Talk:Saharan striped polecat

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Olmagon (talk · contribs) 22:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 15:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm reading this now, might take me some time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Unlike its closest relatives, it has fur on the undersides of its paws, likely as an adaptation to its sandy habitat. – Seems out of place, discuss together with fur?

Moved. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• By night, it hunts for the small animals which it kills with a bite to the back of the skull and feeds on. – I don't think we need the "and feeds on".

Removed. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• The Saharan striped polecat was first scientifically named in 1833 – It was only named once, right, so the "first" should be redundant.

Removed. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• separate genus named Ictonyx was later established in 1835, originally as a monotypic genus containing only the striped polecat. – Per WP:JARGON, don't use technical terms when they are not really needed, you could just write "which originally only contained the striped polecat".

Removed the "monotypic" bit. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Poecilictis cf. libyca – At least link cf., or explain Poecilictis cf. libyca. For example: These have since been labelled Poecilictis cf. libyca, meaning that they belong within the genus Poecilictis and are comparable to Poecilictis libyca but not necessarily assignable to that species. Also, can we say "attributed to" when cf. libyca is not a taxon?

Linked and "labelled as" is now used in place of "attributed to". Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Early Pleistocene epoch – The Pleistocene is an epoch, but the Early Pleistocene is not, right (is it an "age"?)

From first sentence of the Wikipedia page for that at least it seems "Early Pleistocene" isn't officially recognised so I just referred to it as that without an extra noun now. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• However, its exact distribution remains poorly understood. This species has only been researched very little compared to other small carnivorans in the region, with few studies being done on its range and habits. – This just repeats itself; you could remove the first sentence, for instance.

Removed. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• The gestation period may be as short as 37 days, which is exceptionally short for a carnivoran, but could also be as long as 11 weeks – Does this mean that the gestation period that variable, or does it mean that we just don't know?

Seems to be not known for certain. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• One pair bred in captivity weighed – A pair of puppies? Or a mating pair? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Was referring to the newborns, changed "bred" to "born". Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• I. l. lybica – can you confirm that this spelling is correct?

It's what the book says, though this does predate the paper that pointed out the specific name should be spelled as "lybicus". Paper doesn't seem to say anything about subspecific spelling, I'm not entirely sure if it carries over to that as well. Olmagon (talk · contribs) 00:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The web version of the book linked in the source, at least, says "libyca", not "lybica". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I was so focused on the ending part that I hadn't even noticed that, fixed it now. Olmagon (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Sources I have some headache because of close paraphrasing here, again. For example, the young are born onto the soil directly; why not "the young are born onto the bare soil" to be more different (and I would argue, this wording is also simply better)

• Otherwise looks ok.

I also did copy edits. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, and if you want to get started with GAN reviewing, I have a catfish nominated that has been waiting for a month. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Last comments

• and classified as inguinal nipples, though one pair was formerly incorrectly identified as abdominal nipples – "inguinal" should be explained or at least linked. I wonder, however, if covering the history of nipple classification is excessive. I would personally remove it; we should apply WP:Summary style.

Done. Olmagon (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• I recommend to merge the sections "Conservation" and "Threats" (maybe just "Conservation and threats"), to avoid one-paragraph sections, and to follow our usual structure. Also, it is not ideal that you state that it is "Least Concern" in the Threats section but not in the Conservation section where I would have expected it.

I could have sworn I wrote those two paragraphs as a single section. Merged them now. Olmagon (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Olmagon: Just two more comments and one reply above, then we should be done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks good now! Promoting, and congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.