Talk:Nubian ibex/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Bbreslau (talk · contribs) 13:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a lot of short paragraphs, e.g. in ‘Phylogeny’. Suggest close up quite a few of these by theme.
•  Done

• In the cladogram, Nubian ibex should be in boldface, while Alpine ibex should be not bold (Roman) and wikilinked, as shown here.
•  Done

• It would be nice to put very small thumbnail images (say, 60px wide) of each species into the cladogram.

• In image caption, suggest wikilink Mitzpe Ramon and add “, Israel”
•  Done

• smallest ibex species on Earth – delete “on Earth”, there aren’t any on other planets.
•  Done

• For distribution map, suggest add parameter |upright=1.5 to increase readability.

• Not sure why we have an image “Young Nubian ibex in Sde Boker” next to “Feeding”, it doesn’t add anything.
•  Done Replaced with an image of a Tristram’s starling grooming an ibex next to the relevant Ecological Relationships section.

• may reach as high as 50 – “sometimes as many as 50”.
•  Done

• The image “Two Nubian ibex kids” would make more sense in ‘Reproduction’ than in ‘Human impacts’.
•  Done

• They also have copy number variations (nearly repeated, too) – get rid of the “also”
•  Done

• There are some very short paragraphs, indeed very short subsections, in the ‘Culture’ chapter. Should probably be merged down a bit. You could just have ‘Ancient’ and ‘Modern’ subsections, for instance.

• Ibex have been recorded standing on vehicles and entering buildings possibly isn’t quite what we need to say here (nor the right tone). The key points of habituation, potential conflict, and eating garbage have already been made just above, so perhaps the sentence is redundant, maybe the source as well. Suggest rewrite or cut.
•  Done

• All are relevant and on Commons, and all appear to be appropriately licensed. I’m not sure that a couple of them (above) are in the right sections of the article.
•  Done I’m rearranging images as recommended.

• The lack of images in the ‘Culture’ chapter seems surprising, especially as the text quite rightly mentions art repeatedly. There ought to be at least one petroglyph; the Ta’anakh cult stand seems an obvious thing to illustrate if you can find a photo that makes an ibex reasonably visible; you could use the glyph of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority for want of anything more exciting; the Huqoq mosaic would be good if the ibex is visible there (it should be possible to upload an image to Commons of the tiger chasing the ibex, as the image is 2-dimensional, hence license is {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} even if the photo is recent). There’s one at Times of Israel, for instance. There’s a 6th century ibex at Maon Nirim Synagogue, same type of license is possible. I can lend a hand with uploads if you like. Commons has images like File:Cosmetic palette in the form of a ram, ibex or bull.jpg and File:Cosmetic palette in the form of a ram or ibex.jpg, both from Egypt so presumably it’s the right ibex, if that’s what it is. You could look at Commons’s category of Ibexes in art where a Nubian ibex might be discernible.
• In progress; I’ve added images of petroglyphs and the Cult Stand. Can you take a look over the layout and edit/recommend edits for aesthetics?

• There’s an unsourced claim at the top of ‘Phylogeny’. I think you can just repeat some of the citations that follow later in that section.
•  Done

• The (very large number of) refs nearly all seem suitable for the article, and are overwhelmingly to scientific papers.

• [8] Anderson needs chapter or page number.

• [13] NZZS seems to be fragmentary (broken, repetitive), and lacks a page number. Maybe remove it or add the missing details.

• [14] Uerpmann needs chapter or page number.

• [23] Al-Said is a Master’s Thesis, which Wikipedia normally doesn’t use as somewhat unreliable. You might make out a case for using it if Al-Said is moving on to a PhD in the area or something but basically it’s not ideal and should be replaced.

• [94] Albaba is with a predatory journal (charges authors, may not do proper peer-reviewing), so we need a better source there please.

• [134] (Nottingham) appears to be dead, please change to |url-status=dead.

• The Judaism section goes rather far in the direction of WP:PRIMARY sources; in particular, the quotations from the Bible and meaning of names within it should probably be removed; I note that other GA reviewers often object to such usages within zoology articles.

• There is remarkably heavy use of the IUCN, something that zoology articles often just mention in passing. I wonder if the table in ‘Conservation and population status by country’ isn’t a bit close to WP:UNDUE (that would be an article on Conservation of the Nubian ibex rather than this one). I’d suggest that the ‘Details’ column should be cut down to 35–40 words per entry (like the one for Eritrea, for instance): there’s a whole essay about Israel’s ibex. All those details like Egypt’s Agricultural Law No. 53/l 966 and amendment 1012 July 1992 feel way baroque for a zoology article.

• The ‘Captive populations’ table is also a bit overweight, specially the North America text.

• ‘Ecotourism’ is entirely based on primary commercial sources, seeking to derive meaning by WP:SYNTHesis from there. Lots of policies against doing all that. Better remove it really, unless you can find an academic source that discusses the matter from a Neutral Point of View (in which case, replace all the sources and rewrite the text).
•  Done

• Spot-checks: [17] ok; [36] ok; [85] ok (but see Comments above); [134] ok (from archive).

You’ve certainly transformed the article from a near-stub to a decent encyclopedic text, great work. I’ve noted a few mainly minor issues above; the main ones are that a few of the sources aren’t suitable. I hope to see this as a GA very soon. (Please reply to each item above as you fix it, a very short comment like ‘Done’ is usually enough unless there’s an issue to discuss.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]