Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/African striped weasel/archive1

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 archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2025 [1].

African striped weasel

[edit]
Nominator(s): Olmagon (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2025

This article is about a species of mammal. Olmagon (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:ZorillaAlbinuchaWolf.jpg needs a US tag
Wolf's painting now has that tag, the Chamitataxus is being reviewed on the paleoart review page for accuracy, not really sure where the sable pic is from though. Olmagon (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • In the infobox, use the "Taxonomic synonyms reference" field to cite where these synonyms are listed.
Now used. Olmagon (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unclear what Nowak 2005 and "P. albinucha at Animal Diversity" are doing down there at the bottom of the source list. Is that intended to be under a "Further Reading" heading?
Honesty I'm not sure either, they were already there before I started editing this page and I just left them there. Considering that the link doesn't work anyway I removed them. Olmagon (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent date formatting; you generally give the year, except for Gray 1864 and Bryant Russell Fitch 1993 (where you give the full date)
All now give the year. Olmagon (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent use of S2CIDs, only given for some sources (might be best to just not use these)
Removed them from the ones that had them. Olmagon (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent use of ISSNs, some journals don't have them.
Now added to all journals. Olmagon (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link given to Rowe-Rowe 1978 (the NYU Health Sciences Library?) seems strange, and very unlikely to be helpful unless they happen to go to NYU.
I added that link because it was the only one I was able to find on the internet for that source, even if it was largely inaccessible. If this is too restricted for most usage I suppose I could remove it altogether. Olmagon (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't give a location on Stuart & Stuart 2014, Kingdon 1977, Estes 1991, or Round 1968
Locations added. Olmagon (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some books' titles are given in title case (East African Mammals: An Atlas of Evolution in Africa, The Behavior Guide to African Mammals: Including Hoofed Mammals, Carnivores, Primates) while others are given in sentence case (Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, The mammals of the Southern African subregion). Likewise, one journal article (" 'The African Striped Weasel, Poecilogale albinucha (Gray)') is title case, while the rest are sentence case.) Make sure to standardize these one way or another.
Books now use title case, while journal articles are now in sentence case. Olmagon (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give an accessed via for Kingdon 1997 (internet archive) but not for any of the other sources; I'd just remove that field, tbh.
Gone. Olmagon (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publisher for Petter 1997 is formatted strange; I'd just give the location and the unabbreviated name of the imprint (Clarendon Press)
Done. Olmagon (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall though, these are good quality academic sources, and I don't see anything used inappropriately. The older sources are used for historical context, and the stuff you rely on is fairly modern.

Other notes, not on source review:

  • Any reason not to list the range for the nominate subspecies?
Couldn't find a source that listed the range of that subspecies in particular. Since it's the nominate subspecies I assume its range would be every part of the species' range that isn't covered by any of the other subspecies but I didn't see any sources that actually say that. Olmagon (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dental formula seems especially technical.. I wonder if there's a way you can summarize that in prose
Gave an explanation sentence to that based on how they explain dental formula on the chimpanzee page. Olmagon (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The roadkill image is a little upsetting. Of course, NOTCENSORED is important, but I think we should also try to have the caliber of images that a reader would expect. I've never seen a gorey image used in a species article, unless it's something like a butchered domestic animal.
Now that another person has seconded this I've removed that image. Olmagon (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is an animal that lives in areas that use Commonwealth English, you should try to make sure it follows WP:ENGVAR and use Commonwealth spellings (I caught is that color should be colour and gray should be grey, but there might be others I missed)
Spelling changed for those two words where I found them, if there's more to change I'll have to wait until another reviewer spots them. Olmagon (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Olmagon: That's my piece. THank you for this article! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Generalissima's comment on the roadkill image. What in the world is the point of this? We don't need a picture to illustrate the mundane concept that they can be killed by cars just like so many other animals. I see dead deer and other animals on the road regularly but we don't need picures of that in their main articles, and not even the images in Roadkill are as gory as this one... Reywas92Talk 16:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That pic is gone now. Olmagon (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by RecycledPixels

[edit]

I am interested in the article and have reviewed it against the WP:WIAFA criteria. At this time, I oppose promotion due to concerns with major concerns under criteria 1c, 1f, and 2c. I have multiple concerns under 1a. I have some minor concerns that I've listed under 1b, 2a, 2b and some 3d nitpicks. I have outlined some examples below. In most cases, this list is not complete. Once I find three or so examples of a problem, I stop looking, and assume that there are others. Therefore, this should not be assumed to be a complete list of problems with the article, but it's enough to oppose promotion at this point.

