Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beaver/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2020 [1].

Beaver[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for FAC again. It was undercooked the last time but has since had a copyedit, major restructurings, some expansions and a peer review. Have at it! LittleJerry (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I engaged at Wikipedia:Peer review/Beaver/archive1 and am satisfied that the article is now FAC-ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Alt texts shouldn't be the same as caption - if appropriate you can use |alt=see caption
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Western_pocket_gopher.jpg: where is the CC licensing coming from? Don't see that at given source
It was confirmed to have a CC license by FlickreviewR when it was first posted. LittleJerry (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Beaver_Eating_Lilly_Pads_(15682458379).jpg: source link is restricted - is this meant to be CC or PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. LittleJerry (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Ditto" does not answer my question. Which license applies? CC is not PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. At first glance, Tierra del Fuego is duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he also classified the species name fiber" One doesn't classify a name, he coined or named it.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German zoologist Heinrich Kuhl classified C. canadensis in 1820" Likewise.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to that, many still considered them the same species" This is very handwavey. Who, when and why? And what did they consider them as, subspecies? Does anyone still believe this?
Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shows evidence of dam and lodge building" Like what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. californicus was similar to but larger than the extant North American beaver." But what is the relationship between them? Ancestor-descendant, or sister species?
Just closely related. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Eurasian beaver may have descended from C. praefiber." Which lived when and where?
That already states that Castor originated in Eurasia. I don't need to get into that level of detail. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be helpful if image captions stated which species are shown.
Don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would help the reader perhaps learn to spot the differences, anyway, your choice. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phylogeny of extant and extinct relatives of modern beavers." You could specify if this is based on genetics or morphology.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The see also section seems pointless.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any difference in overall size and colouration between the species?
Not really. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the underfur are 2–3 cm" Is? Fur is singular.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nostrils of the North American beaver are square shaped while those of the Eurasian species are triangular." Do you mean the fleshy nostril or the bony nostril?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their four incisors are chisel-shaped with continuous growth." This could be interpreted as if they get chisel shaped during growth. If this is not what is meant, you should state "and they grow continuously" instead.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " They have one opening, a cloaca, that contains the genital, digestive and excretory openings." Is this unique to them among rodents?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be stated then, as it's interesting but the reader won't know by the current wording. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't compare them to other rodents in this regard. Are you saying some editorializing is justified here? LittleJerry (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One puzzling aspect that needs explanation why has the American beaver been introduced to Europe when there is already a European species?
They were first introduced to an area were Eurasian beavers were absent. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use European beavers then? Because they were scarce?
Doesn't say. I think that is relevent more to the species articles. LittleJerry (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Small populations are also present in Mongolia and northwestern China, their numbers were estimated at 300 and 700 respectively as of 2016" Native or introduced?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This video[2] shows the beaver foraging clearer than the one used, where it is behind foliage for much of the time.
Don't care for the video quality and the people talking. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could choose a more interesting thumbnail for the video by adding the thumb time parameter, as in the video in Quagga Project. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beaver need trees" You should be consistent in whether you say beaver or beavers in plural.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beavers can fell a tree in about one-and-a-half minutes on average" That is pretty vague, what size tree? Especially since right after you say "trees as large as 25 cm (9.8 in) can require over four hours".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say both "parental" and "paternal" colonies, would be best to stick to one term, the one used by the source.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other studies found the presence of beavers can increase wild salmon and trout populations; as well as their size." Explain how.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As trees are drowned by rising beaver impoundments, they become ideal nesting sites for woodpeckers" You could specify their roots are drowned, otherwise one might be confused and think the entire tree is below water.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beaver modifications to streams in Poland have been associated with increased bat activity." How come?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dead trees caused by construction of a beaver dam" You should specify in the caption thjat this is in Argentina, to establish its relevance to the adjacent text. Also, not sure why this image should be smaller than the others, it is hard to see.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, areas with introduced beaver" Again, no reason not so say "beavers" here as you do everywhere else.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any difference in behaviour between the species?
Not really. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image shows a beaver kind of sitting on its tail, poking forwards. Is there any behaviour associated with this that could be mentioned?
