Talk:Quoll

To all those people who think this was a stub: it's more a disambiguation page. The different quoll species are sufficiently different (also and in poarticular in size) and occur in and geographically distinct areas. Maybe treating them in their own sub-articles is warranted. Lupo 09:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are people who seriously claim that quolls are very suitable for keeping as domestic pets, and they suggest that they be widely adopted in Australia in this role, as a substitute for dogs or cats, which are claimed to be environmentally harmful. There often seems to be a strong ideological basis for these suggestions, which may possibly detract from the validity of the idea, in that people making claims on ideological grounds are sometimes less than objective.

I just thought it would be good if the article could contain a section covering this and giving any information which would support and/or refute this claim. (I don't know enough about the subject to do it myself.) M.J.E. (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article Rabbits in Australia hints that they may be better at catching rabbits than the foxes and such that replace them. I find this very hard to believe. Look at this animal and then look at a Rabbit. This is an extraordinary claim, and there is no corresponding claim in this article that Quolls can catch rabbits. I'm sure they sometimes kill sick, dying, or baby rabbits, but the claim that a quoll can catch a rabbit anywhere near as well as a fox seems extraordinary and so I want to remove it from the article Rabbits in Australia. But first I ask here, is this claim as extraordinary as it seems to me? I suppose they could get them under the ground, but even there, I don't think so. If they eat many rabbits it would say so here in this article, wouldn't it? Chrisrus (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm Savetheoceans (talk) from the Croatan High School AP biology project. I was just wondering if you guys think I would have more luck if I worked on the quoll as a species, or if I would do better if I went in depth in a subspecies? Savetheoceans (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Isn't it a genus as written in the first sentence? A complete article would cover both the higher level and subtopics such as subspecies. Although subtopics are generally summarised with a {{main}} link for each subtopic. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much. My teacher was just worried that the Quoll as a whole might not work because every sub-species is a tad bit different. It seems to be working well so far! Thanks for all the help I really appreciate it. --Savetheoceans (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can help out too with formatting all the information for the different subspecies. Painted turtle is a good example of an article like this in that regard. You may want to check out how it's written. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey sorry to ask for help again but this little snippet of information is floating around the article "The tribe Dasyurini to which quolls belong also includes the Tasmanian devil, antechinuses, the Kowari, and mulgaras.[1]" and I can't seem to find out quite where it belongs... Does it fit in the taxonomy aspect??? Thanks again--Savetheoceans (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think it does indeed belong right where it is, but what's odd about that paragraph is the first sentence, which talks about fossils. I would take that sentence out of the first paragraph and make it a seperate, second paragraph under that same section. From their, you could explore fossill record references on this animal a little further and depending on how much or how little you find either a) make a proper paragraph out of the information or b) scrap the sentence because there is nothing else to discuss. That's just my advice. You are doing excellent work, keep it up friend.  :) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also in this section, the new information on the species is great, but it really needs to be in sentence form. You could initially put things in the article as bulleted lists, just to get your bearings, but they will have to be changed later to full sentences. I can help you with this if you want.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Any help is graciously accepted! yeah the fossil info isn't mine... it was there when i adopted this article. So i don't know much about it. Research is definitelys needed there.. So hopefully I will have info up sometime this week.. Thanks--Savetheoceans (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

That seems to be accurate information, however it's sourced in a book, so we may have to find that book to ensure that material is really in there. Or, you could find your own source for fossil factoids and replace the sentence with one of your own. It's your call. You're doing great work, keep it up. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

