# Talk:Four-horned antelope

The lead states that "Males of the species are unique among extant mammals in that they possess four permanent horns."  However, several breeds of domestic sheep may have four or even six horns, e.g. the Jacob sheep.  This should probably be amended.  24.130.189.187 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

24.130.189.187, thanks for your feedback. The article has been revamped, and this line has been amended. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Four-horned antelope/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) 01:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, here's my review:
Well-written
The prose needs extensive editing. Just to point out a few examples:
I have done much CE and removed errors, how does it look now? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks very good. One thing I missed on my first review. This sentence: "These calls may, in fact, be used to warn predators in extreme cases," Is it using the call to warn predators or to warn other antelopes of predators? Other than that, I think everything is OK. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This means the call is basically to raise the alarm, but its use is uncommon for the reason stated. If the danger is quite imminent, that is in extreme cases, the antelope will give out these calls as a last resort. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. When you say "warn predators" it makes it sound like they're trying to scare the predator away. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 12:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The sources says "warn the predator that it has been identified". I have now rephrased this as In extreme cases, these calls may, in fact, be used to warn predators that they have been identified. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot of unnecessary passive voice which obscures the meaning.
I use passive voice mainly where I refer to results of studies. I will try to limit its use. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Better? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it looks a lot better now. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The authority conflict mentioned in the Taxonomy and phylogeny section is very difficult to follow.
To clarify this, the trouble was that while the name Tetracerus appeared for the first time in Hardwicke's publication, perhaps an editor of the publication attributed the genus name to Leach. As Leach had clearly been identified as the authority, and satisfied certain criteria (which will be difficult to explain in the article), the ICZN held him as the authority. Could you please suggest any rephrasing you may like to see? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense to me now. One thing is you say "The authority for Tetracerus has been disputed" without saying who disputed it. Also, you ought to mention that Hardwicke's publication was the first to use the genus name. One more note, this story would be better if it were in its own paragraph. That way it would stand out more (since its an interesting story) and the taxonomy part would flow better. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that gives me an idea on how to rearrange it. Working... Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, done. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Many sentences from the lead are word-for-word copies of sentences in the main text.
I do this often in articles, even in an FA, and there has been no issue with it. I am not sure if there is any MOS guideline this appears to be violating. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If you've done it even on FAs before, then it's probably not an issue, but it looks strange to me at any rate. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have not been advised against it and see no harm in it. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. I'm not really a fan of it, but I won't let that keep this article from GA. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Too many semicolons.
Working... Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Better? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
"Former" and "latter" seem out of place to describe horns, I would suggest using "front" and "back" or something similar.
I have removed these two terms.  Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Broad in coverage
Reading the article, I'm curious about the evidence of ancient human interaction mentioned in the final paragraph of the Evolution section. This should be given more focus.
Good point. I tried to find more on that, but I am afraid this is all I can add from sources I can access at the moment. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you have access to a good interlibrary loan service? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid I don't. I rely mainly on online sources. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. My university has a pretty good ILL, so if you want, I can see if I can get a hold of Murty (1985) for you, which [1] cites for evidence of ancient human-Tetraceros interactions. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a little too in-depth on the diet.
This may not be a real problem, in many of my previous articles on antelopes I cover the major plant species eaten by the animal. Please let me know if any particular part appears clearly redundant. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, if it's not been a problem before then I won't worry about it. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Sources
Everything is backed up with reliable sources. Y
Sorry to butt in but I am not convinced that - "B.N.H.S. (2004). The Wild Animals of India. New Delhi, India: Biotech Books. p. 52. ISBN 9788176221061" is a good source. The publisher is nearly unknown and the authorship is unclear. I would think all the bits that have been taken from it can be attributed to better sources. Shyamal (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I will fix it later today. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Shyamal: Done. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Neutral
Nothing is biased. There's nothing controversial involved, so undue weight etc. are non-issues. Y
Stable
No edit wars etc. Y
Images
Images are uniformly good, well-placed, and have acceptable copyright status. Y
Copyright
Article passes Earwig's copyvio test with no concerns. Y
The article looks pretty good on the whole. Most of the issues I found are with the prose. I'm going to put the nomination on hold for 7 days so that this can be addressed. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and constructive suggestions. I will work on these points in the next few hours. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I have addressed all your points. Thanks again for your help. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks good to me, passed for GA. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ashorocetus: I am afraid the review has not been closed. Please see WP:GAI. Thanks, Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, sorry. This is my first GA review ever, so I wasn't really clear on what to do. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be something wrong with the authorship of T. q. subquadricornis - Walter Elliot does not mention it in the reference suggested. It seems to be a name used by Gray for a specimen from Elliot. I have not seen what Groves says but this needs examination. Shyamal (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shyamal: Thanks for pointing this out. I looked into this, the sources say T. q. subquadricornis was authored by Gray in 1843, while a very similar T. q. subquadricornutus was authored by Elliot in 1839. I think I will stick with Elliot's, as both MSW and ITIS mention it. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
MSW3 gives it as T. q. subquadricornutus (Elliot, 1839) and that is correct. [For T. q. subquadricornis the author is Gray]. ITIS is not quite a reliable source for subspecies information and synonymy. I see that the correction is made. Shyamal (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the repeated mentions of the skull, is there any reason the article doesn't have any images of one?  File:Tetracerus quadricornis - skull.jpg is on Commons; it's not as if we don't have any images available.  Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Added now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)