No but I added information on bipedalism. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is important to not ethe differences between the two species in the taxobox.
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is about both species, the genus overall, it is crucial that this point is made in the intro, since you otherwise don't give it any coverage there apart from simply stating there are two species. I'd agree if it had been about a single species or multiple species, but not here. Especially since the differences are so few and simple to explain. FunkMonk (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they are considered to be a keystone species" You don't need "to be".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the young will help their parent repair" Parents? As you say in the article body.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • Please include "as of 2016" in the caption of the range map. This makes clear that it is the current range map (and not the original distribution). Also, the map is out-of-date already concerning the distribution in Central Europe, so the exact year is needed in the caption.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The North American beaver has a larger skull with a broader tail. – I suggest "and", since the tail does not sit on the skull.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • he also coined the species name fiber – it has to be "the second part of the species name, fiber" to be exact.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the two beavers – sounds weird, maybe just "the two species"? Since we are not talking about individual beavers.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • posteriorly located palatine foramen – this has to be more accessible, maybe "with the palatine foramen (opening) closer to the rear end of the bone"; link Foramen.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Castor tamanensis, if it is still valid it deserves mention.
Never heard of it before. Little information. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paper here has quite some interesting additional information: pdf.
Information already stated in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the information that the genus Castor coexisted with other extinct beavers would be good to mention I think. The "Evolution" section currently deals mostly with the evolution of castorids in general, but has very little on Castor itself. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was the North American beaver introduced to the different parts of the world? I think it is important to add the years.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under New Zealand's Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, beavers are classed as a "prohibited new organism" preventing them from being legally imported into the country. – This is a bit out of context; maybe first state that there are no introduced beavers in New Zealand to make it less confusing? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beavers have four premolars and 12 molars adding up to 20 teeth in total – Teeth are usually counted per side (i.e., 2 premolars and 6 molars per side); at least this is the convention? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The molars have meandering ridges on a flat surface for grinding woody food. – I think this oversimplifies it and gives the false impression that the tooth is something static as in humans. In reality, they are constantly abraded, but the enamel (forming the ridges) is more resistant than the dentin (which thus forms the lower parts of the tooth top surface). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second claw of the hind foot is split and is used for combing the fur to keep it fluffy. – Again, I think this is an oversimplification. See here; the claw is not really "split", it is instead a "double" nail. It should also be mentioned that the first claw is modified for grooming as well. The link I provided has a link to a paper directly on the topic that could be cited as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The digestive system is adapted for a high-fiber diet – that goes without saying, since it is the primary diet; of course they are adapted to it. But we need to know how are they adapted?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • a cardiac gland secretes into the stomach. – but humans have more than one cardiac gland?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Beavers have a pair of castor sacs found between the kidneys and urinary bladder and open into the urethra and anal glands. – grammatical problem ("that open into")?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • were ir spread to other parts of Europe – it
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The beaver has since returned to parts of its former range because of management measures and reintroductions. – natural expansion is an important factor at least in Europe, should be mentioned.
It is implied in the sentence with "returned to parts of its former range because of management measures and..." LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think each picture should state which species is depicted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That gets tedious and redundant. Readers will not notice the difference. LittleJerry (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this important, and I see the reviewer above raised the same issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As trees are partially submerged by rising beaver impoundments, they become ideal nesting sites for woodpeckers, which carve cavities that attract many other bird species. – Why do they become ideal nesting sites? Because the tree dies after being flooded?
Yes. Dead trees are softer. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When mentioned their effect on climate change, I really think their impact on wildfire prevention also should be discussed (see, e.g., [3]). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already in the first paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. That sentence is about refugees for plants during wildfires. The article I linked is about wildfire prevention. This really needs to be discussed when climate change is mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if I add what I consider necessary information concerning wild fire prevention by myself? I saw that you added some words, but it still seems unsatisfactory to me, and not in the right context. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. I don't see it as specific to just climate change though. LittleJerry (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, reviewing is sometimes a bit tedious. One answer above, more soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but long-distance dispersals are not uncommon since previous colonizers have already exploited the local resources – since this is not always the case, do we need a "when" instead of "since"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How large are the territories? Some numbers would be nice just to get an idea.'
