# Talk:Dibatag

I wrote a stub for a noncopyvio article: Dibatag/Temp.  Bikeable 02:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
160 140

I've just removing the following content from the article, since it is apparently a copyright violation. The note at the bottom says it's "free for Wikipedia's use", but that's not sufficient - it needs to be licensed under GFDL in order to remain on Wikipedia. I'm posting the material here, so if anyone wants to paraphrase parts for inclusion, or even dispute its suitability for full inclusion in this article, they can do so. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

## DIBATAG
100 YEARS FROM DISCOVERY TO EXTINCTION ?
- Abstract from the habil. thesis: DIBATAG, Bauer, J., 1987 - JAMHUURIYADDA DIMOQRAADIGA SOOMAALIYA Somali National University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Botany and Range, Ecology Unit, Mogadishu, 1987
compiled for Wikipedia and annotated by the author:
Prof. Julian BAUER P.O.BOX 3487 MOGADISHU / SOMALIA TEL.: MOG.: 21108
1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Dibatag (Ammodorcas clarkei) is nearly extinct in its habitat country of origin, SOMALIA. Last records discovered less than 500 individuals in Somalia (Bauer, J. - Dibatag Census, 1987, Department of Wildlife, National Range Agency, Mogadishu).
Since the species is unique and the only representative of the Ammodorcas family in the world, there is no question about its importance.
The Taxon is in danger of extinction and its survival is unlikely if the causal factors continue operating. Its numbers have been reduced to such a critical level that genetic damage can not be excluded, and the habitat is so drastically influenced by war and starving men that the species is deemed to be in immediate danger of extinction in Somalia.
2.1 Taxonomy

      Class:    Mammalia
      Order:    Artiodactyla
      Family:   Bovidae
      Subfamily:Antilopinae
      Tribe:    Ammodorcadini
      Genus:    Ammodorcas
      Species:  Ammodorcas clarkei (THOMAS, 1891)
      Subspecies: no subspecies

      Common names:
      Intern.:   DIBATAG
      Somali:    DIBATAG [somali: Daba = tail; Tag = up =»= Dabatag = "Tail-Up" / Clarke
                 actually misunderstood the first "a" - sometimes pronounces by Somalis
                 as an "e" - as an "i" (Bauer, J.,1986)]
      Swahili:   Swara Dibatag
      English:   Dibatag, Clarke's Gazelle
      German:    Dibatag, Lamagazelle, Stelzengazelle
      French:    Le Dibatag, Gazelle de Clarke
      Italian:   Gazella Dibatag

2.2. Identification
2.2.1 Measurements

      Length of body:   152 - 168cm
      Tail length:      30 -  36cm
      Shoulder height   80 -  88cm
      Horn length       25 -  33cm
      General weight    29 -  32kg
      male weight       28 -  35kg
      female weight     22 -  29kg
      Maximum age       about  10 -  12 a

2.2.2. Gender Differences
In general the habitus of both sexes is quite the same. The average body weight of the male is normally higher than the female ones. While the latter is hornless, the male has horns which show 6-10 rings in the lower half. Immature animals are almost like the adults.
2.2.3. Shape

  Image:   graceful antelope
  Size:    medium-sized, gazelle-like
  Lips:    very mobile, front slit in upper lips
  Muzzle:  only a narrow naked strip between nostrils
  Eyes:    large brown iris
  Ears:    long, broadly lancet-shaped
  Horns:   brownish-black, only in male, reedbuck-like, curved forward at top, tips only
           slightly diverging from each other, round in section at base, lower half with
           6-10 well developed rings, upper half smooth and pointed, evenly divergent,
           "sickle-like" curved up and backwards and then forwards. Females carry only a
           patch of dark hair at the crown.
  Neck:    long and slender, but not as long as in the Gerenuk and not hold so straight
           upright. In flight thrown forward.
  Shoulders: well angled and relatively strong
  Limbs:   long
  Hoof:    hard and in proportion to lower limbs. Inner hoofs narrow and pointed,
           lateral hoofs very small
  Tail:    very long, thin, rounded, reaches hocks, well haired and with distinct
           tassel. Held upright or thrown up and forward in flight.
  Teats:   four Glands, preorbital and carpal glands present. Carpal glands with hair
           tufts (knee brushes)
           Pedal, interdigital and inguinal glands absent.
  Coat:    in general short and smooth hair. Longer only on female crown, both sexes
           have carpal glands
  Colouration: general colour appears uniform dark purplish grey tinged with rufous; no
               lateral band.
      Upper side: Crown, neck, shoulders, back, flanks, thighs, outside of legs and
                  lower inside is cinnamon brown.
      Underside: chin, throat, breast, belly, upper inside of legs and back of thighs
                 and buttocks is white.