1a: Well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard
  • Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience. The second paragraph of the description section is incomprehensibly complicated for a general audience. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable for some suggestions on how to make technical concepts understandable to your audience.
Rewrote some of those sentences to replace or explain the jargon. Olmagon (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyediting is needed, with numerous run-on sentences, such as: Within this region, they occur in moist habitats with an annual rainfall of over 60 cm (24 in), and are often associated with termite mounds in savannah and veld environments, with a survey done in 1978 revealing that 75% of African striped weasel sightings were made in such grasslands., It is also believed not to face any major threats, although it is one of the most regularly used species in local traditional medicine, and its skin is used as a good luck charm., A number of African striped weasel subspecies have been proposed during the 20th Century, though there is debate between different authors as to how many of these are valid, with some believing that the species is monotypic and that all proposed subspecies should be considered invalid., In 1865, German naturalist Wilhelm Peters reported a mustelid specimen from Golungo Alto, Angola under the name Zorilla africana, because Austrian explorer Friedrich Welwitsch told him that the specimen represents a form consistently different from the African striped weasel and that even the locals refer to them by different names, although Peters himself thought it was simply a variant of the African striped weasel., This species walks with a distinctive gait, with the body extended or arched while the nose is held low to the ground, swinging the front part of its body from side to side in a snake-like manner, and regularly stopping to stand on its hind legs so that it can survey its surroundings.
Split as many of these as I found into smaller sentences. Olmagon (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CONVERSIONS issues with false precision: The newborn young weigh just 4 g (0.14 oz) each for one, stream can be ejected up to 1 m (3 ft 3 in) away is another, and striped weasels eat smaller prey weighing up to 180 g (6.3 oz) head first is a third. There are others.
How do I fix this, is there something I can do with the conversion template or do I remove the templates entirely and just type out normal text? I do intend to fix this I just don't really know how this is done. Olmagon (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Convert#Rounding. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decimal points have been removed from the converted measurements. Olmagon (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1b: Comprehensive
  • Before reading the article, I compiled a mental list of major topics I felt that an article about an organism should have. What do they look like, including descriptions at different stages of their life cycle; what do they eat; what eats them; where do they live (both the geographic distribution as well as the type of habitiat); what is their life cycle, including lifespan; Conservation and ecology information, are they stable, invasive, threatened, endangered, extinct, etc. and what is an estimate of their population level; interactions with humans, if any, such as being a pest species. The only one of those things that are missing from this article is an estimate of population levels of this animal. Are there 100? 10,000? A million? The article only mentions that the worldwide population may be undercounted across much of their true range due to their secretive nature.
To my knowledge there has not been any population estimates, and the IUCN website straight up says the population is unknown, added a sentence mentioning that in the Status section. Olmagon (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the sources I looked at had qualitative estimates, like "rare", "sporadic", etc. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did add that the IUCN page says "rare to uncommon". Olmagon (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1c: Well-researched
  • The taxobox has a list of synonyms that is cited to Reference 2 (Larivière 2001), but I don't see any mention of Mustela albinucha in that article.
Added a second reference to support that one. Olmagon (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 19, "Comparative prey capture and food studies of South African mustelines", is used as a reference for statements about the size of the African striped weasel in the beginning of the "Description" section. That article is about the prey selection and feeding habits of striped polecats and this article's subject, African weasels, and does not make any statements about the size of either species that I could see. It's a 26-page article, though, so a page number would be helpful in case I missed it.