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'beaver fever' – here in single quotes, in the text above in double quotes. Why in quotes in the first place?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and hysterical conditions (i.e. pertaining to the womb), – could you please check if you instead mean the psychological condition here?
Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a potential flaw. We need to fully understand the sources in order to reproduce them correctly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The properties of castoreum has been – have been
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which is transformed to salicylic acid and has a chemical reaction very similar to aspirin. – this appears to be overly simplified, there must be a more precise word than "chemical reaction". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has previously worded "been credited to the accumulation of salicin from willow trees in the beaver's diet, which is transformed to salicylic acid and has an action very similar to aspirin." I was asked to change it to chemical reaction. This is not a chemistry article so it shouldn't have to be specific. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Action", in the sense of "physiological effect", seems correct to me. "Chemical reaction" is much less ideal in my opinion, as I still don't think it is what you want to say. Did they gave a reasoning why "action" will not work? Maybe changing it to "physiological effect" would work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Generally looks pretty good, a few nitpicks

  • Beavers are known for building dams and lodges — Why not Beavers build dams and lodges?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • castoreum, a urine-based substance — I don’t think that’s right, the secretion is a mixture of castoreum and urine, the catoreum appears to be derived from plant materials (also repeated this lower in text)
Pg. 13 of Müller-Schwarze and Sun "Beavers produce dilute urine. Concentrated in the "castor sacs", it becomes castoreum....." LittleJerry (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • he also classified the species name fiber — worth saying this is just the Latin for "fibre"?\
I don't see the need. This isn't the species article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 24 subspecies have been classified for C. canadensis while nine have been for C. fiber.—clunky, perhaps 24 subspecies have been proposed for C. canadensis and ninefor C. fiber.
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • due to the presence of iron — add compounds
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • their numbers estimated at 300 and 700 respectively as of 2016— were estimated?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depending on the circumference of the trunk, beavers can fell a tree in about one-and-a-half minutes; — So what thickness of tree can they fell in one-and-a-half minutes? This is meaningless as it stands
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • beaver activity in ponds warms the water — How?
By the see last paragraph of "infrastructure". LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text there says During the winter, warm air coming out of the vent helps melt the snow and ice on the lodge., which appears to be warm air, not warm water. I can't see how beaver activity can significantly raise the temperature of a significant volume of water, which has huge thermal inertia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • injected into the ear on the same side as the tooth — Do you mean the into the ear opening?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beaver" is also a slang term for beards and the female genital — Beard is wrong, it’s derived from a different word “beaver” for the medieval armour covering the lower part of the face, from French bavière, a child’s bib. Also, is it worth saying that the pubic meaning is mainly American?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hanif Al Husaini[edit]

What is the meaning of the colors of the range map in the infobox? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  • Spotted prose issues on only a quick look, eg "widespread throughout the continent down to northern Mexico; being absent only in the Arctic, the deserts of the southwestern US and in peninsular Florida. The species was introduced to Finland in 1937 were it spread..."
SandyGeorgia already approved of the prose. LittleJerry (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not state it that way (nor is my prose stellar). I did not do a full review; I did enough to say the article was now FAC ready, where in its first FAC, it was ill-prepared. That was quite a while ago, and I observed at scorpion (your other FAC) that serious grammatical errors and typos were introduced after my review and while addressing my comments. In fact, “were it spread” was not present in the article when I reviewed it at Peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Working. LittleJerry (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colour should not be the only method to convey key information, as in the range map
This makes no sense. LittleJerry (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a color key. LittleJerry (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but removing the legend entirely doesn't fix this. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS issues, eg hyphens in place of dashes, missing conversion for coat density
Fixed hypens, I don't know ho to convert hairs/cm³. LittleJerry (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing a modern population estimate for the North American species, outside of Patagonia
I already googled it and this is the best I could find. The IUCN doesn't even give a current one. LittleJerry (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources available for this information. For example this one estimates 10 to 15 million. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map doesn't match up with the distribution information described in the text, eg the Asian populations
That's not my fault. The IUCN mentions the Asian populations but does not include them in the map. LittleJerry (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then we shouldn't be presenting the map as showing the complete range. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include Haida and Cree mythologies but not those of other cultures, such as Ojibwe or Lakota? Similarly, why mention its use in the crest of Biberach, but not New York City?
