Talk:Koala

GA Review

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) Hm. The "next cite" is actually 32. Could you please cite the sentence with 31 or 32 as appropriate - this actually illustrates the reason: things quickly move about or get separated by editing, often by many hands, that's just how it is. Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 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) Article should discuss the distinctly inedible diet - see e.g. Moore B, Foley WJ. Tree use by koalas in a chemically complex landscape]. Nature 2005;435:488-490. And why are Koalas so apparently defenceless themselves - often, such slow "prey" are aposematic - dangerous or poisonous? Perhaps the literature discusses this. It is discussed in the "description" section. As for defences, the literature I have does not seem to discuss this, but I'll look further. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Description doesn't address the question. I added that koala have few predators and birds of prey are threats only to the young. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC) 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. Did some replacing and rearranging. LittleJerry (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC) I wonder if it would be helpful to include an image of e.g. Eucalyptus tereticornis to show a major food plant? Already have one of the animal eating. LittleJerry (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC) I saw. But since the Eucalyptuses are so important it could be good to show the food plant more clearly. I don't think theres enough room. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 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. Picture of 'Koala Rock Art' isn't actually of a koala. It is the lighting man painting at Norlangie Rock in Kakadu, Northern Territory (see below link). http://www.google.com.au/search?bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bih=853&safe=active&q=Lighting+man+kakadu&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aGc&biw=1680&wrapid=tlif137386711625110&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=64zjUfHtLITziAfhxoDIDA Concerns verified - the photo has now been replaced - see discussion Talk:Koala#Questionable rock art image - File:Koala_rupestre.jpg. Bahudhara (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	A readable and informative article on a popular topic.

how often is it really called the Koala "bear" nowadays?

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)

"Koala bear" is an anachronism that confuses those ignorant of basic zoology, leading them to believe that the koala is a species of bear, in the same way that sloth bear refers to a species of bear that resembles a sloth. Or for instance the bear cuscus is the name of a species of cuscus, not a species of bear. Nor is the platypus example relevant. Duck-billed platypus refers to a species of platypus, not a species of duck-bill. It is not used because there is only one species of platypus.

"Koala bear" may occasionally appear in popular media but I would challenge anyone to produce a reliable source published in the last 50 years that calls this species that. Volume 5 of the Handbook of Mammals of the World (2015) begins its article with: "The Family Phascolarctidae is represented by a single genus and species, the Koala." No mention is made of "koala bear".

An encyclopedia has a responsibility to be accurate, not to mislead people. The current introduction is confusing and inaccurate. The best option for dealing with inacurate alternative names is in the body of the article. However, there is some obviously some ownership issues here, so I propose to edit the article by introducing the word "erroneously". Corythaeola (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing erroneous about a common name. It is just a name that is used by laypeople. It does not have to reflect scientific opinions. And nothing in the article claims that a koala actually is a bear, just that sometimes the name "koala bear" is used. Rlendog (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The syntax leads people to believe that the koala is a bear. Corythaeola (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The lede say that it is "sometimes called the koala bear" but that it "is an arboreal herbivorous marsupial." I am not seeing why it would lead anyone to believe that it is a bear. Rlendog (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Because many people would only skim the article and only see the name, which is in bold text, either making or confirming that assumption. Corythaeola (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Now let's start a campaign at silverfish which, egregiously, is neither silver, nor a fish. Doug butler (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What??!? I've been collecting them to melt down into an ingot! - UtherSRG (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support your campaign. Be aware though that many Australian naturalists have worked for decades to have koala bear removed from our lexicon. Fortunately, they have largely succeeded. Corythaeola (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

"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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

Change the first sentence from "sometimes called the koala bear" to "sometimes erroneously called the koala bear". Currently poorly informed readers can assume "koala bear" is a legitimate common name for this species, and assume the koala is a type of bear, as per "sloth bear", or for that matter "bear cuscus" (a cuscus, not a bear). Corythaeola (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Koalas ARE NOT bears. This article says they are. How can a consensus be established if nobody is willing to discuss this. Corythaeola (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not saying they are bears. It is saying that they are sometimes called koala bears. There's a difference. If no one agrees with you, there's nothing forcing them to respond to your discussion. Your next step in gaining consensus is to notify folks you think might be interested in the conversation that it is happening. A good place for the would be WP:Mammals. And shouting (using all caps) is not an acceptable way to share your opinion. Please stop. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The content further within the article quite extensively describes the history of and problems with the name. What's in the lead is fine. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Many people will only skim the lead. This is a long and complex article; I doubt many will read that far. Additionally, the section is hard to find, as it is not identified by a heading. Corythaeola (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You may want to WP:drop the stick. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Can't believe that is a thing, but ok this is the last you will hear from me until I put my submission on the mammals page. Corythaeola (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)