Voice: Nasal alarm call ("�””", briefly before fleeing) and grunting snore.
Senses: Hearing and olfactoric senses are very well developed and very good, sight is less keen
Enemies:
- for adults:
Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), Leopard (Panthera pardus), Lion (Panthera leo), Serval (Felis serval), Caracal (Felis caracal), Striped Hyaena (Hyaena Hyaena), Spotted Hyaena (Crocuta crocuta), Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus)
- for fawns:
Ratel (Mellivora capensis), large birds of prey
Herd structure: In groups of four to five, in maximum and very seldom of up to eight animals (SCLATER, THOMAS, 1894-1900). Usually one adult male with up to five females, which can be accompanied by the young ones.. Occurs sometimes also solitary.
Little is known about the interspecies relationship of the Dibatag, though loose associations with Gerenuk (Litocranius walleri), Soemmering's Gazelle (Gazella soemmeringi) or Swaynes Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus swaynei, which propably is already extinct in Somalia) has been described. Especially since Soemmering's Gazelle occupy a different ecological niche, but because the niches of the Dibatag and the Soemmering's Gazelle often are adjacent to each other, in the overlapping areas both species were seen in the same geographical area (Bauer, J. 1987)
2.3. Population The population size in Somalia was estimated to be 1500 animals at the beginning of any serious census activities in 1967 (TRENSE, 1989). In 1987 the max. population within the boundaries of the Somali Republic was estimated to be below 500 animals (Bauer, J. , 1987). (Addendum 2005: However, continued monitoring revealed that the size of the total population might have increased again.)
2.4. Distribution
2.4.1. Geographical distribution:
2.4.1.1. Historical times: Horn of Africa, from Somalia to Ogaden (Ethiopia). From western River Djerrer, easterly and in part to coast. North up to south of the Gulis Range (locally also east of these mountains up to the North coast). In Somalia south to near Equator.
2.4.1.2. Present distribution The Dibatag is now extinct in most areas of today's Ethiopia. Very scattered populations of this species are living in only a few remaining areas of central Somalia. While TRENSE (1989) mentions three isolated distributions which are east of the river Shebeli in Somalia and west of the river Djerrer (Ethiopia, Ogaden), it must be stated today that hardly any Dibatag are left in the Ogaden (BAUER, 1989, 1990).
Reason for decline: Already in former times locally exterminated by poaching and habitat destruction due to overgrazing by domestic livestock, which seems to put a specific pressure on one of the main feeding plants (Commiphora) of Dibatag (LAWRIE). Especially the domestic goats a a major threat to the survival of the Dibatag, due to food-competition and distress caused by invading goat herders (Bauer, J. 1987)
(Addendum 2000): Today the ongoing war with its total oblivion of law and order as well as the serious famine will certainly extinguish the species in its last wild population within the next few years if no action is taken.
2.4.3. Local distribution
Data omitted for reasons of species security. Interested scientists could write to Prof. J. Bauer, who can be contacted through the Ministry of Wildlife & Tourism, Somali Government or ECOTERRA Intl. (www.ecoterra-international.org / www.ecoterra.net)
2.5. Habitat
The Dibatag lives mainly in sandy and grassy, loosely bushy plains with isolated trees and thickly or widely scattered thickets, interspersed bare patches of ground, at times with high grass. Only in or after the rainy season grass plains with small trees and low thickets are used.
Within it's population area, the Dibatag can only be found within some few and specific ecological "islands". CONEO (in WALTHER, 1963) reported that the animals in Somaliland were only seen at places where "very red earth" (presum. ferrosol, laterit), which was supposed to contain aluminium too, occured. This observation was confirmed for Central Somalia (Bauer,J., 1987).
2.6. Territory
Territoriality and home range are part of an ongoing study. However, it already can be stated that despite a clearly defined larger range, smaller daily or weekly territories for herded groups of females are marked out by dominant males and seasonal changes were observed following the establishment of seasonal territories in Central Somalia.
2.7. Nutrition
Food species: Leaves of trees (mainly Commiphora and Acacia ssp.), small bushes, berries (Solanum spp.), var. shrubs and grasses(when green) are taken. (a complete study is in preparation)
Feeding behaviour: Like the wider spread Gerenuk (Litocranius walleri) the Dibatag's anatomy enables the animals to reach young shoots, leaves, and branch twigs from bushes and trees by standing erected on their hind legs. Often the balance is kept by leaning one of the front legs against a bigger branch or trunk. Even eating small branches and bark is reported from animals held in captivity.
