent in earlier archived versions). Anything that was in the wikipedia article about that time and also appears in a near identical form on their page may be WP:CIRCULAR.
"Giraffe – The Facts: Current giraffe status?" is an older page that has not changed significantly, at least since April 2010 (Wayback machine). When information from this page first entered the wikipedia article in December 2010 it included the citation (total wild population and wild population of each subspecies all originates there). This proves it was on their page first and not CIRCULAR. RN1970 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know how to use Wayback. Again, that they are copying text from Wikipedia does not speak well for them being a high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ICUN cites it as a source. So it is a RS. LittleJerry (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how reliability of sources is determined, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are the main conservation organisation working with giraffe in their native range. They are a high quality source for data on the wild populations and their conservation. It would be hard to find any source speaking poorly about them and their reliability in this field. A large percentage of the peer-reviewed publications about conservation of giraffe in the wild are in some way connected to them, directly or indirectly. Their reliability in other data but especially captive data (where they have little involvement) is far lower. It is perhaps unsurprising they looked elsewhere to fill in their own gaps in that field. Wikipedia isn't using them as a source for captive data anyway but our use of their "Giraffe subspecies" page for differences in the appearance of the subspecies may require a check. Cf. my last comment. RN1970 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed subspecies reference. LittleJerry (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Giraffe_Mikumi_National_Park.jpg: image description indicates that caption attribution is requested. Same with File:Giraffe_feeding,_Tanzania.jpg and File:Giraffe_Ithala_KZN_South_Africa_Luca_Galuzzi_2004.JPG
  • File:Samotherium_skull.jpg: if author is unknown, how do we know he/she died more than 70 years ago? Also, need US PD tag
  • File:GiraffaRecurrEn.svg is partially sourced to a deleted image
  • File:Yongle-Giraffe1.jpg: licensing indicated in image description and actual licensing tag are contradictory. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed, expect for the first one. The photographer himself added the pictures. [2] [3] LittleJerry (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Two comments on lead:

  • Capitalization inconsistency in classifications: "Least Concern" but "endagered"?
  • "Nevertheless, giraffes are still found in numerous game reserves." – To me, the "still" here seems kind of redundant to "Nevertheless" Auree ★ 20:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, but I think this has had enough nitpicks. This needs a source spotcheck. LittleJerry (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth, I'll add in my support. I read through it and think it's very well written and informative. Good luck with the rest of the nomination--hope it can get its spotcheck done soon... Auree ★ 05:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Arab prophets and poets considered the giraffe the "queen of beasts" for what they saw as its delicate features and fragile form" vs "Arab prophets and poets considered the giraffe the queen of beasts, with enchantingly long eyelashes, delicate features, and fragile form."
  • "Eastern sultans prized them as special pets" vs "Eastern sultans prized them as very special pets"
  • "During the Middle Ages, giraffes were mostly forgotten by Europeans, except in legends from Arab travelers" vs "During the Middle Ages giraffes seem to have been nearly forgotten, except in legends and embellished tales from Arab travelers"
  • "When water is available, it may drink at intervals of three days or less. Giraffes can also get water from green leaves, especially when covered in dew" vs "Giraffes may drink at intervals of three days or less when water is available, but can also fill much of their need from green leaves, especially when covered in dew."
  • "In low intesity necking, the combatants gently rub their heads and necks together and lean heavily against each other, while flapping their ears and rubbing shoulders, perhaps to assess their comparative weights" vs "At low intensity, they proceed to rub heads and necks gently together, and may lean heavily against each other with ears flapping and rub shoulders or flanks – probably assessing their comparative weight"
  • "In high intensity necking, the combatants aim blows at each other's rump, flanks or neck. To prepare to strike, a giraffe will straddle with its front legs, draw its neck sideways and swing upward and downward over the shoulder, attempting to hit its opponent with its horns.[20] The contestants try to avoid being hit by moving their necks at the last moment" vs "At higher intensity, the contestants aim blows at rump, flanks or neck...straddling his forelegs, then he draws his neck sideways and swings upward and backward over his shoulder to strike his opponent with the parietal horns...each does his best to avoid being hit by moving his neck away at the last moment"
  • "The pelvis is shorter in the giraffe than in most other ruminants, and the ilium has more expanded upper ends" vs "The pelvis is shorter than in most ruminants, and the upper ends of the ilia are more expanded"
  • "the giraffe's proportionally larger limbs have high rotational inertia that would make rapid swimming motions strenuous" vs "the giraffe's proportionally larger limbs have much higher rotational inertias...making rapid swimming motions more strenuous"

The number of very close paraphrases in this relatively small sample leads me to conclude that this article needs to be thoroughly checked and likely at least partially rewritten before attaining FA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Nikkimaria, and suggest withdrawing this FAC and having fresh eyes comb through the entire thing. And I do so wish any reviewers entering Supports on first-time nominators would do this work before the nomination languishes at FAC for so long; it's not really fair to Little Jerry or to FAC that this page sat here so long with a couple of supports, but no one looking at sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Okay I can see a some But 4, 6, 7 are very different. LittleJerry (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LittleJerry, I'm sorry to see you retiring. If you're still looking in, this may help you to judge better how close a paraphrase can acceptably be, and to see why 4, 6 and 7 are still too close. I hope to see you back one day. Simon. --Stfg (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to plagiarism concerns. Based on a quick check of another article from the nominator, coaching on avoiding plagiarism and copyvio is going to be needed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2012 (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_candidates/Giraffe/archive3&oldid=1138461608"