  DoneThe article is looking better each time I read it, but I do have one suggestion. The order of the sections will eventually need to be rearranged. Reproduction is often last in an article if there is no material on conservation and human interaction. Thus I would move reproduction a little further up in the article and make Conservation the last section, at least for now. (Although this is by no means critical at this stage in the game). NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC) will do thanks for the advice--Savetheoceans (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I know that I am super far away from GA status now, but once I get close could someone please tell me so I can send it in for peer review? Thanks. --Savetheoceans (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Will do. --Guerillero | My Talk 12:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think we are getting close to GA, anyone else share my optimism?--Savetheoceans (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Putting pictures in a wikipedia article thoroughly confuses me, so any help is welcome! --Savetheoceans (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing man (woman?). If you go into edit mode, you can see how I've formatted this image to appear the way it does. You can change the side of the page it shows up on and the caption all within the brackets. Let me know if there's something else confusing you, glad to help.  :) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:41,21 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks so much! don't you have to jump through a ton of hoops to get pictures that are not on wikimedia? --Savetheoceans (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have to jump through a ton of hoops to use images that are not "free". The most restrictive license allowed is something along the lines of the creative commons attribution-share alike license. The good news is that commons has 16 files already. For right now, just assume that you are not allowed to use non-free images. TBH, it will make you life many times easier. --Guerillero | My Talk 12:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK! Thanks.. In class we were talking about how much of a pain it was to find images, and I just got confused. Thanks for the clarification--Savetheoceans (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC) So I got the image in, but now I can't get it to go in the right spot. I wish that it could be in the tiger quoll block on my habitat section --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey.. I found a super good picture of quolls in a log, their natural habitat on flickr. Someone was telling me that flickr is accepted by wikipedia and you can upload photos from them with ease. Is that true? here is the link if anyone wants to give it a shot. http://www.flickr.com/photos/27606802@N02/3269430734 --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the license of that photo its not eligible. (look over on the right column for a license heading)--Guerillero | My Talk 13:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

So, I was trying to add pictures of range maps for the different sub-species of quolls and I can't figure it out. I just want to use the maps found on the other wikipedia articles.. can someone please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheoceans (talk • contribs) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain more the issue? You can see the version that is working in the article already, just copy the line and amend the file name to match a different picture. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yay! I got the pictures in :)! But they look awkward.. does anyone know how to make it look less awkward??? Thanks--Savetheoceans (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have less maps - have a map that covers all Quoll species on one map and colour code the range of each species. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I cant find a map that follows all of the sub-species of quolls. Is there any way one could be created?--Savetheoceans (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC) I thought this picture was really cool, can I put it anywhere? http://www.flickr.com/photos/statelibraryofnsw/5938368471/ --Savetheoceans (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is very good progress on this article. Keep adding material! It seems that several editors are active in tweaking the formulations. Use the opportunity by feeding them more stuff to work on. Add a reference to every statement that is added. It is very difficult to add the references as an afterthought. The chapter on threats has only one reference. Do you remember where that stuff came from? --Ettrig (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is a great point guys, add references as you go. It will make your lives so much easier later on.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I haven't been on in a while... High school homework is turning out to be heavier than I thought. I have the reference for the threats.. Its part of another area and I just havent had the time. Thanks so much for helping me though :) --Savetheoceans (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Just looked at my threats stuff.. Turns out I got all the information from that one great source! :) should i cite it after every paragraph? OR is it good as is? I can always find some more citations if that would make it better--Savetheoceans (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would say that, for right now, overciting is a good thing. As vast amounts of material get entered into the article, it can become confusing from which source certain facts have come from. I would put a citation after every sentence really, just until paragraphs' sentence organizations begin to become more stable. Just one man's advice; I've found that tactic helpful in the past. You're doing great. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey guys. I have been trying to find information on the quoll pertaining to conservation efforts. I'm having a really hard time finding it for the species as a whole. Do you think I should divide it up like I did the habitat.. But then again. I feel that I may be seperating it too much.. Should I chose a sub-species thats a stub? I'm really confused...--Savetheoceans (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The division of this section will depend on what the resources say. If there is different legislation for the different subspecies, I would certainly break it up. However, if you can find material that says there are protection efforts going on species wide, include that. If both are found, use both. It's a tough choice ultimately; conservation is no the easiest section to write (in fact, I dreaded it). You also have to consider how 'treatened' this species is considered, if it's not really declining in numbers, there may be no real conservation efforts going on to protect it. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article says that quoll is a genus!? --Ettrig (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I blame Savetheoceans! He said it first.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm concerned about the level of your references. My hope is that you will explore the world of academia as it relates to your topic, discovering the experts in that particular field and the most respected publications on the topic. Instead... I see this: Enchanted Learning^® produces children's educational web sites which are designed to capture the imagination while maximizing creativity, learning, and enjoyment.Enchanted Learning and this: Welcome to www.kidcyber.com.au, a website established in 1999 for primary students and teachers. Cyberkid. If you submitted this paper as a class assignment it would be an epic fail with these references! Dig Deeper.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