The Dibatag doesn't need to drink water. Even in captivity, the water offered was not taken.
2.8. Ethology
Locomotory pattern: While walking often pacing is observed in Dibatag, though cross gait is in Dibatag the most common movement, even in flight. Only in very rare occasions, the Dibatag turns into gallop. Even when running away from enemies, gait is common. During this, the neck and head as well as the tail are hold in a upright position while passing open area. The neck is streched forward in a flight through dense bushland, while the tail is still up.
Defecation: Specific behaviour during defecation was observed by WALTHER (1968) in two Dibatag, which were kept in captivity. Male and female dropped the faeces on specific spots which were controlled by the male several times a day. Always the male dropped urine and faeces on exactly the same spot, after having scraped it. Where faeces dropped by the female, the male smelled at it, eventually the female faeces were scraped and the male sprayed own urine and dropped faeces over it. This behaviour could be seen as a further indication of small territories marked by the dominant males, that need to be controlled and renewed often. Sometimes the long tails were wetted during urination. WALTHER (1968) observed in two Dibatag of different sex, how they let urine pass over their muzzles while the other animal was urinating. Flamen was observed in both animals after that process.
Comfort behaviour: WALTHER (1960) noted a special kind of comfort behaviour. the captured animals that were studied scratched themselves by using the incisors without showing any chewing.
Daily rhythm: The main feeding times are in the early morning and late afternoon. During the heat around noon the animals stand still in the shade.
Display: Stretching the neck high and the nose more vertically, the male comes close to the female from behind and caresses her hind leg from the in- or outside with his stretched front leg, which is held in an angle up to 90 degree (termed "Laufeinschlag", WALTHER 1958, 1960). As in Gerenuk, the female Dibatag is marked by the antorbital organ of the male.
Sexual behaviour: Only little is known about the sexual behaviour of Dibatag, but pushing the front legs and copulation jumps during running have been observed. Commonly males prove the sexual readiness of their females by letting the females urine pass over the muzzle.
Observations on Dibatag kept in captivity: While kept in captivity the directly orientated marking of the female by the male using the antorbital organ was observed (WALTHER, 1968). The same author describes a very light aggressive behaviour, of the female Dibatag, which seems to be linked to situations where impressing or sexual behaviour is involved. The muzzle is hereby moved powerfully towards the other animal without really touching it. In case of a great hierarchic difference between the involved animals, the suppressed individual may direct the symbolic push, "symbolischer Schnauzenstoss" as it is named by WALTHER (1968), not towards the dominant animal, but into the empty space. This symbolic, intraspecific and intra- and intersexual behaviour could be stated in female Gerenuk, Dibatag and Kudu as well as Bushbuck, which all are hornless animals.
Dibatag resting were sometimes liing close together but never seen more than three meters away from each other. When disturbed, a "star formation" (WALTHER 1960) was occupied, that means the axis of the bodies of the two animals observed form an angle between 45 and 90 degree, allowing the observation of 360 degrees of the surrounding area. This formation could be seen standing and liing. This 360 degree ("radar") standing formation was observed (Bauer, 1987) especially, when overflying military aircraft created noise, whose source and direction could not be easily determined by the group of Dibatag.
2.9. Reproduction The main breeding period in Somalia is from March to May ("Gu" season = rainy season), but in general it seems not to be restricted seasonally. The period of gestation is about 6 - 7 months, but since exact data is not available, two birth a year might be possible. The details of birth, rearing and growing up are not known either, but nursing females are reported to stay close to their fawn while dependent (during first one to two weeks of life).
2.10. Trade Data
2.10.1. National Utilization Dibatag is legally protected in the Democratic Republic of Somalia since 1969. All our surveys and former field reports note, however, that the legal protection does not mean actual protection. Due to lack of funds, the Somali Wildlife Department up to now could not establish a system of actual protection to the Dibatag range, specific habitats or populations. Poaching and shooting for meat was and is observed in Somalia rarely
2.10.2. Legal International Trade There have been only a few legal exports:

