# Talk:Scimitar oryx

If the species is considered EW, why do we use the phrase, "...inhabits grassy steppes..." instead of "...inhabited grassy steppes..." in the Habitats & Distribution section? Is it because of the re-introduction programme or perhaps the private herds? I have not seen this phrasing in other EW articles. I am not changing it because I have no knowledge of this subject (which is why I came to the article in the first place). Kevin/Last1in (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a bit confusing. For in some articles (like Wyoming toad) it is present tense they use. Still I think it would be good to hear past tense here. What do you think?--Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, For any range that the animal no longer inhabits, we should use past tense. If they are EW, they don't inhabit any of their former ranges, so it should all be past tense. Don Lammers (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your much required help! --Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scimitar oryx/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems the GA process is going a bit slow, so I'll take this one too. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It might be good to mention earlier in the intro that it is extinct in the wild, otherwise the sudden use of past tense will appear puzzling to the reader.
Done.
Instead of saying the unicorn could be based on an "injured oryx", perhaps state "an oryx with a broken horn"? "Injury" seems a bit too general. And is there anything on how the horns usually break?
Fixed. Sorry, no. I couldn't find literature for it.
On a related note, here are some free photos of specimens with broken horns, could maybe be added under behaviour or something.[1][2] The first is interesting, since it both shows how a one horned specimen, and one in semi-profile where the horn behind is partially covered, look like.
The first image may be used, but I believe it should be used when we relevantly discuss the topic of broken horns, which we don't here.
Is there an explanation for why Oryx algazel was "unsuitable"? It seems a bit handwavey as it is described now. For example, the genus name of the Dodo, Raphus, was considered unsuitable by Richard Owen, so he coined Didus, which was used long onwards, but the former name is the one used today, because it is oldest.
May be there in the PDF (available here), but I do not have access to it. To fix the issue of the writing, what do you find handwavey about it? I think it is because it is so plainly put.
Reproduction, diet, etc., are usually subsections under behaviour, not full sections.
OK, I have made them subheadings.
Are the holes they dig for resting mere depressions in the earth, or actual hole?
They're mere depressions. I have mentioned it now.
Maybe give a date for when they became extinct in the while, instead of just "not seen for 15 years". This article will likely last many years into the future, which would make "15 years" meaningless. An approximate date should also be included in the intro.
I couldn't find an approximate date, so I removed the "15 years" fact.
And that's it from me, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I have replied to all your comments. Well, I just wished to ask you if you judge this article as having good potential for FAC. What do you think of the article in that view? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I will pass the article now, as for FA, I think you should try to find out why the oldest name is deemed unsuitable, because it is not really an easy matter to abandon a name which has priority, so something interesting (for people interested in that sort of stuff) must have happened. You can ask for papers you don't have access to here, you get it quickly most of the time: [3] Apart from that, sourcing looks good. I agree that some better images could be used some places, for example the infobox image is unsharp and low res. These issues might be mentioned during a FAC, or they might not. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it's not ideal to say of a zoo photo "grazing in herds in a grassland". Either along the lines of "a (captive) herd, grazing." or something about "Scimitar oryx are herd animals". But we have 2 photos from Marwell zoo, not quite clear why. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure there are more interesting photos on Commons. There are some of animals lying down, drinking, etc., not just grazing. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You are free to choose and use any image you think proper in the article. I won't object. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Thank you! I would surely take your suggestions for FAC. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the article need to have some mention of the Texas rancher breeding programs, their assistance with sustaining the population, the judicial ruling against their hunting and placement on the endangered species list, and the subsequent loss in population numbers as a result of the ruling?  This was a very significant series of events to the survival of the species.
The 2nd paragraph of the Taxonomy and naming section completely misrepresents the sources and needs rewriting from scratch. Ellerman and Morrison-Scott are covered twice, once pretending that they were alive in 1827 (tao was assigned by Smith). They didn't "consider" elgazel "inappropriate"; they demonstrated it to be unavailable. Cretzschmar didn't assign dammah a decade later than 1827 -- this must be a careless copy-paste from the source. He assigned it in 1826 (a decade after Oken), obviously not replacing the 1827 names. I haven't bothered to copyedit this paragraph. --Stfg (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I have first removed the synonyms - the MSW book says only their second species names (tao, algazel) not the first genus ones. About this section, I am very sorry for all these mistakes. Fixed up now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Genetics and evolution section: this may be too technical. Is the reader of an encyclopedia really expected to know what a "2;17 centric fusion" is? There are also a couple of ambiguities:
"A deep divergence was marked ..." could either be saying that it was a marked (i.e. strong) divergence, or "marked" can mean "noticed".