Removed that source there (it does briefly mention the weights of a few individuals but those measurements weren't used on that page anyways, I think I may have typed those in initially, then replaced them with the wider range from other sources and forgot to remove it) Olmagon (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 20, "Notes on the Mammalian Carnivores of the Cape Province, South Africa" is attached to a sentence describing the weights of the African striped weasels and it is presumably the source for the high end of the head-body length of 35cm in an earlier sentence. That source describes measurements of 3 male weasels and 2 females that were captured at different times in 1981 in Cape Province, and their measurements given. One of the females was 280mm, the other was 350mm. I don't think this source supports a statement that as a whole, the maximum size of the African striped weasel is 35cm. Nor do I feel that a sample size of 2 females (one weighing 210g and the other weighing 220g) is sufficient to state that the average weight of all female African striped weasels in Cape Province is 215g.
Wondering how to fix this, I could perhaps mention these were measurements of two or three individuals but that feels like a lot of extra confusing text, would it be better to use a different source (like the Kingdon guide already used to cite other parts) that lists a more simple range of measurements? Same for the skull measurements you talk about next. Olmagon (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Say what the sources say. Sampling experiments conducted in year at location obtained measurements from number individuals, resulting in measurements of whatever. Don't paint broad conclusions in Wikipedia's voice that aren't supported by the references that are attached to it. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added mentions of the years and sample sizes. Olmagon (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the measurements of the average skull length and width, stated in this article with 1 mm precision appear to be based upon a sample size of only two individuals for the length and three individuals for the width, according to the cited source. I don't feel that that sample size can be used to represent the average skull measurements of an entire species.
  • Reference 29, "The Mammals of Rhodesia, Zambia and Malawi" is used to support a statement about their burrowing habits in the "Behaviour and ecology" section. The source does not mention anything about burrowing other than the weasel is adapted to enter rodent burrows in search of prey.
  • In the feeding section, the last sentence, Captive females with nursing young have been recorded to dip their necks into water during very hot weather, which may be to both cool themselves and carry water to their young is a bit vague as to the intent of this behavior. I read "carry water to their young" as bringing the water for them to drink, especially since this sentence occurs in a paragraph where the other three sentences are about the animals' drinking habits. The source suggests that the behavior might serve the purpose of taking water back to the young to moisten and cool them, not for them to drink, so that should be clarified, and it should not appear in a paragraph about drinking habits.
Clarification added. Olmagon (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The carnassial teeth are short, and the canine teeth long is not what the source says.
I don't remember why I typed that but I fixed it now. Olmagon (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1d: Neutral
  • No concerns
1e: Stable
  • Article is stable. Content improvement began 8 March 2025; the last edit before that was from 19 June 2024. No concerns raised on article talk page.
1f: Compliant with copyright policy
  • The first sentence of the Description section is uncomfortably similar to the wording used in the "Diagnosis" section of Reference 2 (Larivière 2001).
Rewrote that sentence. Olmagon (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph in the "Description" section are uncomfortably similar to the wording used in the "General Characters" section of Larivière 2001.
Also rewritten. Olmagon (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement The lower jaw has a very wide condyle, fitting tightly into the mandibular fossa, which greatly limits the weasel's ability to move its jaw from side to side is uncomfortably similar to the source, "Condyle of lower jaw is very broad and fits tightly in glenoid fossa of skull, allowing very little side-to-side action of jaw."
Again, rewritten (and much of the technical wording is gone). Olmagon (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2a: Style: WP:LEAD
  • Length is appropriate to the article, effectively summarizes the article, and does not contain information that is not contained elsewhere in the article, except one thing.
  • The first sentence says the African striped weasel is native to sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa is a much, much larger area than the known range of this animal.
Added a follow-up sentence on its range, I considered swapping "sub-Saharn" for "southern" but it seems "southern Africa" covers different areas depending on the definition. Olmagon (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2b: Style: WP:LAYOUT
  • Taxonomy is a practice and science concerned with classification or categorization. Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. I don't think evolution fits as a sub-header under taxonomy.
I did this based on what was done on two mammal FA pages (lion and tiger), I suppose if it's inaccurate it could either be split into its own section or that section could be renamed "Taxonomy and evolution" maybe? Olmagon (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm changing it to Taxonomy and evolution. Olmagon (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2c: Style: Citations: WP:CITE