  1.    in 1960: to the zoo of Napoli
  2.    in 1980: to the zoo of Dubai

2.10.3. Illegal Trade Most about the illegal trade is not known. There has been, however, a certain demand for animals of this species from the Somali Peninsula. Several illegal shipments of usually 1-2.
2.10.4 Potential Trade Threats
2.10.4.1. Live specimen: There has been a certain market for live specimen in recent years. Offers to purchase came from both institutions and private collectors. Also some offers were reported from parties, which are said to have scrupulous records in animal care and conservation.
Some parties were willing to pay extraordinary high prices for these animals, particularly breeding pairs, if they would arrive healthy and safe at their destination. The delicacy of the species usually stopped any such trial, but a lot of animals were lost in these illegal attempts.
2.10.4.2. Parts and derivatives: There is only a minor potential market for hides. A market for curio sake (horns) did exist in Mogadishu. Several entries in trophy books actually derive from animals, who were not killed by the named throphy hunter, but whose horns were traded. (addendum: When the war started in 1991 the National Museum in Mogadishu was looted and also all Dibatag trophies were stolen).
2.11. Protection Status
2.11.1. Domestic Dibatag (Ammodorcas clarkei) is legally protected by the Somali Law No. 15 (1969) and its amendments of the Somali Democratic Republic. There the species is listed as prohibited game, which may not be hunted throughout the country, promising extended punishment for illegal killing or possession of derivatives.
2.11.2. International Ammodorcas clarkei is protected under Class B of the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources (1968) and under section II of the Bonn Convention (Convention on the Conservation of migrating Species of wild animals - CMS). It is also classified as "endangered" by the U.S. Endangered Species Act and as vulnerable by the IUCN Red Data Book. It must be stated, that CITES earlier simply forgot to list the species, though Somalia has ratified the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) of wild fauna and flora in October 1982. The African Union is urged to list the species under Class A.
2.11.3. Additional Protection Needs The I.U.C.N. Red Data Book urges the establishment of adequately protected reserves, and the restriction of human access and stock grazing in habitat areas. The Somali Government has taken first steps.
2.12. Information on Similar Species
There are no similar species!
3. Somalia and the world are now faced with the situation of a genocid of a wildlife species and it's total extinction, if the last individuals can not be saved. In general it can be stated, that though not enough scientific knowledge is existing about the species, further action must be taken immediatly and the ongoing activities supported.
ff.
full text available © pjb 2005 (free for wikipedia, fair use)
--
N.B.: At present (2005), the Ministry of Wildlife & Tourism of the newly created and recognized transitional Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia is engaged together with Prof. Julian Bauer in the improvement of the present protection mechanisms and systems as well as in the establishment of another protected area for in situ conservation of the Dibatag.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dibatag/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I will take this one. delldot ∇. 05:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
This article looks great. A few comments for now, mostly just quick prose fixes.

