Talk:Giant panda/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 16:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 06:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I should have a review written for this in about a week or so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your time is always appreciated. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: You free? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the sources and I'm working my way through the prose. I should have it all posted today or tomorrow. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll just wait. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine XI I've posted the review below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll address those issues promptly. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 05:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

General:

"However" can almost always be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence.

Taxonomy:

The closest candidate is the Nepali word ponya – Can we get a translation for ponya?

Distribution:

Successful habitat preservation have seen – Is this grammatically correct?
to the panda's avoidance of competition – What type of competition? For specific food sources?
it was estimated that the range of the giant panda had declined to about 99% of its range in earlier millenniums – Is this supposed to say by about 99%? If I'm reading it correctly, then to about 99% would be hardly any change at all.

Description:

when viewed from a distance, the panda displays disruptive coloration while close up, they rely more on blending in – This needs to be restructured. The comma placement makes it unclear what's referring to what.
has a "thumb" and five fingers; the "thumb" – Avoid scare quotes. If it's not a thumb, then it shouldn't be called one. Maybe "similar to a thumb" or something like that.

Ecology:

The diet section jumps back and forth. For one example, the cyanide info starts in the first paragraph. Then it appears again in the third paragraph, before the third paragraph abruptly changes topic. Different aspects should be grouped into their own paragraphs.
consisting almost exclusively of bamboo (around 99%) – This would be cleaner if the parenthetical were removed so it reads something like "with approximately 99% of its diet consisting of bamboo".
Similarly, the giant panda's round face – It's not really "similar", it's still discussing the same aspect.
such as Fargesia dracocephala and Fargesia rufa. – Are these the two of the most common? If so, it should say so. If not, there's no need to name them specifically.

Behavior:

Though the panda is often assumed to be docile, it has been known to attack humans – This needs more context. It could be read in any way from "it's incredibly rare and even then only toward children" to "contrary to popular belief, pandas frequently attack humans on sight".
The article states the role of the anogenital gland three times in as many sentences.
A pandas size can be conveyed through the height of the scent mark – Apostrophe
Reproduction should start with the general information about panda reproduction before introducing the aspects that are involved with pandas in captivity.
to try extreme methods – Avoid editorializing.
Only recently – When is "recently"?
Redundancy: The normal reproductive rate is considered to be one young every two years and The interval between births in the wild is generally two years.
It is expected that zoos in destinations such as San Diego in the United States and Mexico City will now be able to – When is "now"?

Human interaction:

In the past, pandas were thought to be rare and noble creatures – When, and by whom?
The West first learned of the giant panda – Who is "The West"? Are we just talking about Western Europe?
which costs five times more than keeping the next most expensive animal – It's unclear whether this includes the loaning fee.
There's a lot of overlap between the sections about zoos and panda diplomacy

Conservation:

This whole section feels more like a timeline of facts instead of an overview of panda conservation.
Its range is currently confined to a small portion on the western edge of its historical range – "Currently" should be put in context. How long has it been like this?
scientists believe the wild population may be as large as 3,000 – This is in present tense, but the article was describing 2006.
As the species has been reclassified to "vulnerable" since 2016 – Reclassified from what?

Verifiable with no original research

All of the sources are reliable and sufficient for GA. With that said, the sourcing leaves something to be desired. Most of the sources seem to be hand-picked for individual facts. Large topics like this benefit from overview sources, especially books, that support facts across the article. This makes sure that all of the main details are covered and that they're proportional to how they appear in those sources. Right now, a lot of weight is given to individual studies or opinions when the article should really be based on widely accepted aspects that are covered in general academic sources about pandas. The sourcing meets good article standards, but it would need some work before this could be considered for featured article candidacy.
The subspecies descriptions are not fully sourced.
- Dropping in here: I'd say some of the sourcing is pretty subpar, especially the EB cites, a couple cites to generalist papers with "a study has found"-type articles (these frequently manage to misquote or misattribute the study, the original paper is much better as a ref), and some very old sources sources from the 80s-90s (not that these are necessarily bad, but they may have been been made inaccurate by more recent studies). AryKun (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

[19] Science Daily (2012) – Good.
[25] Zhang et al (2018) – Good.
[44] Christiansen & Wroe (2007) – Good.
[53] McKenzie (2022) – Some close paraphrasing: The article says get through the nutrient-scarce period from late August to April, when they feed mostly on bamboo leaves and the source says survive the nutrient-scarce period from late August to April, where only bamboo leaves are available to eat.
[77] Smith Bailey (2004) – Good.
[105] Chen et al (2002) – Good.

Broad in its coverage

Major aspects:

Outside of a very brief description of predation on young pandas, there's virtually no information about interspecies behavior/interactions.

Minor details:

(hence it is always boiled when used for human consumption) – Not relevant to pandas.
For six years, scientists studied six pandas tagged with GPS collars at the Foping Reserve in the Qinling Mountains. They took note of their foraging and mating habits and analyzed samples of their food and feces. The pandas would move from the valleys into the Qinling Mountains and would only return to the valleys in autumn. – Is this one study of pandas worth highlighting over all of the others? The article already says they move between environments, so saying there was a study about it doesn't really add much.
A seven-year-old female named Jin Yi – This one panda's death isn't significant enough for inclusion. The article should cover what's generally known to affect pandas, not specific instances.
The cub was born at 07:41 on 23 July that year in Sichuan as the third cub of You You, an 11-year-old. – Another specific panda as opposed to general info.
In August 2014, a rare birth of panda triplets was announced in China; it was the fourth of such births ever reported. – Another specific birth.
The article doesn't need to go into detail about the Zouyu based on one person's speculation. I suggest shrinking this down to one sentence.
The article covers seemingly random interactions between pandas and westerners. Besides knowledge of the animal, it's not clear whether any of this is relevant.

Neutral

There's a lot of "may", "might", and "appears to" in this article. Without additional context, the reader doesn't know where these ideas come from or how widely accepted they are.
Chris Packham's opinions on conservation are given undue weight. Just because one person believes something doesn't mean it should be in the article.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

All images are licensed and captioned. The only change that needs to be made is that the caption "feeding panda" is vague. Maybe "A panda feeding on bamboo"?