  • "Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 1. Carnivores" (reference 27) cites a page range 92 pages long to reference a single fact in the article. The page number needs to be modified to identify where the fact can be found and verified.
I think I took that ref off what the IUCN webpage cites because I don't seem to have access to the actual thing, removed it since two other sources already supported it anyways. Olmagon (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I took that ref off what the IUCN webpage cites because I don't seem to have access to the actual thing is a very concerning statement, and is also what I was suspecting when I was checking sources. Have you personally checked every citation in this article to see that the text that appears in this article is what the cited reference is saying? Until that happens, I won't support this FAC. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one and the Rhodesia one you speak of below are the only ones I failed to access, but added anyways because the sources citing them seemed to put some emphasis on them being where that info comes from and I couldn't find any other primary sources supporting them. That one is also removed now such that every source listed is now something I have accessed and read (at least the parts relevant to this weasel). Olmagon (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mammals of Rhodesia, Zambia and Malawi" (reference 29) has a URL that links to an excerpt about Black Rhinos on the Rhino Resource Center website; I doubt that's the source used for this article about the African Striped Weasel. The reference is presumably to the printed book, which was printed in 1966, not 1971, unless there is another edition that is not noted in the citation. The book is 192 pages long and it is used to reference a single fact, so the citation needs page numbers where that fact can be found and verified.
  • Reference 20, "Notes on the mammalian carnivores of the Cape Province, South Africa" is cited using the {{cite book}} template, listing the publisher as "Department of Nature and Environmental Conservation", which is pretty vague. It was actually a journal article, published in Bontebok vol 1, pp 1-58. That journal is published by the Cape Department of Nature and Environmental Conservation, Cape Town, South Africa. The article is 58 pages long and it is used to reference a single fact, so the citation needs a page number where that fact can be found and verified.
Format has been changed to journal, the pages about the weasel are pages 16 and 17 but if we are using journal format now would I still cite just two pages? Currently listing "1 to 58" for the whole journal article but if you think there's still a need to be specific I could change it. Olmagon (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the "In-source locations" section of the {{cite journal}} documentation. Either use page= to reference the single page in the source that supports the content, or use pages= to specify a range of pages in the source that supports the content, or the range of pages of the article as a whole, or both (using the following notation: article-page-range [content-supporting-pages], for example: pp. 4–10 [5, 7]). On short articles of a few pages, I feel that the ranges of the article as a whole are fine, but long articles such as this 58-page article will need pointers to the specific page(s) used. You can also use the {{rp}} template to cite specific pages after invoking the reference if you're using a reference for several different facts. That's usually how I do it, even though it's a bit ugly.
Remember that the point of all this is so that ten years from now when some bored kid comes along and makes made-up changes to the article just for laughs, that other people can easily find the material that sources the fact and change it back to accurate information. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added the exact page numbers in square brackets. Olmagon (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mammals of Africa Volume V: Carnivores, Pangolins, Equids and Rhinoceroses" (reference 28) is a book that is 561 pages long and is used to reference a single fact. The citation needs a page number where that fact can be found and verified.
Now that I check it again this source is useful for more than just the one fact, cited it in some other sentences and added page numbers now. Olmagon (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2d: Style: Other
  • Checked, no concerns.
  • MOS:REPEATLINK: Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there.
  • monotypic linked in Subspecies and Evolution sections
Removed the extra. Olmagon (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • premolar linked multiple times in Description
Same as above. Olmagon (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, same. Olmagon (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3: Media
  • All images are plausibly tagged with proper licenses.
  • The image of the underside of the paws is confusing, because article text says that the African striped weasel has large four-lobed pads on each of its paws, but the image of the front paw appears to depict six pads or one four-lobed pad and a second two-lobed pad.
Those extra pads are carpal pads, added a sentence about them. Olmagon (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4: Length
  • Length is appropriate to the subject matter.