This is a lot of numbers to wade through in the first para of the lead: " The typical head-and-body length is about 103 to 117 cm (41 to 46 in). They stand up to about 80 to 90 cm (31 to 35 in). Male dibatag weigh between 20 and 35 kg (44 and 77 lb), whereas females range from 22 and 29 kg (49 and 64 lb). The length of the curved horns, present only on males, is typically between 10 and 25 cm (3.9 and 9.8 in)." Could this be approximated in the lead then spelled out in the Description? e.g. ...head-and-body length averages slightly over a meter (3 ft)... they stand just short of a meter...
This has not caused trouble in any other article about antelopes I have expanded. I believe the head-and-body length should be omitted, but I am not sure about the rest. I mostly emulate the style of an antelope FA I contributed to, Giant eland. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
explain or use simpler wording for difficult terms like 'anteorbital gland'
I do not know how exactly to explain it, should I remove it? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Just curious: is there a reason the order of sections puts taxonomy so high in the article?  I see the template has it lower and that seems preferable to me. Yet every taxa article I see has Taxonomy this high, including FAs.
No idea. I observed that it was the sequence in so many articles, so I simply emulated it. I guess it is because it may be disturbing the flow from Description to Ecology to Distribution, and it would not look too good at the bottom. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
How does the referencing work? If I see several sentences with no ref followed by one with ref [2], do I assume 2 covers all these sentences?  If a sentence is moved, do I copy the ref from three sentences later to go with it?
Yes, you do. I take special care of that whenever such shifting has to be done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be best to choose singular or plural for talking about dibatag, then use one or the other throughout, unless there's a good reason to change it up. e.g. "Dibatag is a medium-sized antelope" but then "They stand up to about 80 to 90 cm".
Yes, an overlooked issue. Fixed as far as possible, but I have generally seen that the number may be altered from singular to plural and vice versa. It need not be and often can not be the same throughout the article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Minor one. This sentence is awkward: "The reaction of dibatag towards gerenuk is obscure, with there being reports of their loose associations as well as avoidance of each other." I think 'with' is discouraged as a conjunction for ambiguity, and the noun + -ing construction is also discouraged. Have you seen this? It's awesome. Specifically WP:PLUSING.
I never came across such issues in my earlier articles, added to that I am not a native English speaker. I will go through the page you mentioned. For now, you know better about such grammar. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The fighting sentences are juxtaposed with territory ones. Does this imply they're territorial? Can any more info be added about when and why they fight and whom with?  Only other dibatag males? What about gerenuk?
Altered. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Might it make more sense to rearrange the second para in Eco and behavior to have the food info last, so that juxtposes predators after fighting and eating behavior before diet?
You do come up with good new suggestions. It may look weird compared to so many other articles, not just about mammals but even birds, where, for some reason, diet always precedes reproduction. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I will drop these here for now so you can get started if you like, then come back with more comments later.  Looks good so far! delldot ∇. 06:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


