# Talk:Tamaraw

tamaraw = timarau
The Philipine word for this animal is timarau. There are hundreds of indigenous languages in the Philipine islands, but the term 'timarau' would probably be most recognizable.
picture?
~~

The National Animal of the Philippines is the Tamaraw. It was changed by the Philippine Congress.

sources? --Howard the Duck 12:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Howard, sources are needed. I believe tamaraw is more recognizable to Filipinos.--Jondel 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. complete ALL citations  - link with DENR experts/contacts (let me know if u still need help with this!) 
2. spellcheck c/o User:Chris the speller - leave a msg in his talk page 
3. submit for peer review 
4. comply peer review suggestions 
5. nominate for GA 
6. comply with GA nominee suggestions - PASS OR FAIL the nomination
7. If pass,  improve for FA nomination 
8. If fail, comply requirements/suggestions then renom  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinay06 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Nah, I'm not really too big on GA stuff. I've been busy on my thesis the past few weeks, but I'm going to see what I can do to get this baby up to PR -> FA. GA isn't really necessary for FA. But we seriously need pictures. Right now, there are big glaring holes that I'd like to fill in first. Anatomy, morphology, ecology, population history and dynamics, a distribution map, evolutionary history and systematics. Shrumster 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm...send me wikipedia email so I can give you the contact info of our friends at DENR. They should be able to direct you to the right people or direction. --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Been bulking up the article, it's around 70% ready for FAC but I sense that we will definitely need a few pictures. If anyone has any pics, please upload them or contact me so we can properly format and upload them appropriately. Thanks! Shrumster 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This image may be a no no, since there is already a free image. But since the current one is an illustration and there are no live photos that are freely licensed, I think it might be okay to upload to Wikipedia under a fair-use rationale. VanTucky Talk 21:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Will try that. Shrumster 15:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the article is a very good start, and has a lot of interesting an useful information in it. Though I see some issues with organization, as well as some very short sections (e.g. habitat, feeding, etc), so I don't think the article meets the current Good Article criteria at the present time. Following are specific comments and issues:

The lead section provides a reasonably good introduction to the article. I don't have too many complaints here, but I still think it could be expanded. It also seems to unnecessarily restate that the tamaraw is endemic to the Philippines. It might help to review WP:LEAD for further suggestions in this area.
I would recommend beginning the article with the 'etymology' section, or 'etymology and taxonomy'. It doesn't seem right to have this very basic information on the naming come several sections later on. It seems like the 'evolutionary history' section should be combined with etymology & taxonomy as well.
The 'ecology and life history' section is a bit awkward. Normally, ecology should cover information on the organism and its interaction with its environment. In this article, there's subsections here on feeding and life history, which don't seem to fit here. Furthermore, the information on being diurnal and nocturnal being in the feeding section seems out of place. I would recommend a reorganization, as follows:
Etymology & taxonomy
Biology & behavior (include subsections on physical characteristics, reproduction and life cycle, social structure, hunting and diet)
Ecology (habitat and ecological role)
Conservation status
Mythology and culture
The order of the last few section in the article should be rearranged a bit as well. In most articles on wikipedia, the last few sections should be:
See also (for links to other wikipedia articles only)
References (for inline citations)
Further reading (move the contents of the current 'bibliography' section here, and rename to avoid confusion with the references; this section should be for books and other sources not directly cited by text in the article, but should be made available for further understanding of the topic)
External links (all links to external websites should be placed here, unless you're linking to a journal article that's used as an inline citation, in which case it should appear under 'references')
The external links section is currently blank, with the exception of the two wikimedia templates. If you don't want to have this section that's fine, but it might make senseto move the two wikimedia sister project templates to the 'see also' section in this case (while they are still technically 'external' sites, they are nonetheless other wikimedia projects, so it's acceptable to list them under see also). You might want to review WP:EL for tips and guidelines on external links (what links are acceptable and what links are not).
Hope these suggestions help to improve the article. Additionally, it might also help to review some of the other organism articles listed under 'biology' at WP:GA, such as Elephant. The Jaguar article is also a good example as well, and is currently a featured article. Please renominate it at WP:GAC once the issues are addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

disagree on proposed structure. As a systematic zoologist, taxonomy should never be one of the first sections on an article about a specific species. I've always structured the articles I've worked on to establish the organisms' physical characteristics first and foremost. As with encyclopedic articles about anything, it's best to start with a description of what a particular "thing" is before one goes into classification and such. Regarding ecology, life history and behavior belong under ecology. The evolutionary history section is there to deal with the organism's actual evolutionary relationships and the like while the systematics section deals with its meta-classification history. I'll see what I can do about the other points. Shrumster 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think its time to renom this article. I think the only problem back then is the arrangement of the sections which are now resolved. To the reviewer, should the article still not pass, please hold the GA rather than fail it automatically. You can then tell me what should be done in my talk page or here.--Lenticel (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. --Efe (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 21, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass
I do not quite understand why the last reviewer has failed the article , but to my best understanding of the GA criteria, the article will pass, perhaps not with flying colours, but a pass nonetheless. 

  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Philbullpisolgrev.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)