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"In another study to note genetic differences ..." could mean either "in another study that noted genetic differences ..." or "in another study whose purpose was to observe genetic differences ...". --Stfg (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I hope this section is not so technical now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Ecology and behavior section: the first two sentences are in the present tense, even though they are EW. Do they really form herd of 70 in captivity? If bachelors formed herds in captivity, surely this would have been observed, wouldn't it? --Stfg (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)\
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll surely work on your suggestions. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 11:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Reproduction section: The second paragraph seems too technical to me -- why would anyone other than a zoo vet need to know this stuff? "Maximum diameters of the ovarian follicle and corpus luteum were found to be 15 mm (0.59 in) and 32 mm (1.3 in) respectively. The progestin concentrations in the excreta corresponded with the functional corpus luteum, and was useful for monitoring luteal activities and functions better.[25]". Why are the the maximum diameter of the ovarian follicle and corpus luteum significant? In the second sentence, what was useful for monitoring ..., and better than what? --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Reproduction section: "Ejaculation occurs in 30 minutes of courtship." What does "in 30 minutes of courtship mean. But in any case, the cited source does not mention ejaculation. --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Habitat and distribution section: Great Steppe is a redirect to Eurasian Steppe, which is certainly not where this oryx lived. So where are we referring to here? --Stfg (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Status and conservation section: I have removed "A female calf was born in the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute of the National Zoo in Front Royal, Virginia on April 16, 2010, increasing the Smithsonian's herd to 17.[31]" from the end of the section as not notable and per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Otherwise, why not report every birth? The citation was: Associated Press (5 May 2010). "Rare Oryx, Extinct In Wild, Born At National Zoo". Huffington Post. --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Sources: I am not an expert on sourcing, so you may want to get another opinion on this, but I am concerned that an article being prepared for FAC makes such heavy use of Ultimate Ungulate (FN4), ARKive (FN5) and Animal Diversity Web (FN16). These are tertiary sources, and I doubt their reliability. They all cite their sources, but are they all sources that we would consider reliable by our standards? Are they reviewed to our FA standard? Then there is the problem of accumulating errors. For example, ARKive says civil war in Chad in the 1980s, but the source it cites says it's the one that began in the 1960s. This led a previous editor here to name the wrong war. Another example: ADW says that the average lifespan in captivity is 27.5 years, but the source it cites actually says that this figure is the maximum lifespan in captivity. --Stfg (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Ready for FAC? I think maybe not yet. Apart from the problem of the garbled taxonomy and naming section and the poor sourcing, I found and corrected a number of errors -- who knows how many I overlooked? I've also placed several tags. I would recommend a PR before heading to FAC. --Stfg (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I am busy presently, so I need time to fix the issues you have mentioned. PR is a good idea, I thought to send it for a PR after the copyedit. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep it watchlisted for a while. --Stfg (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I have not fixed the issues you mentioned after the Reproduction part, as it needs more time for I need to get the good references. Yes, you are right- there is an overuse of refs like Ultimate Ungulate. I'll try to get more book sources here. FAC is far now, this needs more reworking. Thanks, Stfg, for your thorough copyedit. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"Weaning starts at 3.5 months, and the young become fully independent at around 14 weeks old."
3.5 months is the same as 14 weeks.  Is this a case of conflicting information from two sources?  As it is, it doesn't make much sense. 66.30.195.11 (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(I hope I'm doing this properly. Don't know if I've ever contributed to a talk page before.)
The last part of the article indicates that the Oryx is featured on the logo for Disney's Animal Kingdom and for the Harambe Wildlife Reserve.  I believe this is not correct, unless things have changed recently.  The symbol of the reserve is the sable antelope, which has similarly large horns, though somewhat differently shaped.  This piece of information was for a number of years part of the narration of the Safari attraction. If this is the case for the reserve, which is part of the park's thesis attraction, it seems reasonable to extend this identification to the logo of the park itself, which has a similar horned animal.
If others are better informed than I on this issue, I will gladly be corrected.
Cigar95 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention! I removed this content, as it was anyway unsourced. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In the Genetics section, we read "The scimitar oryx has 58 chromosomes - one pair of large submetacentric autosomes and 27 acrocentric autosomal pairs. The X and Y chromosomes are the largest and smallest acrocentrics." Well, one pair plus 27 pair add up to 56, so I'm guessing that the X and Y are not counted among the mentioned acrocentric pairs, but this is still rather puzzling for the non-technical reader (are X and Y not "autosomal"?). If I am interpreting the ambiguity correctly, I suggest it ought to read something more like "The scimitar oryx has 58 chromosomes - one pair of large submetacentric autosomes, 27 acrocentric autosomal pairs and an X and Y pair. The X and Y chromosomes are the largest and smallest acrocentrics." Otherwise, could someone perhaps provide the correct interpretation and appropriate edit? Thanks. 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:2826:9CC:91EF:3F78 (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)JustSomeWikiReader