Because Ojibwe or Lakota were not mentioned in the book I have. I mentioned enough of North American heraldry so I gave a European one. Other examples are more important for the species articles. LittleJerry (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book you have is not the only source that exists. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are few high quality sources available on beavers in various NA cultures, but I added mention of New York and Oregon. LittleJerry (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My question remains the same. How are you deciding which things to mention and which to omit? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beaver fever" content should use a MEDRS-compliant source
The source is reliable enough. LittleJerry (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source provided does not meet that standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed then. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relocation or culling is used to control "nuisance beavers". - in what jurisdiction? Other techniques are used in some places
The exact jurisdictions are not important for this article. They are important for the species articles. LittleJerry (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added information on non-lethal measures. LittleJerry (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources used are quite dated - for example, how much forest has been destroyed in South America since 2008? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dated it. LittleJerry (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You added a date, but that's not the issue - my concern is that that date is now quite a while ago, and the world has changed since then. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed to as general as possible. More detailed and recent information is relevant to the species article or Beaver eradication in Tierra del Fuego. LittleJerry (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added more recent articles. LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfair ambush. These are all minor nitpicks. LittleJerry (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I feel there are fundamental issues here with regards to the FA criteria, particularly 1a, 1b, and 1c. Further, note that in several points of my comments I flagged specific examples, but these are examples only, not a comprehensive listing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, TwofingeredTypist has done a copyedit so prose and MOS they should be fixed and the rest have been addressed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. While it's appropriate for this article to summarize information dealt with in more detail in subarticles, I feel there is some overgeneralizing going on, and important aspects of the animal are being missed. For example this source provides additional information about the interaction between species. Other aspects that one might expect to see discussed here include speed, vocalization, and potentially captivity. Some of the things that were selected for mention seem to be based on convenience, eg the cultural examples, rather than impact. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vocalizations are already in the article!!!! And I can only reference cultural things that are referenced in available sources. This article even states that "In other words, it is difficult to understand the true significance of the beaver when there is little documentation of Native American history of human and beaver interaction." You've mostly done shot-checks on sources and now you're trying to decide what is comprehensive enough in an animal article? I demand a second opinion. Jens Lallensack? FunkMonk? Jimfbleak? LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to note, and that may have been overlooked by this review, that there are two species of beaver, and this article covers both of them. So we have to take this balance into account; how much do we write here that is only relevant to one of the two species? And is such extra detail (such as elaborating on the impact of North American beavers in South America) not more appropriate in the article about the particular species it relates to? In this light, I think the best approach here is to use broad strokes when it comes to the particulars of each species, and mostly write about what they have in common (while of course noting their differences). Further details should be found in the articles about each species. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have further details where we shouldn't (eg Patagonia), and not enough where we should (eg comparing and contrasting the two species, providing basic details like speed, etc). Similarly with regards to cultural impacts, we have details, but not necessarily the most appropriate details. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Google scholar hasn't been searched for more info, it of course should, and paywalled articles be requested at WP:RX. But there is of course a chance that some of these issues simply haven't been written about. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I included all the information I could find on the physical and behavioral differences between the species.

  • "The North American beaver has a larger skull and broader tail. The nasal openings in the skull of the North American beaver are square, while those of the Eurasian species are triangular."
  • "Anal secretions are darker in females than males among Eurasian beavers, while the reverse is true for the North American species."
  • "North American beavers build more open-water lodges than Eurasian beavers."
  • "North American beavers prefer aspen trees while Eurasian beavers prefer willow."
  • " North American beavers build more open-water lodges than Eurasian beavers."