IntentionallyDense

[edit]
  • Least Concern Should both of these terms be capitalized I'm unfamiliar.
The first letter in each word of an IUCN status is generally capitalized to my knowledge. Olmagon (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great job on making the lead easy to understand!
  • Wikilink British Museum
It is already linked once at the start of the paragraph, doing it again for the other two mentions of it seem unnecessary. Olmagon (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that oops. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • in which he renames renamed?
Fixed. Olmagon (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why their weight differs based on habitat?
Didn't see any reasoning listed in the sources, just that the variation is known. Olmagon (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • or when they visit chicken houses This wording is a bit unclear. I'm assuming you mean that when the weasels go to chicken houses humans kill them but I'm not sure.
Sentence has been reworded. Olmagon (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink striped polecats
Linked. Olmagon (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason given for why it is a protected specied in Cape province?
Didn't see a reason listed in the source, just a brief mention of it. Olmagon (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. Ping me when you can get back to me. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just responded @IntentionallyDense Olmagon (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Well over three weeks in and one general oppose, one general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycIedPixels anything left I gotta fix these three or four days? Olmagon (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RecycIedPixels@RecycIedPixeIs or maybe these are your pings? I don't know why there's so many different versions of capital I and lowercase l usage popping up when I search your username. Hope at least one of them was the right one and sorry to the other two people. Olmagon (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated elsewhere, I'd recommend taking this (and any article) to GAN before FAC. Especially for a first time nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My username does not have any capital "I" characters in it, so pinging that user, which is a doppleganger account, will not not send me any notifications. In order to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, I've performed a brief sampling of the article, identified a few examples of issues prevent me from supporting, and left it at that. As I said in my comments, once I find around three examples of a problem, I stop looking, so fixing just the examples that I've identified does not resolve my concerns. If the concerns were minor nitpicks, like the false precision in conversions, or other MOS issues, I'd stick around and either fix them myself or walk you through the fixes, but my concerns lie in sourcing, source identification, and close paraphrasing, so those are much larger issues. I'm sorry, but I'm not able to support at this time. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • human development such as pine plantations and agricultural land – You are talking about land use, not human development (infrastructure, urbanization), I think
changed to it being about areas with human usage. Olmagon (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • though it is very commonly used in local traditional medicine. – the "very" does not add any information, so delete
Gone. Olmagon (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owls and dogs may prey on it – Domestic dogs? I also think these are certainly not the only predators as you imply; they may only be the only ones known?
Mentioned domestic and that these are the known ones. Olmagon (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article written in South African English, or another variety (it seems to be neither British nor American English), and is this consistent? Generally, the original variety the article had before you worked on it should be kept. I suggest to place the respective template on the talk page to make this clear (e.g., {{South African English}}).
I don't actually know what South African English is like so either it isn't or I unintentionally wrote something similar to it. I generally just type words in the spelling that comes to mind first but apparently my mind runs on a strange mixture of American and British English without knowing which is which. Considering I spell "behaviour" and "colour" like that in the article I think I'm mostly trying to make it British but if there's other words spelled inconsistently for that then tell me which ones. Olmagon (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1865, German naturalist Wilhelm Peters reported a mustelid specimen from Golungo Alto, Angola under the name Zorilla africana. This was because Austrian explorer Friedrich Welwitsch told him that the specimen represents a form consistently different from the African striped weasel and that even the locals refer to them by different names. However, Peters himself thought it was simply a variant of the African striped weasel. – Can you doulbe-check this, it does not make sense to me. 1865 is only a year after P. albinucha was named from a single skin; how can they know that it is "consistently different" (that conclusion would require multiple skins). Also, why did he erect a new species when he thought it was identical to P. albinucha?
Rereading the source, it seems to be the other way round (Peters reports two specimens, one he names as the new africana species and thinking the other one was a variant of this, but Welwitsch tells him the latter is an albinucha). From what I understand, Welwitsch had been collecting Angolan mammals for some time prior to this paper published and was already somewhat familiar with the weasels there, believing there were two separate species and that one was named the year prior. Olmagon (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ochre-buff – link to respective articles on these colours
Buff is linked now, I can't remember where I said ochre or find it again though, could you tell me which sentence it is in? Olmagon (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence in the "subspecies" table. I linked it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • These bands may change in hue and become darker, with those of one subadult recorded to change from white to a light honey colour in about six weeks, and those of another captive individual reportedly changed from light yellow to deep buff. – "In about six weeks" means after birth, or after reaching subadult age? "Another captive individual" implies that the first was captive as well, but why is it not mentioned when discussing the first, then?
From my understanding of the wording in the source, it seems that the change in colour took place within a span of six weeks but it doesn't seem to say when in the animal's life this happened. Reworded the sentence to show the change takes place in that span. Olmagon (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This animal has small eyes, a short, broad snout, and short, rounded ears. – This general, easily accessible information should come right at the beginning of the paragraph, or, even better, at the beginning of the description section (see also WP:MTAU, which suggests that easy information should come first).