### Second part
I think some of the eating info in Eco and behavior could be combined with the Diet subsection, e.g. "The elongated upper lip assists in the ingestion of thorny vegetation", then in Diet, "They use their flexible lips and front teeth to pluck off foliage." When I read the first sentence I was thinking "how does it help?" So maybe that could use fleshing out.
Good suggestion. Just for the sake of describing I have kept the fact that the lip is elongated in the Description, but its utility has now been fully shifted to Diet. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes it's 'the dibatag' and sometimes just 'dibatag'.  I'm not sure if this needs to be uniform but thought I'd mention it.
It would be good if it were uniform. Done. It is difficult to take care of so many tidbits, and even more if you keep glancing at your work, you often stop noticing flaws! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"They prefer Commiphora, Acacia, Boscia, Dichrostachys and Maerua" any one of these might provide an image to go alongside.
Never tried that out in my other articles, but I think your idea is nice here as there is hardly any image. Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"The lifespan of a dibatag is nearly 10 to 12 years." --'nearly'? What does this mean when a range is offered? Must mean it averages  10 to 12 years right?
Right. Altered. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
In the first para in Habitat and distribution, I think the treelands sentence should go after the first sentence (with grasslands, etc.) and the two sentences that mention red soil should be together.  And of course whatever refs apply to them should be copied with them.
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the threat to dibatag from livestock should be clearer in Habitat and distribution.  How does "habitat degradation due to excessive numbers of livestock" occur? Is habitat loss the only reason livestock are a threat?
From what I have understood it is due to competition for food. Their diets are similar, grasses and all, and the livestock take away the lion's share. I had to add it under the Threats and conservation section as that is the way I write, mentioning threats separately, with conservation measures. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Why is the third para in Habitat and distribution not in Threats and conservation instead? I would think at least the Somalia info could be merged with the Somalia info in the first para of Threats and conservation.
The latter section is simply about threats, populations and conservation measures, and for the sake of convenience I have tried to keep out all distribution-related details. I know the difference is barely noticeable but I must stick to it if I have to prepare sections. I agree with the Somalia part, though; done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
This 1895 book has some sketches, might one be good to add? Particularly the one showing the running gait?
Sorry I am unable to access the sketches. You mean we should upload the images? I am not usually associated with uploading stuff here... Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Some more info:
Female is smaller: Castelló 2016 p. 162.
More predators:  Castelló 2016 p. 163.
Added.
Castelló mentions groups of 6, contradicting the "up to 5" claim here.
Fixed.
Former range 200K sq mi. Rafferty, J.P. (2011).
I have got only online access to this book, and for some reason it does not load. Will see when I can get it.


### Close paraphrasing
Looks like some copyright problems still exist, with wording lifted right from sources. e.g.
"groups of up to five females and young have been reported." (and close paraphrasing in the rest of the sentence.
See above. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"Somalia, where overhunting, droughts and habitat degradation due to excessive numbers of livestock" (close paraphrasing from  Rafferty, J.P. (2011). p. 98)
Reworded. delldot ∇. 05:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
"semi-arid, dense to scattered bushes, savannas with low to medium height thornbushes and plains with thickets or grassland mosaics...Sandy to moderately gravelled soil and red soil rich in ferrous oxide (characterised by termite mounds)" close paraphrasing to [1]
Removed until it can be reworded. delldot ∇. 02:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
"political instability and civil and military conflicts over..." close paraphrasing to [2]
Reworded. (hopefully good enough--I can't see the source now). 06:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Given the copyright issues I better take a closer look at all the sources. If you're aware of any other cases where a sentence is lifted directly from a source or is very similarly worded, please fix ASAP.  delldot ∇. 08:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
More close paraphrasing or copying:

