Jump to content

Talk:Kamala (elephant)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKamala (elephant) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 13, 2024Articles for deletionKept
April 14, 2025Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 1, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Barack Obama was a horse and Kamala was an elephant?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 01:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
Created by Di (they-them) (talk) and Chaotic Enby (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 27 past nominations.

Di (they-them) (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]


Notable?

[edit]

This seems to be an elephant WP:BIO1E, added notability tag. Its single source as to the trivial coincidence and all other sources cover the single non-notable event in a non-notable elephant's life. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E does not apply to non-humans. For an elephant, we use WP:GNG, which she passes. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA #4 - a routine kind of news event with a claimed viral phenomena, and the WP:GNG counter - WP:NOT § NEWS, reported death of an elephant. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENTCRITERIA applies to events, not to animals. Kamala the elephant is not an event, she is an individually notable animal. The elephant's death gained her mainstream coverage, but that doesn't mean that she and her death are the same subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources are from the same date, cover a single event, seem to be repeats of the same Smithsonian's National Zoo release, and all are about the same subject ---> an elephant was euthanized. So its WP:EVENTCRITERIA #4 - Routine kind of news event ... tragic or widely reported at the time ----- not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion. Multiple users think that the subject has lasting notability. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement apart from one user. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions re: guidelines are not votes. You have to give a rational on how something meets a guideline. In this case is this elephant notable outside a single event. It has to be beyond the elephant being bought or sold or transferred or advertised as being at a certain zoo, every elephant has that level of notability and Wikipedia does not cover every elephant. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't cover every elephant but it can cover ones that have sustained coverage like this one. You are the only one who thinks that the sources aren't enough to pass GNG. There is clear consensus against your position. Move on. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One editor saw it as questionable, and no further sources other than "run of the mill life of an elephant" are put forward. I would recommend leaving the tag up since it alerts other editors as to the need for sources (and maybe they will find them). Otherwise the article can be taken to AfD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
There are currently nine sources that establish notability. Just because you don't like it doesn't make them all invalid. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a hint, number of sources does not indicate encyclopedic content, it has to push past non-routine coverage. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which it does. Most elephants don't get coverage like this. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synth note

[edit]

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr If I move the aside about Kamala Harris loosing the 2024 election to an efn, would you view that as acceptable solution? I understand your concerns about synthesis, but I don't want to make the reader go to an entirely different page to find out a relatively basic fact. A footnote has the advantage that we're not implying anything in Wikivoice, but we do make the information easily available. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a whack at an in between editing it down and moving it down to a short sentence in a death section. I can not find any SIGCOV that puts this past a two day pre-election punch line. This article seems to have started life as a continuation of that punchline in the form of a WP:DYK [1][2]. Now that it is another article, conformed it more to the core notability re: this elephant. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're trying to do, and given that Kamala had so much else going on in her life, I also don't want to focus disproportionately on the election thing. I think it should be a little longer, however, because given that this is a Canadian topic, we shouldn't expect the reader to know US politics to understand it. The aside about Kamala Harris, as currently written, requires that you know who she is. In five years time, it's entirely reasonable that somebody reading this article might not know that. I also don't like adding notoriously unreliableNY Post to any article vaguely connected to politics, especially in the middle of an AfD, but I'll go swap that. I'll also go fix the other new references- they seem to have gotten a bit broken. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin versus Chandra

[edit]

