Talk:Kamala (elephant)/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

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)

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 [1]. 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)

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)

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)

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

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

References

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

Spot checking

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

• [1] Y
• [2] This article is very short and only describes Kamala briefly as an artist, not any time prior to arriving at Calgary Zoo.
• [4] Y provenance confirmed as above, seems a useful account paired with the article's neutral interpretation.
• [6] Y
• [8] Y
• [14] Y
• [15] Y supporting posthumous name of child
• [17] Y supporting other details of rejection
• [19] Y
• [21] Y
• [25] Y confirms Spike's movement
• [26] Y
• [27] Y
• [29] Y
• [32] Y 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

• 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. Y
• 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 Y

Stability

• 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 Y
• 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 Y

Images

• Free/Fair use: SI images are public domain, as is the animal-produced painting. Y
• 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. Y

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.