"vernacular name "dibatag" derives from Somali dabu (tail) and tag (erect)". p.388 reworded. delldot ∇. 02:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
" cinnamon to rufous, but may even appear a silvery gray depending upon the availability of sunlight."p.388 This whole para copies the structure of that in the book with paraphrasing bordering on problematic.
Removed until reworded. delldot ∇. 02:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
"No dibatag have been known to be held in captivity." p.390
Done.
I understand the policies of Wikipedia, and in the cases you have mentioned it is really difficult to escape paraphrasing, even unintentionally. I could fix only two instances, and the unaddressed ones I failed to reword. Seems I am still too inexperienced, I feel sorry. But I honestly have not copied anything, it must have been that I took up the sentence that first suggested itself to me and added it - I am a quick editor. I shall be careful in the future. I will be really grateful if you could help out here and let me learn a bit. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll sleep now and take another look tomorrow. delldot ∇. 08:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I must praise you - you are one of the very few reviewers who go into such detail - with the precision of FAC! - and react so positively. You are a valuable asset for the encyclopedia. Also, thanks for all the copyediting you have done in this article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Aw, thanks for the kind words, and the quick response.  All the responses are fine except I'm very concerned about the close paraphrasing issue.  Many of the sentences I found were almost identical to the source.  I know what you mean because I often have the same problem--I'll read something, come up with a sentence about it that seems like my own creation, then look back at the source and find it's near exactly what was written. What I do is check back with the source to make sure (also to make sure I haven't introduced any inaccuracies, another problem I have).  Other tricks are to take notes, then write from the notes later (e.g. if you'd had a note "name from Somali: dabu=tail, tag=erect", it probably wouldn't have retained "vernacular" and "derives" or the exact sentence structure of the source.) For the case where the structure of a paragraph is duplicated, relying on more than one source can help. I'm going to focus my efforts on finding all the problematic sentences, and leave it to you to reword them.  If they can't be fixed quickly let's take them out for now and work on them over time. I'm happy to contribute specific help where you need it but I'm not going to rewrite each sentence. Is there a chance that similar close paraphrasing exists in other articles you've worked on?  It might be good to check, since this is a big concern.  delldot ∇. 21:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That's so helpful! I won't dare to forget all that you have suggested here. I will attempt to rephrase these lines, it is my responsibility to learn and accomplish this. I am not so regular here, but I will try to check paraphrasing (if any) in my earlier articles. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic, ping me whenever you've had an attempt at each one, I can definitely help with copy editing after.  delldot ∇. 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I've checked ref 6 and found no problems, so that's good. Still checking the rest. I'm anxious about leaving these sentences in any longer so I'm going to start taking them out until they can be reworded.  If you need help maybe I can make some suggestions, just let me know. delldot ∇. 01:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I have done some rewording and stricken sentences I think are no longer a concern.  I also removed a few sentences, but I think the information should be re-added in your own words.  I can help copy edit the sentences if they need it. I think the para that follows the structure in the para from the source (which I pointed out above) needs to be rearranged to avoid copyright problems. I also added a citation in the middle of a para so left a {{cn}} tag before so it wouldn't look like that ref covered the whole previous para. So hopefully that info is all covered in the ref after the next sentence and that can be added to it. Also, I would like to check the Oryx article but cannot access it.  Can you provide a quote here of the sentence ours is based on? I just have to finish checking the last few refs, so hopefully that won't take long.  delldot ∇. 06:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been elsewhere for a while. Thanks for all your edits, I am learning from them. Better talk in points:

Paraphrasing : Now I see how to deal with paraphrasing, especially the ob you have done in Threats and conservation. I see you removed much of the habitat description; I tried my best to reword it, but it still appears to be a paraphrase. Is there any way we can re-add that info? Another deleted part is in Description
Copyediting : Thanks for the copyedits, where else do you think we need it now? I worked on Ecology and behaviour, some more work is there in Description
Restructuring : Going to work on Description  Done with Description
References : The citations are properly arranged throughout the article now. About the Oryx article, I did not access it fully, rather I used the information and saw that the source from where I got this directly cites the Oryx article for this. This is not the case always, though - I often take the conclusions from abstracts of studies if I can not access the articles. I can not really provide a quote. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Huh, I didn't see this info in the source I was able to look at.  What sentence or sentences in the source is it based on? (i.e. " Their occurrence has also been correlated with the incidence of Commiphora shrublands." I saw no mention of Commiphora in that abstract.) delldot ∇. 01:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Delldot How does it look now? Sorry it has taken so long a time. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, great, have you added back all the info, but reworded? I will look back at everything asap, sorry I have been busy lately.  delldot ∇. 01:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
All the info has been reworded and the paragraph restructured as much as possible. You may like to check from the source itself. I got the Commiphora line (it is not a paraphrase as far as I can recall) from the Kingdon source, that directly associated it with the Oryx article. I hope that makes it clear. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see, the Kingdon source cites the Oryx article. Let's just cite the Kingdon source then, primary sources are not as good anyway, and we can't actually verify that that info is even in the article.  I changed the wording of that sentence since I felt it was still too close of a paraphrase (using several of the same words in generally the same order).  delldot ∇. 19:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
A drive-by comment, it seems a nice coloured version[3] of the plate used in the article exists, but I can't find the original source... FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
FunkMonk Thanks. It is indeed a great image with the gerenuk included in the background. But I can not find it either. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the image is from the same book as the subspecies illustrations in hartebeest, so I'll ping the uploader, Mariomassone. FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Use this site to comvert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 as per WP:ISBN   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I will use it from now on. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