The sources are conflicting a bit on the name of Kamala's son, Calvin/Chandra. It seems that most of the modern sourcing lists his name as Calvin, but I've found multiple sources from the 1990s and early 2000s which call him Chandra. I haven't found anything yet about a rename. This source[3] says that he had been loaned to the African Lion Safari for breeding as of 2005, so maybe his name changed there? I'll see if I can dig anything up. It turns out there's a non-zero number of elephants named Chandra, so this could take a bit of untangling. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he moved to the Czech Republic, and lived in Ostrava Zoo until his death in 2015. He also apparently had fifteen children, and was one of the most productive male elephants in Europe. [4][5][6] I'll try and dig out better RS and add this to the article.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found one, added details. Probably notable enough for an article of his own, not sure. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. -- Reconrabbit 17:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kamala (elephant)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GreenLipstickLesbian (talk · contribs) 22:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 18:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd be happy to take on the review of this article. I saw it appear in the article alerts and it seems well put-together, and the preceding DYK nomination and your successful keep (defense?) at AfD are promising. Reconrabbit 18:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the review, Reconrabbit! And thank you for the copyedits. <3
Hopefully I don't mess anything up if I start responding now, but since I have a free minute - nice catch on source #2 ("The Picasso of Calgary Zoo")! The "five months" part is sourced to it, but the rest of the facts (Pinnawala, 1975) are covering in the Washington Post source [7]. I accidentally divorced the statements from the ref in this edit, apparently. Have now fixed.
Went ahead and removed the "joked" thing, because you're right about that failing verification in the Independent. And yeah, totally feel you on related events.
Re:"knock-kneed" Get the point, I had to think about that one myself a lot when I was adding the material. I think I got it to the point where it falls under WP:LIMITED, but I'd be happy to stare at it again for another half hour. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I find myself staring at sentences like that last one a lot when working on articles that rely heavily on Animal Diversity Web (that have been largely pasted over). All that needs doing now is a check of the remaining references and assessment of NPOV (which I'm fairly certain is fine but I need to put down something concrete about it). Reconrabbit 01:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh, yes species descriptions like the ones I'm imagining you're talking about are a nightmare. And feel free to take as much time as you need on the rest of the review; I'm just super grateful you picked it up as quickly as you did!
If it makes things go any easier, I've picked out the weakest sources and am going to pre-emptively provide explanations as to why I used them.
  • [11]] (Fontes) is a PhD WP:THESIS, and as such is used with care only support Calvin's fate. I looked, and couldn't find a high-quality source online, regrettably.
  • [28] (Fazio et. al.) is published by Animals, whose publisher is MDPI. However, the major authors are all scientists who work at the Smithsonian. While they're dubiously independent, they should be very reliable, especially for the fact I'm citing it for (that Kamala was first kept with Swarna and Maharani, but was eventually re-united with Spike).
  • [4] is written by a former keeper at the Calgary Zoo, but it's in a journal. I'm using it to supplement the other sources in a way hopefully compliant with WP:ABOUTSELF (namely, that the zoo wanted to establish an elephant breeding program, to more directly confirm Kamala's species, and to supplement the other sources that talk about Chandra's birth and the disease that she contracted.
  • [24] and [30] are both published by the Smithsonian, both used to supplement information introduced by third-party sources. 30 is only cited once, to specify a particular treatment keepers attempted to use for Kamala's arthritis, and [24] is used for specific dates and to provide an extra detail about the elephant's travel from Canada.
  • [29] is by the Smithsonian Magazine, which maintains editorial independence from the rest of the institute. Primarily used to supplement other sources/provide exact dates anyway.
These don't make up anywhere near a majority of the article's sources, they're mostly used to supplement details/provide exact dates, and I provide in-text attribution for anything I thought needed it (though I'm open to providing more in-text attribution or removing details). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the use of Animals; being an MDPI journal isn't an automatic disqualifier. This one is well-indexed. I've reviewed the rest.

Prose

[edit]
  • Introductory paragraphs summarize the article appropriately.
  • Some minor things were edited (duplicated statement of "in 1980").
  • Nothing else I can note here - nice work checkY

References

[edit]
  • Layout: No objections to the use of {{Reflist}} and placing references inline. Publishers are linked in most cases which is a plus. checkY

Spot checking

[edit]

Checking a minimum of 15 sources. Based on this revision:

  • [1] checkY
  • [2] This article is very short and only describes Kamala briefly as an artist, not any time prior to arriving at Calgary Zoo.
  • [4] checkY provenance confirmed as above, seems a useful account paired with the article's neutral interpretation.
  • [6] checkY
  • [8] checkY
  • [14] checkY
  • [15] checkY supporting posthumous name of child
  • [17] checkY supporting other details of rejection
  • [19] checkY
  • [21] checkY
  • [25] checkY confirms Spike's movement
  • [26] checkY
  • [27] checkY
  • [29] checkY
  • [32] checkY though it only describes the internet users as making "claims", not "jokes" - otherwise verified, though the existence of the events surrounding this news article is personally just annoying to me.
  • Only immediately obvious phrase that has been copied over from a source is "[Kamala's] front legs were knock-kneed, and her back legs were bow-legged" - maybe could be reworded but ultimately not a major concern; will re-check after reviewing more sources

    • Scope

    [edit]
    • Broad: Covers the points of Kamala's life where there are available sources, a general description of the elephant's characteristics, and a well-sourced feature that makes her particularly notable (painting) - no major aspect is obviously left out in the article. checkY
    • Narrow: As coverage allows, detail is provided in each period of her life, with particular attention to her paintings (as possible) without using excessive detail. Not every painting created is discussed, and not every remark someone had to make comparing the elephant to every current event going on at the time was inserted. For example, there's an article that compares Kamala to Peanut (squirrel)... Looks good checkY

    Stability

    [edit]
    • Neutrality: There's plenty of emotional appeal in some of the sources but no trace of it in the article as it appears here, particularly in early life and death. No issues checkY
    • Edit warring: No major changes or objections to the content of the article so far this year, and most if not all additions are from the nominator. No stability concerns checkY

    Images

    [edit]
    • Free/Fair use: SI images are public domain, as is the animal-produced painting. checkY
    • Relevance: Photo of the subject is properly used in the infobox, looks good. With Maharani, the photo is placed appropriately next to the text. Painting is suitably in the Paintings section. checkY
    Good Article review progress box
    Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
    3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
    Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
    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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamala_(elephant)&oldid=1285615105"