Moved. Olmagon (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The undersides of the paws are mostly hairless, each one having a large, four-lobed pad, with each front limb having two additional carpal pads on the wrist. – You are talking about the plantar pad, but the drawing shows phalangeal pads, too.
Added mention of digital pads. Olmagon (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claws are sharp and curved. – already mentioned earlier that they are curved.
Removed this sentence, 'sharp' has been moved to said earlier sentence. Olmagon (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the warning and aggressive calls mentioned above – avoid self references (MOS:SELFREF)
Changed to 'aforementioned'. Olmagon (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like many other mustelids, the African striped weasel has a pair of well-developed scent glands in the perineal region that can spray a noxious fluid when the animal feels threatened. – Best to avoid repetition: This is discussed in greater detail further down in the article.
Decided to keep a mention that this part of the anatomy exists but what it does has been removed from the section. Olmagon (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I think it is in good shape and reads well. I also did a copy edit [2], feel free to revert if needed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Olmagon: Ping just in case you didn't see this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To comment on the close paraphrasing issue pointed out by the reviewer above, it was not difficult for me to find additional examples:
  • Your sentence is Considering the increase in sightings from regions formerly believed to be unsuitable for them, the weasels may be overlooked across much of their range due to their secretive nature, when the IUCN source says "Because of its secretive nature it has probably been overlooked in many areas, especially in light of records from sites that were previously considered unsuitable". It is clear that efforts have been made to re-phrase this, and this might be an edge case, but it is better not to copy the creative expression "secretive nature" (in this case, I think it can be simply removed without loosing much; it is enough to say that it is overlooked). So I would agree with the reviewer and suggest that you go through the article to look for such creative expressions that have been copied from the source and try to replace them with something else, just to be on the save side (I may help with that if you list them here).
Went and reworded as many of these I could find, not sure if any still count as being too similar though. Olmagon (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your sentence is allowed him to grasp her neck from behind, smell her vulva and nibble on her cheek, while the source says allowed the male to nibble her cheek, smell her vulva and grasp her by the back of the neck. While my first example might be an edge case, this one is clearly not acceptable, especially the copying of creative words such as "nibble", but also "grasp" and "smell her vulva". I know, it it not easy and takes time to express this information in your own words, and I am not sure if there is a precise replacement for "nibble" (if there really isn't, I think that particular word might be fine, but what about "gently biting" as replacement?), and again, I am happy to assist if you provide a list of the difficult cases.
Changed a few words in that sentence. I'm not entirely sure how different a sentence needs to be to not be considered too close but it now says "sniff", "hold onto" and "gently chew" (it's still the same otherwise). Olmagon (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that particular sentence, I also would get rid of the "allowing him" (start a new sentence instead: "The male would then …") to have a more distinct sentence structure. Apart from that, I wonder if the order matters; I could assume that "holding onto the neck" might be the last thing he does, only after the sniffing and nibbling? If order matters, the order of the source should probably be kept. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed and reverted the ordering (I think the order I put in originally was my attempt to avoid direct sentence copying). Olmagon (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding how different a sentence needs to be: Its a continuum, and opinions differ, unfortunately, so if I decide that the text is acceptable does not necessarily mean that the other reviewers have to agree. In general, more different is better. If I see a possibility to formulate more differently (like in the above example with the "allowing him") without creating other problems (such as original research), then I just do it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with prose and content, and based on a few spotchecks, I believe that the sources support the text. The only thing that prevents me from supporting at this point is the close paraphrasing issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so as soon as you are ready and think that the article does not have a close paraphrasing issue anymore, ping me and I may do a second spot check. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you could do it now @Jens Lallensack Olmagon (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: The male makes a quiet chattering sound. Source: the male made a quiet chattering sound
  • Article: If the female is receptive, she may indicate so by dancing around him. Source: The female might also indicate receptiveness by dancing around the male
So obviously, and regrettably, there are still cases of close paraphrasing, but I could only check a single source in the "behaviour" section (where the problem is, I think, most prevalent), as I couldn't get hold on the Mammalian Species article and the Mammalia article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tried rewriting both sentences, the first now says "emit" and "soft" and makes the sound into the subject of the sentence, the second has "express" instead of "indicate" but otherwise remains the same (wasn't sure if "dancing" could be replaced by anything especially since the source just refers to it as such without specifying what the dance moves are but I think "disco" and "boogie" as suggested in the first thesaurus I looked at would be kinda ridiculous so I left it there for now). Olmagon (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Dancing" is precisely the kind of creative language that, if we copy it, would verge on plagiarism. Think about it: a different observer would be unlikely to come up with this particular word. You are not only copying the information content here, you are also copying the creativity of the author, and this is precisely the problem. If we must use this word, then it has to be a quote (using quotation marks). But that is totally unnecessary in this case: simply use the word "moving" instead. Of course, the weasel was not dancing, neither did it disco or boogie; all of them are kind of ridiculous. Dancing is not a scientific term, and it is really not clear to me what precisely the author wanted to say (Jumping? Moving in a zig-zag?). For our purpose, "moving" is objectively the better choice, in my opinion. Hope that makes sense! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick edit made to change that one word. Olmagon (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the prose concerns and close paraphrasing instances, I am archiving this nomination, noting that the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2025 (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/African_striped_weasel/archive1&oldid=1284989300"