### Second opinion needed
I'm sorry for taking so long on this and for not being able to wrap it up myself.  I just think that although I looked closely at the prose, I'm not confident that I caught all the close paraphrasing, so it would be good for someone else to look at it.  For example, the sentence we discussed above with the Oryx source: it was a couple exchanges before it was clear that it was from the Kingdon source, then when I found the sentence it was based on I felt it was too closely worded.  So I'm concerned that there could possibly be more instances like this, so I'm not confident enough to pass it.  Thanks for all your hard work so far and I'm sorry I could not be more helpful.  Best of luck with everything! delldot ∇. 04:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not be sorry. I have created enough inconvenience due to my mistakes, so this was expected. I think most copyvio cases have been dealt with as far as possible, and we need a hawk-eye scan to detect any more instances. I will try my hand at it when I get time. Earwig's copyvio detector might help. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks muck for the understanding, I'm glad you're not upset.  Yeah I had checked the cv detector before but did not get any hits--I think maybe it doesn't check Goolge Books? delldot ∇. 03:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
This is "only" a GAN, so an extensive FAC-style source review isn't necessary (unless there is a reason to suspect misconduct). FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have made my efforts to detect any remaining copyvio, but could not find any. FunkMonk is right about the GAN process, we have already gone very deep into the article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, since there were copyvio and close paraphrasing issues earlier, it would make sense to ask someone experienced in that area to make a check to be sure all is well? I was wondering whether Nikkimaria might be able to take a look before this is signed off. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I see some problematic close paraphrasing in Reproduction para 1 and Diet (both from footnote 6) that should be addressed before promotion; there some other more minor close paraphrasing of footnote 6 elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
How does it look now? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Better, and I would say good enough, though keep an eye on footnote 6 if this does end up going to FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, FAC is still a long way to go. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Delldot: ? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Delldot: 15 days since I last pinged you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 Ah, sorry, super busy IRL.  Is there anyone else that can look this over? The fact that more close paraphrasing was discovered after my thorough search and edits does not make me feel confident. delldot ∇. 05:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Delldot: I assure you that I have thoroughly checked for any more paraphrasing. Unavoidable paraphrasing has been removed and the remaining parts are not serious paraphrases after all the rewording that has occurred since then. This article was written and repaired with much effort, and I am certain it meets most of the GA criteria by now. What would happen if it is failed? No more info is to be added at the moment, and I do not really see what we can do further for this article. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Delldot: @Sainsf: If I may be so bold as to add my opinion, and you both may take it or leave it: This article, by definition of the subject area, cannot but turn up a few hits on a copyvio detector. It appears to me that both of you have spent an extended period of due diligence in that regard, which does you both credit. I personally would pass this article as GA, after one really minor clean-up to follow - it is excellent work, and compares very well with other GA (and even FA) articles in the Biology space.
I see really just one sentence that is left of any actual concern in terms of close paraphrasing - with a very simple solution: In the section "Habitat and distribution", where you speak of pastoralists, that paraphrased sentence would benefit from having the term "pastoralists" wikilinked. It's an important term in the context of this section, and to dance around it by rephrasing would be doing the article a disservice - but by wikilinking it, the point is reinforced if the reader wants to delve further into the difference between the northern and southern Ogaden. Thank you for reading! --Concertmusic (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Concertmusic: Thanks for your opinion. It's encouraging. I will add a link.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainsf (talk • contribs) 
Thanks very much Concertmusic, that gives me enough confidence to pass it.  Much appreciation to both you and Nikkimaria  for taking the time to comb through this and make sure it meets standard. delldot ∇. 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)