This link is simply an advertisement / commercial web, I'm sure they appreciate the link and the business it generates! Place AD Here--JimmyButler (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I fixed them all. I must say it took a lot of digging.. and a lot of time. but now they are all scientific, peer reviewed, and hurt your head/put you to sleep trying to read them. Thank goodness for the "find" key. :) --Savetheoceans (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I found an interesting fact, but I just don't know where it will fit in! "Captain Cook collected quolls along the east coast in 1770, and recorded ‘quoll’ as an Aboriginal name for these animals" "Australian Threatened Species, Tiger Quoll, Spotted-tailed Quoll or Spot-tailed Quoll, Dasyurus maculatus" (PDF). Australian Government: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities. June 3 2011. Retrieved October 25 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Maybe taxonomy? Is that how the genus got its name?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

it fits quite nicely there, thanks!--Savetheoceans (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

If not, then the article should be changed. --Ettrig (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Where should I change the article. Which part is wrong.. Tasmania is off the coast of Australia. So it is like New Guinea. --Savetheoceans (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The text under Habitat says the quolls were found all over the two land masses. According to your answer this excludes Tasmania. But quolls both were and are on Tasmania. Also: This text lacks references. --Ettrig (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I put that info up before i was finished with my research.... I fixed it. Thanks for pointing out mistakes, even though I am bad at accepting criticism I am definitely learning that criticism is a good thing, and only makes articles better. Thanks!:) --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tasmania is not a separate country...it is part of Australia, and part of the Australian Continent (as an island). 58.6.103.74 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I apologize that I haven't been on in a while. My homework load has been ridiculously heavy (You can thank my English teacher for that). So I apologize if it seems as if I have been blowing you all off. I really appretiate your help! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheoceans (talk • contribs) 21:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem for Wikipedia, as NODEADLINE. Your own course work maybe differnt of course. ;) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Cane toads are the quolls' main threat", how can it be for species that don't share its habitat? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

cane toads were introduced into Australia in 1935. Ever since then their population has been rising. Quolls eat the toads, which are poisonous and die :(--Savetheoceans (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but I don't believe they are in the West, Tazmania or New Guinea. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

New Guinea

The cane toad was successfully introduced into New Guinea to control hawk moth larvae that were eating sweet potato crops.[52] The first release occurred in 1937 using toads imported from Hawaii, with a second release the same year using specimens from the Australian mainland. Evidence suggests there was a third release in 1938, consisting of toads that were being used for human pregnancy tests—many species of toad were found to be effective for this task, and were employed for approximately 20 years after the discovery was announced in 1948.[82][83] Initial reports argued that the toads were effective in reducing the incidence of cutworm and it was suggested that sweet potato yields were improving.[84] As a result, these first releases were followed by further distributions across much of the region,[84] although their effectiveness on other crops, such as cabbages, has been questioned—when the toads were released at Wau, the cabbages provided insufficient shelter and the toads rapidly left the immediate area for the superior shelter offered by the forest.[85] A similar situation had previously arisen in the Australian cane fields, but this experience was either unknown or ignored in New Guinea.[85] The cane toad has since become abundant in rural and urban areas.[86] This is from the cane toad wikipedia cite. according to this article: http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/04/15/222901_tasmania-news.html cane toads may be encroaching into Tasmania. and for the western australia,http://www.canetoads.com.au/ this website shows cane frogs in western australia. It could be that the map is dated? Can I keep them in my article for now? Should I just say a major not main threat? --Savetheoceans (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure, you can keep it in, the idea is to discuss to make sure it's factually true. What are the page(s) in the cited ref "National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus"? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can we add page numbers to books, journals and pdfs. The content wants to be checked and it's more difficult to find without knowing which page(s) it came from. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

pages 6&7, how do I cite this since I have used this source for far more than just the cane toad threat?--Savetheoceans (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

thats no problem except for the fact that I used some of the cites more than once.. Do I write all of the pages I've used?--Savetheoceans (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

If it's the same pages you can use a repeat citation Wikipedia:References#Repeated_citations or if it is the same source but diffferent pages see (WP:CITESHORT). You may like to look at some articles where this is doen like Painted turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just dropped by to say the article is looking good. One quibble, the map could be cropped a lot. Okay two quibbles, take a day and learn the ins and outs of reference formatting. It will save you so much trouble in the future; I promise it's worth it to take the time now. Keep it up C-roatan.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I don't know how to crop the map, I tried and failed multiple time. guest,If you want to try and crop it be myguest. I am computer inept.... What's wrong with my references. Thanks for the help! :)--Savetheoceans (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I was going to fix up you're image before it gets deleted. What base map did you use to generate this? That is needed for copyright reasons. Cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 04:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I used inkscape. Is it ok? Why would it be deleted. Thanks for the help.. My friend and I made it, so no copyrights....--Savetheoceans (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