They were popularly thought to be the same species. What do you expect? As for cultural impacts, what do you think is so important? I've included information on beavers in Native American mythology, Medieval European art, modern popular culture and political symbolism. That a wide breath. If there is more important information out there then it should be easy to find. LittleJerry (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a sample source above that lists more comparative information with links to additional sources that could be exploited. Sources supporting the other details I've mentioned are also available. As for cultural impacts: my concern is not the breadth of the examples, but how they have been selected. Other examples are both sourceable and more prominent. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now included that paper and did some expansions. I have no idea what cultural references you consider prominent. Please be specific. LittleJerry (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more references to fictional beavers in culture and the speed of beavers in water. I have also expanded the environmental section which now discusses beaver effects on invertrebrates, fish, birds, mammals and amphibians. LittleJerry (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria need input on my progress. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to give my 2 cents here: I partly agree that this article could be more comprehensive, but in other aspects. I do not think that, e.g., speed is something that necessarily needs to be discussed here. Speed is not really relevant for the biology of the beaver, since it does not rely on speed to escape from predators. While I think the article is mostly complete, here are some points that I personally would like to see better discussed:
    • Beaver management: This term is not mentioned in the article, but there are dozens of papers specifically on this topic.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cellulose from trees cannot be processed by mammals. The article should explain how this is achieved in the beaver (symbiosis with bacteria in the much enlarged caecum).
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The beavers important role in fire prevention
This is already in the article. I don't know how much more you want from me in this. The literature I've seen focuses on beavers providing refuge for plant and keeping places green. LittleJerry (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soils were a beaver pond once has been tend to be much more fertile for agriculture.
I haven't found this. LittleJerry (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worth mention that they do not hibernate (in contrast to many other animals in their climate); also what is about activity in winter, do they actively forage?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Nikkimaria, I also got the impression that the conducted literature research was sometimes a bit sloppy. For example, the explanation of hysteria given in the article seemed to be little more than a good guess by the author, rather than based on careful reading of sources. I pointed the error out, but now see that the amended explanation is incorrect again. A lot of burden is put on the reviewers here to spot these issues and outline the solutions. This saves the author a lot of time, but it also causes a lot of work, and demotivation, for reviewers. I do not think that in this particular article there are too many possibilities to misinterpret sources, and I do believe this article is finally very close to FA level, but still: an uncomfortable feeling remains that I as a reviewer did not find all of these issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is just another example: You now included cellulose digestion by the microbiota, as I had suggested, but you state that this occurs in the stomach. I don't see this in your source, and I'm pretty sure it occurs in the caecum instead (as I already wrote). I just wish you would be more careful and throughout with addressing reviewer comments, and reading sources. You force me to do the research on my own to double-check all this stuff! I don't have the time and motivation for this! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You now simply deleted this information. It would have been more throughout, and a clear improvement to the article, if you instead would have searched for an additional source for the "caecum" part. It is stated in the first paper that appears in Google Scholar when you enter "beaver cellulose". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I just added the caecum. LittleJerry (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack, I asked Hog Farm to do a source spotcheck to address any concerns.LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look at this. I had a look at the previous FAC. Hog Farm Bacon 06:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anything out there about potential captivity of beavers?
They aren't commonly kept in captivity so it isn't all that notable. LittleJerry (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources on this topic, dozens of zoo holdings plus non-zoo populations like the beaver projects in the UK. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got to agree with Nikkimaria that there's definitely sourcing to add some stuff. Abstract of a 1966 paper about rearing in captivity, so they were apparently held in captivity in some places at least in the 60s. Paper about captive care for beavers. This says that beavers have been held in captivity (albeit in small numbers) since the 1700s. There's definitely the sourcing to say at least a bit about beavers in captivity, and something should be said about it. Hog Farm Bacon 06:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beavers have two premolars and six molars on each side, 20 teeth in total." - So is the each side counting both the top and bottom jaw as part of the side
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under New Zealand's Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, beavers are classed as a "prohibited new organism" preventing them from being introduced into the country" - Why?
