Talk:Koala
Koala is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2013, and on January 1, 2024. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2017. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Koala/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Grammar error in first para of Taxonomy and Evolution. Text should read "different from" or "different to" not "different than" which makes no sense. "Than" is used for comparative adjectives (eg. "bigger," "happier," "faster" or even "more different") | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead: ok; Layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | OK | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
"The koala's small brain size is possibly due to the lack of sufficient energy to sustain a larger brain." needs to be cited. Cite 31 is the citation. All the information in the article is sourcedto the very next cite. I've learned it is redundant to cite the same thing twice in a row. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | OK | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Taxonomy and evolution section is very brief. Could there be a cladogram or other diagram of the place of the current Koala among the fossil species? There could be a timeline or set of (overlapping) horizontal bars, for instance, to show when the other Koalas lived (and went extinct). The relationships with marsupial tapirs etc, and the possums and kangaroos would be much easier to visualize with a simple cladogram (could have just one branch for all the Koalas).
- I'll check and see if the papers have have contain phylogenies but I don't know how to do a cladgram. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Either clarify the text or add a diagram such as a timeline. Clarify what? It states that the koala branch was the earliest to branches, I don't think we need to get into detail on the branches of the other families. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It is discussed in the "description" section. Description doesn't address the question.
This works better. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Not sure the list of people photographed with koalas is really relevant, and it's almost uncited. Perhaps the whole "Cultural significance" section needs gentle pruning and attention to being "encyclopedic".
I removed Jackie Chan and Janet Jackson but left the others. It is notable that so many powerful leaders have their pictures taken with the animal and it illustrates its international appeal. LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | OK | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No sign of recent editwarring. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Not sure if Platinum Koala is validly licensed.
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks, that's better. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Seem to be too many images of Koala "portrait", "On Kangaroo Island", "Resting" -- are these images adding anything to the article?
Yes, the Kangaroo Island picture is next to the paragraph that talks about invasive populations and the "portrait" give the reader a good view of the animal when reading the description section. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC) The main thing the Kangaroo Island picture adds is the caption, otherwise it's just a Koala in a tree; same for Portrait. I think "portrait" should go, it's redundant with the lead image, which does the same thing better.
Already have one of the animal eating. LittleJerry (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It's linked, I guess - seemed there was room for multiple images... but it does look and read better, and I think the GA threshold has been reached.
| |
7. Overall assessment. | A readable and informative article on a popular topic. |
Spacing between cladograms
[edit]@LittleJerry: You reverted my change to the clade gallery that put more space between the cladograms with a "not helpful" edit message. The change isn't needed for the desktop view, but the appearance of the two cladograms is awful in mobile view, where it's hard to see separation between the header text and the top of right cladogram is adjacent to the header of the left one. We have to try and accommodate different skins and the mobile/desktop views. — Jts1882 | talk 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Creating large spaces and gaps is not the solution. It looks godawful. Maybe I heard you like clades can help. LittleJerry (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I found the main problem. The first cladogram was in the header, which messed up the rest of the formatting. I've also used headerstyle to restrain the very wide header seen in some views. — Jts1882 | talk 11:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“ | Prevalence of KoRV in koala populations suggests a trend spreading from north to south, where populations go from being completely infected to being partially uninfected.[1] | ” |
"Go from [infected] to [uninfected]" is a bad choice of phrasing here. I initially took it as "start out infected and become uninfected", which makes little sense. I'm guessing what was meant is "some are infected and some are not", which makes sense and agrees with the ref, based on a quick look. Minimal rephrasing, off the top of my head, would be "range from".
ETA: Now that I re-read the above, I'm no longer convinced that I properly intuited the original intention. Maybe "where" doesn't refer to "south", or maybe an "un" is in the wrong place, or maybe the order ended up jumbled, or whatever. Here's what I take to be the relevant ref excerpts:
“ | They show that KoRV is present, at variable copy number, in the germline of all koalas found in Queensland, but that animals from some areas of southern Australia lack the provirus. Most notably, KoRV appears completely absent from koalas on Kangaroo Island off the coast of South Australia. | ” |
“ | Studies of koala samples from different geographic locations suggest an on-going process of endogenization spreading from the north of Australia, where all animals contain endogenous KoRV, to the south, where some animals are still virus-free. | ” |
- 2A02:560:59A1:EF00:C87D:44F3:B15E:AC6E (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Stoye, J. P. (2006). "Koala retrovirus: A genome invasion in real time". Genome Biology. 7 (11): 241. doi:10.1186/gb-2006-7-11-241. PMC 1794577. PMID 17118218.
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Pinged the responsible editor. - 2A02:560:59A1:EF00:C87D:44F3:B15E:AC6E (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
how often is it really called the Koala "bear" nowadays?
[edit]Reference to "bear" should be removed as it is not correct or common imo. Or, if it is, provide more sources. 203.221.207.34 (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- How often is a platypus called "duck billed"? It doesn't matter. Both are historically accurate and appear in reliable sources and popular media, so belong in Wikipedia. Doug butler (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Sexually dimorphicl"
- at least check for typos before locking a page. 80.189.72.64 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Done Fixed, despite snarky tone of request. A page is generally locked for reasons unrelated to its typo count. PianoDan (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
- FA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- FA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- FA-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- FA-Class mammal articles
- Top-importance mammal articles
- FA-Class Monotremes and marsupials articles
- Top-importance Monotremes and marsupials articles
- WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials articles
- WikiProject Mammals articles
- FA-Class Australia articles
- Top-importance Australia articles
- FA-Class New South Wales articles
- Low-importance New South Wales articles
- WikiProject New South Wales articles
- FA-Class South Australia articles
- Low-importance South Australia articles
- WikiProject South Australia articles
- FA-Class Queensland articles
- Low-importance Queensland articles
- WikiProject Queensland articles
- FA-Class Victoria articles
- Low-importance Victoria articles
- WikiProject Victoria articles
- FA-Class Australian biota articles
- Top-importance Australian biota articles
- WikiProject Australian biota articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Spoken Wikipedia requests