But the map that is behind the green areas that show where quoll van be found, where did it come from. --Guerillero | My Talk 12:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was a free wikipedia image. --Savetheoceans (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was most likely under a license that requires attribution. As an example, this image was made by layering two images on commons then doing some tweaking. I still had to provide attribution because I used source images. Currently, What your image description page says is that you took a blank slate on inkscape and created the entire thing.

Think of it this way, what would any of your teachers do if you turned in a paper for school with no citations and it was obvious that you used source materials? When they approached you, your reply was something along the lines of: "Well I used this book..." What sort of grade would you receive? In the same way, I am asking you to cite your sources for the image. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Basically, all Guerillero is asking for is the name of the SVG image you started with. No big deal really. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I got it from the templates. Here is the file File:BlankMap-FlatWorld6.svg :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheoceans (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It will not slip up any reviews --Guerillero | My Talk 00:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey everyone! I think that the amount of info that has been added to this article is amazing. We have come really far from the four sentence stub that this article started as. With that said, I am having trouble finding more information. I feel as if this article is about GA status, but I am extremely biased, as this article highlights my efforts. To get it to GA though, we need some peer reviews. I put the article up a little while ago, yet no one has responded. My friend's article spotted eagle ray has been getting a lot of peer review and should go up for GA sometime soon. I feel as if both articles are at the same point information-wise. So. If anyone wants to peer review it so that we can send it up for GA during Thanksgiving (my goal was to get it sent for GA review by then) that would be great. :) --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I like the new map a lot. Would it be possible to improve it even more by drawing the ranges for the different species in different colors? Maybe also crop the file to remove Asia? This is just my personal taste. don't think it is required. One thing that must be done though, is to expand the lead so that it in a reasonably balanced way summarizes all of the article. Try for example to write one or two sentences per section in the article. You can also look in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The quoll species are refered to as sub-species at some places in the article. There are very few wikilinks. Try to attract the attention of User:Malleus Fatuorum, see what happened to the spotted eagle ray. --Ettrig (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I uploaded the picture of the quoll map that is used on the article page. I made this personally using inkscape. I don't know how to cite the copyright correctly and wikipedia ?wants me to know that it could be up for deletion. Can someone help me?--Savetheoceans (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

you can contest the deletion on the page and explain that you created the picture, they will let you keep it.MilkStraw532 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

By the way this picture isn't used in the article now. It was replaced by a file on Commons. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 23:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

So all is well with the world as far as this article is concerned?--Savetheoceans (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yep. It looks good. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article is inconsistent on whether Quoll is a genus or species. It should be genus and species OR species and sub-species. Currently the article contains a mix. --Ettrig (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think I fixed it up.. Don't be afraid to point one out that I missed :)--Savetheoceans (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Original

The Western Quoll, or Chuditch, formerly occurred as two subspecies over approximately 70% of the Australian continent, being found in every mainland state and the Northern Territory; museum specimens from the east of Australia of D. geoffroii geoffroii are known from Peak Downs in eastern Queensland (Thomas 1888), the Liverpool plains of New South Wales (Gould 1840), and Mildura New South Wales (Kreft 1857). The western subspecies, D. g. fortis, is now restricted to the south-west of Western Australia, occurring at low densities throughout the Jarrah forest and more patchily in the drier woodlands and mallee shrublands of the central and southern Wheatbelt (Maxwell et al. 1996).

Original with cuts

The Western Quoll, or Chuditch, formerly occurred as two subspecies over approximately 70% of the Australian continent, being found --- D. g. fortis, is now restricted to the south-west of Western Australia, occurring at low densities throughout the Jarrah forest and more patchily in the drier woodlands and mallee shrublands of the central and southern Wheatbelt.

This article

The western quoll once existed as two sub-species and was found in 70 per cent of Australia, but is now found only in the south-west of Western Australia. They can be spotted at low densities in the Jarrah Forest and more scarcely in the shrublands and woodlands of the central and southern wheat belt.

In my mind this is not independent writing, but rather cut and paste and superficial modification. This is the only passage I checked. Please check the other ones yourselves.