Presumably because of the impacts they make. LittleJerry (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "piling up branches and saplings next to their lodge" - In the water or on land?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long does it take for beavers to reach sexual maturity?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Since they stayed in one place, trappers could easily find the animals" - This seems to be contradictory to all the stuff about beaver dispersals and floater beavers
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be better off just stating that the beaver is sometimes used as a college mascot, as there's enough that just pointing out the Oregon State one may not be the best idea. Tim the Beaver is the MIT mascot for instance, so it might be just to give one categorical statement here.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "Project Gutenberg: " belongs in the title of reference 100
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass. This is in much better shape than it was when the first FAC was made. Hog Farm Bacon 07:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks
  • "Fossils of one genus in Castoroidinae, Dipoides, have been found near assemblages of chewed wood, though it appears to have been a rather poor woodcutter compared to Castor" - Checks out
  • "The introduced population in Patagonia is estimated at 35,000–50,000 individuals as of 2016" - The sources says "In the Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego, several factors favoured a rapid population growth and range expansion (Lizarralde et al. 2004). Twenty-five mated pairs of beaver introduced in 1946, have grown to a population of 35,000-50,000 animals". Patagonia seems to be much broader than Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego, so that seems to be straying from the source a bit.
Changed, but the Tierra del Fuego was the only place were the beavers were so this is nitpicky. LittleJerry (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, because it wasn't clear from the article that they hadn't spread into the rest of Patagonia. That's like a source specifying Ontario and the article saying Canada. Let's stick close to the source. Hog Farm Bacon 15:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Beaver modifications to streams in Poland have been associated with increased activity of bat species that hunt at the water surface and use more moderate vegetation clutter" - I can't verify this, as the original source link is dead and the archive link is saying that the internet archive never archived that URL
Hog Farm, try this LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beavers do not hibernate and are active year-round; foraging and building" - Checks out
  • "he also coined the specific (species) epithet fiber" - Checks out
  • Who is Warner Shedd? Does he pass WP:SPS? We're citing one of his self-published books.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, mixed results. We probably need someone who can spot check some of the paywalled sources, too. Hog Farm Bacon 06:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose, it appears to be comprehensive to me, a non-expert, this is not a source review. Hog Farm Bacon 17:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, any more needed? LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I did some expansions and added more sources (92 to 126). Any more? LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for an answer to my question above re: culture: how are you deciding which examples to include and which to omit? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on if they are supported by reliable sources and if they are prominent. LittleJerry (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How are you determining prominence? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How popular and/or important they are. LittleJerry (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And how are you determining that? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a science to this? I'm not getting what you are getting at. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things that are sourceable about this subject. How are you deciding which of those things warrant inclusion, and which should be omitted? Why do the examples you've chosen belong? What makes them in particular representative of the literature? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on if they tell us about the importance of beavers and how people have perceived them as well as filling certain topics like Native American culture, European, art, modern popular culture, politics, heraldary, ect. LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I limited cultural examples mostly to those mentioned in general sources, books and papers whose subject matter is beavers in culture. I limited political use to Canada, were the beaver is a the national symbol. LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other general source not cited, eg [4] or [5], and others specifically on culture, eg [6]. How are you picking which to cite? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By finding them on google, searching "beavers in culture" ect. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Eight weeks in and this has no source review and has an outstanding oppose. As it stands it is within a day or two of being archive archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

I am opposing due to the sourcing issues below and the general feel of how this was researched. Articles should be approached from a viewpoint of knowledge about the subject. You don't need to be an expert, but you should read enough on the subject that you can get a feel for what is important and what isn't ... so that you can include the important bits. The fact that when sources were challenged in this FAC, the source AND the information it was supporting were quickly removed implies to me that the subject was not well researched and instead a couple of books that could be gotten easily were consulted and some google searches were done and there really isn't a good feel for what the scholarship and research on beavers includes and excludes. In short, it fails 1b, 1c, and 1d. I am not trying to be mean to the nominator, but we really should expect better from FAs. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes the following high quality reliable sources? And not just "another FA uses it" but what makes it a reliable source.
It seems reputable Online_Etymology_Dictionary#Reviews_and_reputation
I did read the article - and I'm not seeing that it is necessarily a high quality source. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its good enough to be cited by Oxford. LittleJerry (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That might help a bit but it still doesn't show that it's a high quality reliable source. Oxford has produced some ... less than stellar ... sources themselves... Ealdgyth (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source states "beavers are commonly seen along the Lake Ontario shore and throughout the stream corridors that run through the city." Removed anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you removed the information also? And that quote you gave does NOT support "watercourses have allowed beavers to penetrate deep into major cities" - it supports beavers are seen ALONG watercourses but nothing in the quote from the article makes the leap to the watercourses being the method of infiltration INTO the city. I'm a bit concerned that we may have an issue with sourcing if other parts of the article are "supported" by their sources in this manner also. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They have also been recorded as being infected by the rabies virus" is supported by an article in the Washington Post - surely we can find a better source for this than a newspaper!
