Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bobcat

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 promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

Bobcat[edit]

Not quite done with cats. With this one brought to FA status, we’ll have a good featured topic on U.S. felines. I’d like this to be considered a co-nom with User:Chroniclev. While not editing a lot, s/he has added the most significant amount of material to this topic and has been responsive to fact requests and general questions. Basically, I’ve supplemented Chronic’s book sources with abstracts, and I think we now have a complete page. Thanks also to User:Casliber for buzzing about with tweaks, and (as always) User:UtherSRG for looking at the taxonomy section. Because this has been edited by multiple people, there’s likely still some clunky sentences. Any suggestions welcome. Marskell 11:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor notes. I found this one with caps, and have left it as such. I also un-bluelinked place names larger than state/province; see the talk. Marskell 12:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A well-written article, with adequate references. It is also within size limits. As an extra good note, I could not even find one grammar mistake. However, I did notice a few other minor points, which I think can be easily fixed.
- There are red links in sections 2.1 and 3.1
- Perhaps the lead can be lengthened by just a bit.
- Perhaps some more important internal links can be added to the body of the article, although I think that the current amount will also suffice if none can be added.

Other than that, I think that the article is all fine. Cheers. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 13:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a small para on hunting and myth to the lead, which was indeed a little slim. Redlinks are not disallowed on FAs; they are there to encourage editors to add articles. I do plan to bluelink "direct register" at some point. In general, I've gone easy on links with this one, and Chroniclev wasn't heavily adding them either. I'm coming around to the opinion that less is more. Thanks for your comments. Marskell 13:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the red link in three was an error of mine; I upper cased where I shouldn't have. Marskell 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as minor contributor and sideline commentator. I think the prose is fine and it is comprehensive.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The first half/three-quarters is excellent, but it tails off towards the end: the hunting section is poor and uncited, and the mythology section is vague in places and I guess rather more about lynx in general than Bobcats in particular. The units are all over the shop in the Behavior section. I also noticed domesticated dogs were listed as potential prey species in one section and predators in another. While this is entirely possible given the range in sizes, some clarification would be useful. Not far off a support though. (Oh, and don't remove redlinks or I'll come after you with a big stick with a nail through it). Yomangani ^talk 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the little two² consistently (I think) in the Home range section and used U.S. units first, as it's broadly a U.S. cat and I found the page that way.
I had noticed dog as a predator but didn't get around to asking about it; it was there when I started editing. (I wouldn't leave a Bobcat alone with a German Shepard, but I doubt domesticates go hunting for it). Removed pending clarification.
The trail off problem will wait for tomorrow. You're right—it's a problem I often have on these pages and should have paid more attention to in this case. Marskell 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note about the mythology that for the most part only one species of Lynx, today and historically, inhabits the locations referenced by the sources. This is mentioned in the article as a footnote. --Chroniclev 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't hurt to drop that into the main text in this section, but I won't break down if you disagree. My main quibble on the Mythology section is this:

In the Nez Percé tale, for instance, the Lynx and the Coyote represent opposed, antithetical beings. However, another version represents them with equality and identicality.

Another version from where? Not the Nez Percé I guess. As it stands it sounds weaselly, as if we don't know where the other version comes from. There is too much commentary on the two different versions in that section for it to remain unattributed. Yomangani ^talk 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say specifically with the sources I was using, but was mostly meant to represent a larger trend rather than a shift in a specific culture. The Nez Perce story actually is just given as one example of a larger theme. --Chroniclev 00:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased it slightly to try and make that clear, and since that was my last remaining objection I'm now supporting it for FA. Yomangani ^talk 13:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment very nice page and I only have a couple of points to bring up.

The map and text refer to the midwestern US gap in Bobcat distribution - has there been any research into why that would be? If nobody seems to know, that should probably also be noted, though I realize it's tough to cite a negative like that.

I've added more on that. --Chroniclev 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a citation flag in the hunting/trapping section and that whole (small) paragraph needs to probably be re-written and properly cited. I'm not a hunter, but it seems odd to me to use a decoy for a territorial species; my understanding is that a "decoy" (we don't really have a page) is usually of the same species as the hunted animal in an attempt to lure gregarious animals (usually waterfowl) into range. I could understand using bait, but decoy doesn't seem right. I could be wrong, but either way it needs to be specified and cited.
It won't affect my vote, but for my money, this[1] is a nicer image than the one currently at the top of the page.
Under predators and mortality, it cites some survival rates ("survival rates averaged 0.62, in-line with other research suggesting 0.56 to 0.67"), but I have no idea what those numbers mean. A sentence of explanation would be great.

Perhaps, although it's actually "yearly survival rates." --Chroniclev 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mythology section needs some expansion. The last line, 'in the United States it "rests prominently in the anthology of our national folklore."' needs some kind of explanation. The reference cited may also have some stuff you could use to beef up this section.

Added a more specific story. I've tried to keep it broad and stay away from anything too esoteric. --Chroniclev 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked the cite above[2], it mentions 'I would lie awake at night listening for that other-worldly wailing, the caterwauling that Thackeray described as "a shriek and a yell like the devils of hell."'. Sounds like we should mention something on the vocalizations; if it's there, I missed it. If it's really that other-worldly, an audio clip would be really cool.

It's mentioned in the reproduction section. Also there is an external link to an audio clip. --Chroniclev 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a further look later on. To end on a positive note, thank you for not using the taxidermy pics we have on the commons... yecch. Matt Deres 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ pending the cleanup and referencing of the hunting and trapping section. The rest of the article is EASILY FA quality, but that section has an unresolved "fact" tag, and suffers from substandard writing. The section needs expansion and better referencing as a whole. Fix that and I would easily support this article's promotion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: The article could use a few more good-quality pictures. Photos are the best way to inspire readers to learn more, and the current set isn't very inspiring, I'm afraid. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 06:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The myth and conservation sections have been expanded by Chronic. I added the pic suggested above—it's absolutely beautiful. On the hunting section, I have problem where I'm sitting because searches only turn up commercial hunting operations, which are not good sources. A trapping book (which I'm not sitting on) might take care of it.

But then I wonder if we actually need a description of how to hunt Bobcats... Perhaps it's a subtle anti-hunting POV, but I'm not particularly bothered if it's not there at all. Any opinions? Marskell 21:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it does skew the mortality figures it probably should be included, but you are in a bit of a catch-22 situation there: without any sources to back up the claim that it skews the figures you don't know whether you need to find sources to back up the claim... Yomangani ^talk 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that, brain was broken. I don't think you need the unverified hunting practices paragraph. Yomangani ^talk 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the skewed in winter is actually sourced, so I was wondering. I have removed the little bit that was left. If someone wants to argue that descriptions of hunting an animal are necessary in describing an animal, we can consider it. I'm not entirely convinced—when I encounter paras of that sort I find them an odd example of "how-to." Marskell 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I struck through my prior vote. The human hunting and trapping section looks much better. I was looking for expansion if possible, but this looks like a "less is more" case. Article is now consistantly good. I have no more objections. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - See history for lengthy Discussion -Ravedave 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it to the talk, so it can still be read. Cheers, Marskell 08:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. I just ran this through spell checker and it was clean of any errors. Details are comprehensive and easily outlined. I wish we had a few more higher resolution images, but those are tough to come by. I have only seen two bobcats in all my years of hiking and backpacking, so I know taking pictures of these elusive animals is not easy. I can't see what else can be done to make the article better. Excellent work.--MONGO 06:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion, per MONGO. Excellent article. ElinorD (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.