--Ettrig (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

OH my goodness. I am embarassed to have this in my article! I can't believe that I plagarized! Please let me make it up to you! Thanks for catching it!--Savetheoceans (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Make it up to me ??? (Well, you know what I want you to do. But mainly, the AP Biology project is for YOUR benefit. --Ettrig (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just meant that I hope that you will not look down on me or on this article or project. Again I am incredibly embarassed... I think I fixed all of the mistakes though.. So can we delete this section and pretend like it didn't happen?--Savetheoceans (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I checked my article. I think my biggest problem was in the habitat. .There are only so many ways you can word those kind of things. Again, I am more than embarrassed that my information and the original information was sooo similar.:( I think I fixed all the kinks.. Or at least I hope I did. Thanks again for your sharp eyes! --Savetheoceans (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The following suggesstions

1. Add more content, ideally from the highest quality references(books and journal that cover the topic in detail).
2. Add WP:Page numbers where available. i.e If page numbers for the Hill refs are different then break up into individaul refs with page numbers.
3. ref name=PWS is a cite web but has no url. That's illogical.
4. Alt text on images per WP:ALT.
5. Write lead per WP:LEAD (best after body of article complete and stable).
6. Add a few more wikilinks on uncommon words or concepts like sodium fluoroacetate and Darling Harbour.
7. Requires a copy edit and redundancy check.
8. Check references information and where applicable filled in. i.e publisher, year, isbn, pages
9. Use {{convert}} or put both manually for imperial and metric measures.
10. Crop map

Hi, I am thankful for the peer review but I do have a few questions.

1. What is the PWS that is talked about in the peer review?

   PWS is ref named "PWS", it has a url now.

2. How do I find the page for this book. The info was there before I adopted the article and I can't find the book online.

   Good question, ask the editor who added it originally? Ask in WP:MAMMALS if anyone has the book. I checked google books and does not look like the claimed content is in that book although the exact 'Fog City Press' publication of the book is NOT available. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

3. There is no article for Sodium fluoroacetate. So I did not wikilink it. Is that ok?

   No, it has an article but you don't notice error is with spelling, the two examples given where just examples, look for others things to wikilink in the article.

--Savetheoceans (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I removed the ticks above as an increasing amount of things claimed to have been done which are or where not. It's also messy being on the talk page for a peer review, what's wrong with using the peer review page? In addition someone doing a peer review may not read the talk page. I suggest you move the text relating to the peer review into the peer review. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Forget the alt text, hardly anybody here knows how to do it properly anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can we move this discussion back into Wikipedia:Peer review/Quoll/archive1. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll comment there tomorrow probably, but in the meantime I've pointed out to SunCreator that alt text is not one of the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I just put the suggestions in here for ease of use to me. I will delete in once I have finished. :)There was not a way for me to ask questions about the suggestions on the peer review page, so I put it here....--Savetheoceans (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC) I did the alt text. I just don't know if I did it correctly. I followed the instructions, but I can't tell if it works because the images show up on my computer screen, and I don't know how to do text to talk to double check it--Savetheoceans (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC) On the peer review page there is an alt text checker. I checked it and I passed, so all is well--Savetheoceans (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

It only checks for the presence of alt text, not whether it's of any value or not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well then, I am thankful to you for acting as the value checker of all of wikipedia :) --Savetheoceans (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

If only. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

:) --Savetheoceans (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I fixed everything that I could for peer review. I don't know what else I can do to make this article better. My resources are drying up, and I feel like GA is getting closer with every step, but spotted eagle ray is getting a lot more peer review and help and yet it still isn't nominated for GA. So what else can be done. Should we nominate it, what about the questions I asked in the peer review? I just feel like this article has come to an abrupt halt, and frankly, I don't know what to do. --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The word settler requires more explanation. See settler colonialism. --Ettrig (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The early settlers were Englishmen. Is that enough to say? or does it require even more elaboration???--Savetheoceans (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think your elaboration is very neat. --Ettrig (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, so all is good?

• McCay, George (1999). The Encyclopedia of Mammals. Fog City Press. ISBN 1740896688.