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And did you leave the information it was supporting? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And did you leave the information it was supporting? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And did you leave the information it was supporting? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And did you leave the information it was supporting? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary by him. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then your citation isn't correct - it needs to give the author, etc. And what makes James Eason a reliable source on heraldry? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Muller-Schwarz/Sun reference is given as Comstock publishers but the ISBN links to https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A9780801440984 which is published by Cornell University Press. This is the problem with converting ISBNs from 10 digit to 13 digit - you don't necessarily get the correct details or edition. This needs fixing.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns about using a google (is it plain google or google scholar, by the way?) search to decide what "re: culture: how are you deciding which examples to include and which to omit?" - the best method would be to actually consult books on the animal and see what the academic scholars think is important in regards to culture - because google's results are going to vary depending on the location of hte search and other factors we can't know due to google's opaque algorithims.
This has been fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - how the heck can you fix my concern over the way sources have been found by saying "fixed". I have a concern with the research methodology here .. not a concern about whether a sentence should have a comma. Please do tell me how you fixed my concerns? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I removed most of the information not sourced to a general source on beavers in culture. LittleJerry (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned that we're relying on two books for large chunks of the article - and only one of them is by an acadmeic publisher. Surely more sources have been consulted? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got this book, but it is rather short at only 72 pages. This book is currently out of stock. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you used... three book sources. That seems insanely skimpy for a topic with so much written on it. How do we know that all topics that academic scholarship has investigated have been covered if only three books are used? And if you used the Rue book, are you aware he's a nature photographer not a actual biologist? What makes you think this is a high quality source to be using? As for Runtz being out of stock - did you try your library? WorldCat shows about 4000 or so print books on beavers that are supposedly not aimed at children... we're not limited to what we can buy on Amazon. And generally, I would avoid using any "pictoral references" as a good start for getting a representative review of the literature.
Those are not the only books I used. I also cited "Busher, P.; Hartman, G. (2001). "Beavers". In MacDonald, D. W. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Mammals (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 590–593. ISBN 978-0-7607-1969-5." and Baker, B. W.; Hill, E. P. (2003). "Beaver Castor canadensis". In Feldhamer, G. A.; Thompson, B. C.; Chapman, J. A. (eds.). Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation (2 ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 290–297. ISBN 0-8018-7416-5. They are formated differently because I'm citing specific sections/chapeter/page ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally unimpressed with the sourcing and getting very close to opposing unless I can see some sign that there was at least some research effort put into this article besides consulting two books and doing some google searches. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked though the books and none of them are at a library close to me and many of them don't have a cover pictured. LittleJerry (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interlibrary loan is a thing. It's a wonderful thing. It lets you get things that your library may not have. And yes, I've spent money on sources ... lots. Either through buying out of print books or through buying new or through copying things that I needed. If you want to write FAs, you probably ARE going to have to expend effort/money to get some sources. There is no requirement to do such things for basic editing, but you're trying to get an article up to FA standards, which means that it needs to meet the criteria for an FA, not the criteria of "what the editor could afford". I'm not trying to be mean, here, just that FA isn't basic editing and it will occaisionally not be possible to fulfill the criteria if you can't get access to the works you need. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm recused since I reviewed. And I'm going to go on record here and oppose the article on sourcing. I strongly suggest taking your time and getting it right on sourcing before bringing it back. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to withdraw my nomination of the article so I can work more on it for next time. Unless, the coordinators decide give me a couple days or so for this FAC nomination. Ealdgyth? Gog the Mild? LittleJerry (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Archived per nominator request. Given that experienced reviewers consider this needs considerable work before being up to FAC standard, I would suggest carefully working through all of the comments by all of the reviewers prior to resubmission. The usual two week hiatus applies, barring an exemption from a coordinator. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beaver/archive2&oldid=996666628"