The ISBN and changed title was edited to the above book information. The ISBN is copyright 2005, so something is not correct. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suspect this reference just needs to be dropped. I assume it was pre-AP project. There is no actual text written under Fog City Press titled Mammals in any year that I can find as the original cite suggest. The only thing I can find is The Encyclopedia of Mammals authored by McCay and published by Fog City. I missed the copyright inconsistency - thinking I had tracked down the correct book. The next step would be to verify content and page number. However, rather than continuing to guess if this is it and the year was in error as well as the title - it might be better to junk it and find a different reference that supports the text. If that can't be done.. then perhaps delete the info. --JimmyButler (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

As you guessed, the book was pre-AP project. I think that junking it would be the best idea, because I went to look it up and I could never find the right one, and even when I thought I was close, I couldn't find page numbers. I think I am going to look for a new reference for the information, but if worse comes to worse, I might have to delete the information. thanks --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just looked at the info, and on the peer review, I was told that the info wasn't important anyway, so I think I am just going to delete it.--Savetheoceans (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey everyone. I just finished with most of the peer review. The reason I say most of the peer review is because at first I changed everything, but looking back, I decided that, in my opinion, the old way was better. For example, I saw no reason to take out mentions of the threats from the conservation section. I thought that it helped link the two, and make the article a better read. Also, when told to differentiate more between Australia and Tasmania, I did, but the article in my mind became choppy. Lastly, a suggestion to separate the article even more for each of the 6 species of quoll worried me. The peer review said I was being general, but I thought that this article was meant to be general, and that if you wanted specification, one could go to the other articles for a particular species. Then again, I am just a teenage girl, so I don't want to seem like I know everything. I am proud of my work, and I think that might cloud my judgement on what needs to change. If anyone would like to explain how these would make it better, or make the changes themselves, go right ahead. This is a learning experience and I am just beginning to understand Wikipedia. Thanks! --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be best to handle comments in the following order: Read, Understand, Evaluate, Change. Change should come last, after you have come to the conclusion that the change is a good one. Wikipedia is to be driven by consensus. In some cases it takes time and discussion to reach consensus. Only in rare cases should the final decision be made by vote. In Wikipedia itself, almost no person has particular authority to decide what is right. (But in your case I suppose the teacher has some authority over what you do in Wikipedia.) As for Australia/Tasmania, I did not ask for differentiation. Australia is a landmass. I asked whether Tasmania is considered part of that land mass. This depends on the meaning of landmass. Because English is not my mother tongue and because I have never lived in an English-speaking country, I am sometimes unsure of the precise meaning of common English words. In this case I felt that the word landmass can only refer to contiguous land and would therefore exclude Tasmania. But we wanted to say that the quolls occur on New Guinea, Australia and Tasmania. I think it would be quite OK to say that the quolls are indigenous to Australia and New Guinea. There is no need to use the word land mass. --Ettrig (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was wrong about Australia. Here is a better solution. (But again: use your own judgment.) The quolls are indigenous to Australia. (Check the wikilink!) --Ettrig (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh my goodness! Maybe I should have clarified. Ettrig, all of your help is wanted and needed. The fact that Enlgish is not your first language makes what you are doing even more impressive. It was not you, but a comment made by yomangi. I just didn't want to point fingers thats all. :)--Savetheoceans (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

That WP:Easter egg is definitely to be avoided. Better to say the continent of Australia. And while I'm here Savetheoceans, you asked me earlier whether I thought the article was ready for GA, and I think it is. Bear in mind that it can easily take a week or more before a reviewer shows up, so you've got plenty of time to continue buffing up the article in the meantime. Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes and no! Yes, "continent of Australia" is better. No, Australia only, linking to Australia (continent), is not an easter egg. The continent is one of two equally valid meanings. --Ettrig (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will put it up right now! Oh my goodness this is so exciting!--Savetheoceans (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

he lead says "Quolls are protected by strict conservation laws in an effort to increase their numbers", but I can't see anything about this in the body of the article. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You might want to take a look at the article River martin and the two articles about the species. These articles form a Good topic, menaing all three articles are classified as Good and as relating well to each other. Maybe this gives some ideas on what to put in the genus and species articles, respectively. --Ettrig (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Quoll/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Right, I'll begin reviewing and jot notes below - looks promising: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Some reorganising is in order....

this sentence " Early English settlers referred to quolls as "native cats", "native polecats", or "spotted marten". " is about what the critters were called and is best off in taxonomy not description, and would slot in well after the last sentence in the taxonomy section. In fact, up until the late 1970s, all the books called them native cats, until there was a swing back to calling them quolls. Would be great to get this history of names into the article. I might try and hunt something myself...

Now here is an article which I like as it goes into greater detail than what we have which is scattered about the web. Note that the alternate name Mustela quoll which is proposed and rejected by the authors is less interesting than the lengthy discussion on the etymology and early discussion by settlers. added - the species name disputed we can add to the individual species it's relevant to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

aha! it was David Fleay who was instrumental in resurrecting the term! Now he's an iconic figure in wildlife conservation etc. here so this is very interesting. A fascinating book this, not sure if folks outside Oz can see it on google books...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

in a similar vein "Quolls are carnivorous marsupials." is about behaviour, not description, and so should be moved there.

I'd reorganise the taxonomy section so that the " The name Dasyurus means "hairy-tail"..." is the first sentence - have the naming and name first, then relationships to other critters, then species, then common names.

The section called Habitat is actually about Distribution and habitat and should be renamed thus.

The caption "The quoll's range" - erm, there are more than one quoll so the apostrophe goes.........where? ;)

Ditto at "The quoll's diet is dominated by medium-sized mammals..."

A 2008 study of the pouches of spotted-tail quolls... (this is the alternate name for which species?)

I suspect there will be some anatomical information about what features the critters have in common skeleton-wise, and what distinguishes or allies them to their relatives. I'll have a nose around and ask. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

a bookmark of a paper on genetic study of Dasyuridae - as it is an Australian journal - easy for me to get fulltext of this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC) now added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article is important to get. I can get the fulltext of this and add if you don't have access to get it. But right now am tired and need to sleep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would love full access to this article. Thanks :) Savetheoceans (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK - I can't attach files to the "email user" option. If you email me I can reply with the file attached. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Emailing you would be great. But I don't have your email address and I could not find it on your talk page, this may just be an oversight on my part. Thanks Savetheoceans (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Go to User:Casliber and in the frame on the left of the screen you'll see a Toolbox, one of the the options of which is to "email this user". Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Malleus! Just emailed him. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sent now - don't get too bogged down in the middle bits as it is very heavy going, but the conclusions are interesting. If you feel lost with it I'll have a go at tweaking :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just as a word of encouragement, you're really lucky to get Casliber as your reviewer. He's far more demanding than the average GA reviewer would be, but if he passes it you can be pretty sure that it's top notch. Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Aww, gee thanks Malleus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am more than thankful that he is my reviewer. I will have a look at the article today. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

So, I've begun reading the article, but I can't figure out where I should put this in the article. Should I write the information in habitat, behaviour, or description? Thanks Savetheoceans (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

What I would do is combine the list of species info and have it only once - in taxonomy. Then I'd add the material to habitat and behaviour. Have a go and I'll review and fine-tune afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

It becomes tricky in some of these parent articles (i.e. of genus rather than species) about how much info to include etc. I'll have a think about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "There are more than one quoll"? The subject is the genus, not individual quolls, hence "the quoll's diet" and "the quoll's range" is correct. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, I think it depends on context (i.e. singular as a group defining noun, or plural as shorthand for (the six species of) quoll). The one in the description section...nevermind I think we can ditch that one....the one in diet comes after two sentences talking about larger quolls and smaller quolls, so I reckon that one looks odd as a singular. The one in reproduction I agree goes best as singular. The one next to "cane toad" I am iffy about - it is not a threat to the majority of species whose range isn't anywhere near the toad, so doesn't go well there - I'd specifiy the species it is threatening (as long as the source does) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for all of the editing suggestions and for editing the article. I think that I have fixed most of the edit suggestions. I am a bit confused about what you want me to do concerning the David Fleay. Do you want me to do research? What information are you looking to be added to the article? Thanks again --Savetheoceans (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was giving you first dibs on adding it, but never mind as I am more familiar with the material, so will add soonish. added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well thanks! I am really happy with the amount of work that we've put into the article since nomination. Its starting to look really good. Thank you for reviewing it! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ack! Free time has been patchy - back later today (Oz time) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

No worries! There is no rush. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now, here's a tricky bit - one thing you try and do is to not mention bits twice if you don't need to - see this edit where I found you'd mentioned the number of species twice in the lead, so I removed one. There is a remaining issue in that the list of the six species is listed out twice in the article and it'd be great if we could remove one - this can be maddening. This is avery common problem in articles with groups of critters in them.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

are you talking about the species being repeated in the lead and in the taxonomy??? Because if you are, maybe we could keep both in as I believe that they are important content to their specific subtitles... Savetheoceans (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

No no, I mean combining the lists that are in (1) taxonomy, and (2) distribution and habitat - I'd place a more comprehensive profile of the species in taxonomy and make more of a paragraph in distribution and habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok. So I did my best to take out a list.. I hope it makes sense... Would you mind striking through what has been discussed and done so that I know whats done? Thanks Savetheoceans (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Errrr, sorry I realise I wasn't clear above - I meant to keep a list (profile) of the species in taxonomy and make a para of all species distribution and habitat in distribution and habitat. Oops. I'll strike as much as possible above...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I put the list back in. Is it all better now? Savetheoceans (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Getting there (sorry, been a very busy couple of days!) - I will show you what I mean. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, have a look now and see what you think. Also note some questions at Talk:Quoll#More_comments, which I think are valid. The tiger and eastern quolls co-occur - I do recall seeing a paper documenting that they have different niches (one is much bigger and hence they have some diferences in prey) somehwere which I think would be good to add. WIll see if I can find it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Any information you find is valuable to the article. On that note, my teacher is looking at the article you emailed to me, as it was a bit too scientific in its vocabulary for me to understand completely.

I will be happy to address all of the concerns as soon as possible. Sorry I have been away for Thanksgiving, where internet connection was spotty at best! I will start editing tonight! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I hate to seem pushy, but I would just like to reiterate that I was hoping that we could get this article to GA before Christmas. I am working on this for a school project, and quality is most important, but it would also be nice to show my teacher that my article made it to the prestigious position of GA. I apologize if you feel that I am rushing you. Thanks :) Savetheoceans (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Right then, marking time...

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:  

Manual of Style compliance:  

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:  

Citations to reliable sources, where required:  

No original research:  

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:  

Focused:  

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:  

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):  

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  

Overall:

Pass or Fail:   - I rejigged the diet myself as it was a bit tricky, it sorta covers the same material that I was going to hunt down anyway so I think we're over the line for GA status. Have a look at how I rejigged it. Anyway, there we go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

WoooHOOOOOO!!! yay GA! Awesome! Thanks so much for being such a helpful GA reviewer. I love the new diet stuff! :) :) :) ;) 21:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheoceans (talk • contribs)

Cheer up! This is going fine. Take one problem at a time.

• Of all the places where the name is not used, why is only Sydney mentioned? I guess this should be explained or this mentioning should be removed.

Because Sydney was where Cook had landed and was where the specimen was believed to have been collected. Hence the interest in the name having come from north Queensland aborogines (5000 km away!). I'll see what I can add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Maybe clarify that the length of the tail should be added to the other length specified. Or shouldn't it?

• distinct areas is used after a list of habitats. There is a need to clarify that these are distinct geographical areas. Maybe also sort the statements so that range statements come together and habitat statements together.

agree with adding adjective. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• After "Trans Fly ecoregion", "southern part of of New Guinea" is redundant

• I feel that the reasoning as the bronze and western quolls share 98 per cent of their DNA is incomplete. Of course it was stranded, in the sense that after this, it cannot migrate or spread to mainland Australia. 98% rhymes well with the fact that the difference between human and chimpanzee is about the same. We parted about 6 Mya and this article says that all the extant quoll species diverged more than 4 Mya and bronze and western are the most geographically separated so it is natural to think that they diverged substantially more than 4 Mya. But again, how does this relate to a geographical separation that occurred 8 thousand years ago? That is practically yesterday, in this evolutionary perspective.

• mesic zone is too difficult for me.

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• The quoll is a solitary creature, with contact with ... in social activities What? It is solitary except in social activities? I think this requires elaboration.

• There is some tension between the four sentences about what the quoll eats. The two first specify per species group. The third seems to be about all species. Is it applicable to both species groups? The same question about the fourth statement.

--Ettrig (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I fixed what I could but I do have a few questions:

• Is my rewording for the "solitary creatures.." ok?
• I cannot see a different way to specify their diet, though I am open to any suggestions
• I thought that the 98% DNA match was interesting, and I threw it in as more of a fun fact. If you don't think it is necessary you can delete it if you want. I just thought it was unique.

Sorry it took me so long to reply back, I was on vacation. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I liked the 98% line, I think leaving it in might whet the appetite of the reader....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I like it too! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply