Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Columbian mammoth/archive1

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2015 [1].

Columbian mammoth[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second-best known species of mammoth (after the woolly one), and being from America, also one of the largest. I have tried to be as comprehensive with the literature and imagery as possible. Some of the text is similar or identical to that in the woolly mammoth FA (mainly in the evolution and dentition sections) as these species have several features in common. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I read through this while on a smartphone somewhere out and about. Most of the article reads ok except the lead is clunky in places. will post some queries below:
The Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) was a species of mammoth, the common name for the extinct elephant genus Mammuthus. The Columbian mammoth lived during the Pleistocene epoch, and inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica. --middle bit clunky - would trim to "The Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) was a species of mammoth that inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica during the Pleistocene epoch."
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: best to comment on Calliopejen's edits to let folks know if you're happy with them (she's also left some queries in commented out notes.
And my rejigging of lead, while we're there.
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, I'll fix the issues above and those raised during copy edit today. Not sure if Calliopejen1 is completely finished copy editing (dentition, palaeobiology and distribution are largely untouched), but I think the sections she has already finished should be fine for me to edit. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now addressed all the issues raised during copy-editing. Just notify me if you have further questions, Calliopejen1. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. ok, looking better...more now.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica during the Pleistocene epoch. - do we know approximately where in the U.S.? It's a big place north to south....
As shown on this map[2], it is most of the US. I have added "northern", but not sure if it is enough or is udnerstandable? FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there are alotta mammoths in the first para of Evolution...if we can reduce one or two it'd flow better...
Removed two, better? FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from their larger size and more "primitive" molars, - why is primitive in quotes here?
Many specimens also accumulated in "natural traps" - ditto
... male mammoths mainly lived alone and were more "adventurous" .. - ditto
supported the "overkill hypothesis" - ditto, especially as unquoted a few lines before.
Removed the quotes mentioned above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose - I can't see anything else to fix but I often miss things so will feel happier when some other folks look at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems this is stalling for some reason, should I advertise at relevant Wikiprojects? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutrally worded requests for comment at relevant projects is fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I made this section[3] at the animal project, which seems to be the most visited relevant project. Also at the palaeontology project[4], and mammal project[5]. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • In the lead "which entered North America about 1.5 million years ago". I would add from Asia.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference to the Channel Islands will confuse some readers (well it confused me wondering how they got to islands off the coast of France). I would show it as "of California".
I assume you mean in the intro? If so, done. Already in article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since doubt about its adequacy as a holotype has been raised." Presumably doubts - one doubt would hardly be taken seriously.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pygmy mammoths - maybe mention that they are an example of island dwarfing.
Added in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known whether there was a land bridge 80,000 years ago - or whether their ancestors might have swum across? Neanderthals crossed a land bridge from Europe to Britain around then so sea levels must have been lower.
Readded explanation that was snipped during copyedit. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the Columbian mammoth showed that the two examined specimens, including the morphologically typical "Huntington mammoth"" A bit clumsy. How about "of two Columbian mammothss, including the morphologically typical "Huntington mammoth", shows that"
Took your suggestion in slightly modified form. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear about this paragraph, probably due to my limited knowledge. If I understand correctly, two Columbian mammoths have the same mitochondria as one sub-clade of wooolly mammoths. This suggests inter-breeding, but is it sufficient on its own to show introgression and dominance rather than genetic drift?
The problem is that only two Columbian specimens have been analysed, so more specimens need to be examined before anything can be safely concluded. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still confused. 1. You say that more specimens need to be examined before anything can be safely concluded, but the article implies that the doubt concerns which species was dominant, and my query was about whether alternative explanations - such as genetic drift, or that the Columbian mammoth and the woolly mammoth sub-clade bot retained the original mitochondria of their common ancestor - can be ruled out. Is it correct that the doubt is which species was dominant? 2. I also do not understand how the results could be explained by the dominance of Columbian males. It would affect the nuclear DNA, but why would it explain "Columbian" mitochondria inherited through females in a sub-clade of woolly mammoths? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of puzzled by the part myself, here it is, from the open access paper, I've bolded a part I felt may be a bit too specific, but perhaps it is the key: "At present, however, we suspect that hybridization between CMs and WMs may be a more parsimonious explanation for our observations. Under one conception, haplogroup C could have been a predominantly CM haplogroup that introgressed into WM populations, at such a frequency that it came to dominate the North American mitochondrial gene pool of that species. The fact that both CMs sequenced here are haplogroup C would lend some support to this hypothesis. Another possibility is that introgression occurred in the opposite direction, such that WM-typical haplogroup C introgressed into CM populations (Figure ​(Figure2a).2a). From a behavioral perspective, this configuration is perhaps more likely, especially in light of phenomena documented in extant African forest (Loxodonta cyclotis) and savanna (L. africana) elephants (Figure ​(Figure2b).2b). These living species are morphologically distinct and deeply divergent at many nuclear loci [32-35], but are known to interbreed at forest-savanna ecotones [36,37]. The result is 'cytonuclear dissociation' [38] between genomes in hybrid individuals, such that forest-typical mitochondrial haplotypes occur at low frequency in savanna populations. Hypothetically, this is driven by savanna males reproductively out-competing physically smaller forest males [38], producing unidirectional backcrossing of hybrid females into savanna populations. Since mammoths were probably very similar to modern elephants in social and reproductive behavior [4,27], it is conceivable that WMs and the physically larger CMs engaged in a similar dynamic when they encountered each other." [6] FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paper is very tentative - "At present, however, we suspect", "may be a more parsimonious explanation", "could have been". It was also apparently immediately questioned, although I do not have access to the commentary you cite at ref 13. These speculations seem to me too indefinite and tentative to justify the detailed account (and somewhat more definite language) in the article. I would suggest shortening it drastically to something like "A 2011 study of the complete mitochondrial genome (inherited through the female line) showed that two examined Columbian mammoths, including the morphologically typical "Huntington mammoth", were grouped within a subclade of woolly mammoths. One possible explanation is introgression of a haplogroup from woolly to Columbian mammoths, or vice versa, as a result of interbreeding. The authors of the study also suggest that the North American form sometimes referred to as M. jeffersonii may have been a hybrid between the two species, as it is morphologically intermediate.[12] These findings were not expected by scientists, nuclear DNA and more specimens will have to be analysed to clarify the situation." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Took your suggestion, but kept a short part about the modern analogues, and that the offspring were fertile. These two issues are not questioned. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments! All should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • There are several early 20C pictures by Charles R. Knight and others. Comments, maybe in the captions, about how accurate they are would be helpful.
Interesting suggestion. These images have actually been used in some modern contexts, a line drawing copy of the Knight image is used as an icon in the 2007 Lister book, and I believe I saw the Horsfall image used in the Nova documentary linked at the bottom of the article. We had some newer, usermade restorations on Commons, but these lacked fur almost entirely, which is inconsistent with the cave fur mentioned in the text, and this is also why I used those old illustrations instead, as they do show some fur. Modern restorations, like these[7][8], vary wildly on the extent of the fur, so the age of the images in the article doesn't really affect their accuracy. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the captions that the extent of the fur is hypothetical. Another thing that could be noted is that both restorations are based on the AMNH specimen with the crossed tusks, shown under evolution. This was originally considered a Columbian mammoth, and is so today, but for some part of the 20th century it was suggested to be a distinct species. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It was larger than the modern African elephant and the woolly mammoth, both of which reached about 2.7 to 3.4 m (9–11 ft), and was about the same size as the earlier mammoth species M. meridionalis and M. trogontherii." Presumably Columbian not woolly mammoth the same size as earlier species, but it is not entirely clear. "It was about the same size as the earlier mammoth species M. meridionalis and M. trogontherii, and was larger than the modern African elephant and the woolly mammoth, both of which reached about 2.7 to 3.4 m (9–11 ft)." would be eliminate any ambiguity.
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • mandibular symphysis could be linked.
It is mentioned twice under description, and linked at first occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was puzzled why tusks are in the dentition section until I saw in the article on elephants that tusks are modified teeth. Perhaps worth explaining?
Noted in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mammoths may have formed herds more often than modern elephants, since animals living in open areas are more likely to herd than those in forested areas." But some elephants live in deserts and grasslands.
True, I forgot to add "large" before herd, because all elephants of course form herds. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tusk growth slowed when foraging became more difficult, such as during illness or when a male mammoth was banished from the herd.[" But you say above that males were solitary.
Until elephant males reach a certain age, they do live with the herd. The source mentions this in another section, so have added that fact. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The earliest evidence of mammoth-butchering dates from 21,500 to 22,000 years ago." How solid is this date? Aren't claims of human occupation of the Americas this early highly controversial?
Added "suggested evidence", is that enough? FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that the Columbian mammoth evolved from M. trogontherii which entered north America 1.5 million years ago, but unless I have missed it you do not say when the Columbian is thought to have evolved.
None of the sources I could find state it, annoyingly. I guess it is because most of the old remains are fragmentary, mainly consisting of molars, and since the two species had a similar number of molar ridges, it should be hard to point down when the transition happened. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed but I think there is a great deal of special pleading in denials that humans were responsible for extinctions of megafauna. Apparently all over the world they survived all that climate threw at them for hundreds of thousands of years and then coincidentally disappeared as a result of climate change just when humans reached to area.
Yeah, climate change certainly didn't help, but I doubt it was the sole cause either. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all suggestions should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think a sentence or two in the taxonomy section or the captions on the accuracy of the early 20C images (in addition to the one on fur) would be helpful, but this is a minor point and the article is first rate.

Thanks, yeah, I think more research will be done on those specimens in the coming years anyway, that will give us more reliable information to add about them.... FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

In general, the article looks good. A few points:-

  • "Several sites contain the skeletons of multiple Columbian mammoths, either as the result of single incidents such as flash floods or natural traps in which individuals accumulated over time." - This sentence is a bit awkward; I would have preferred "a single incident such as a flash flood"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is their closest extant relative." - This is ambiguous because the previous sentence is about the mastodon.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cladogram shows the Asian elephant and the Columbian mammoth, but what about the other mammoth species?
That's all which was included in the original paper... But the text explains the interrelatedness of the rest of them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are therefore considered the distinct species M. exilis, the pygmy mammoth (or a subspecies, M. c. exilis)." - This sentence could usefully add "to be".
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The best indication of sex is the size of the pelvis, since the birth canal is always wider in females than in males." - You have birth canal wikilinked to "vagina", and I think this sentence needs rephrasing.
Removed the link, the redirect was too specific. How should it be restructured? FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could just replace "the birth canal" with "it" (ie the pelvis). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be too broad, as osteologically, the birth canal is the opening in the pelvis where young pass through, but we don't seem to have an article about that specifically. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Males cannot give birth so they do not have birth canals. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it also appears to be a bit inconsistent, but the opening is "used" as birth canal for females, as stated on Britannica: "The ring made by the pelvic girdle functions as the birth canal in females."[9] So well, the cited source uses the term for both males and females in parts: "Because this bone contains the birth canal through which baby mammoths were born, its shape differs clearly between males and females. In the female, the birth canal is relatively wider, and the bone surrounding it, the illium, is proportionately narrow. In males, conversely, the equivalent hole is narrower and the illium wider. Measurement of a series of skeletons has shown that the ratio of canal width to illium width is always higher in females than in males." So I've now changed the text to: "The best indication of sex is the size of the pelvic girdle, since the passage that functions as the birth canal is always wider in females than in males". FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thay's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which part of the skeleton is the rostrum?
Specified further. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Annual tusk growth of 2.5–15 cm (0.98–5.91 in) continued throughout life" - This conversion factor is too precise.
Fixed, conversion template removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the third were 15 cm (6 in) 15 cm (5.9 in) long" - some duplication here.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Growing 180.9 mm of ridge took about 10.6 years." - Could use cm instead of mm, round to 18 cm and provide imperial equivalent.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Columbian mammoths had four functional molar teeth at a time, two in the upper jaw and two in the lower" - Does this mean a total of four molars? What was their dental formula?
Yes, like modern elephants, two in the upper jaw and two in the lower (can be seen in the photos under dentition and diet). Not sure about the exact dental formula, though, if you mean what each molar "number" each of them corresponds to. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the molars are impressive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dung consists of 95 percent grass and sedge, with 0-25 percent woody plants between boluses (including saltbush, sagebrush, water birch and blue spruce)." - I don't understand this sentence.
Will it make more sense if I add "varying from 0 to 25 between boluses"?FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand what you are getting at now, but you can't really start with 95% grasses and sedges, and then continue with your other information, because the percentage figures should add up to 100%. Do you really mean boluses or are you referring to droppings? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bolus is an individual, err, "ball" of dung. The percentage inconsistency is of course weird, but the source says: "Bechan mammoth dung ... comprises 95 per cent grass and sedge by weight. Woody plants also occurred, in quantities varying from zero to 25 per cent between boluses". FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bolus is "a small rounded mass of a substance, especially of chewed food at the moment of swallowing" and I don't think the word is used for dung. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would appear our article is inadequate, as several modern elephant papers mention "dung boluses":[10][11][12] So maybe I should just add "dung" in front of bolus here? The book source I used only says "bolus". FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would satisfy me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, both this and the stuff about the birth canal have been added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! All should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now supporting on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: All good, expect for File:Columbian mammoth petroglyphs.jpg which is copyrighted. LittleJerry (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on that point, LittleJerry, but I feel there are other significant issues with the images. – Maky « talk » 01:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

(edit conflict) There are a few issues, which I've listed below.

  • For File:Mammuthus columbi molar.jpg, I suggest trying to find information about birth and death dates of the artist / lithographer... which I know can be challenging. It took a little while, but I found "Austrian-born Joseph Dinkel (c.1806-1891)" in an interesting article by The Geological Society. This also changes the license to PD-old-100. Also, be sure to add the template marking the description as English so that this doesn't appear at the top of the page: "This image does not appear to have a description in your interface language. Please add one!" This goes for all of the images in the article.
Added death info. I don't get the language note, and I have never heard of that being a requirement for FAC. So I don't think it is necessary, is more of a local Commons standardisation thing. I'd certainly have to get some more confirmation for this being a criterion before going over the task. You can probably turn the notification off in your preferences. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The language thing is not required for FAC as far as I know, but it does add a professional element to the image documentation, as do proper headings for the Summary and Licensing. It helps readers from other Wikis know what language the description is in, and if multiple translations of the description are given, it helps them quickly find their language. File:Pygmy_mammoth.JPG is an example. I'll add it to the images for you since it's no biggie. Here's the diff in case you're not familiar with the template. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for adding the template then! Images in these articles are replaced so often that paying attention to details not covered in the FAC criteria often end up being in vain. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the death dates of the artists, per Commons:Creator: "date of death and nationality is also important for verifying validity [of licenses]". I went ahead and created Creator templates for each of these artists and added the templates to the Summary boxes. Mandatory for FAC? No. Should it be? IMO, yes. – Maky « talk » 21:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very minor issue, but please also clean up the descriptions and anything else for the images used. For example, File:Columbian Mammoth - Front View (Florida).jpg could be simplified to use the link only rather than say "More information about this species: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_Mammoth".
Removed the text, was on the original Flickr page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Again, nitpicking, but I feel the media of a featured article should have descriptions (in addition to sourcing and licensing) that matches the quality of the article. Just a pet peeve of mine. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added dates. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Elephantidae-scale.svg needs sources for these numbers. Under "Source", "Own work" is fine for the image, but it should also include the sources for the data.
I have notified the author[13], if nothing comes of it, I'll crosscheck with sources myself. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Mike.BRZ, who has commented on such scale images in the past, perhaps he knows where to cross check and verify the image? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the biggest Stegodon mount I was able to find information on [Link], seems that the 4m tall claim is rounded from that, maybe accounting for the flesh but imo is important to note that in life, the scapulae even in standing position, extend beyond the neural spines (Osborn 1942, Larramendi 2014) therefore the shoulders are too low in the ribcage and its true skeletal shoulder height would be about 3.5m. As for the Columbian mammoth, Osborn (1942) puts the skeletal shoulder height of "Archidiskodon imperator maibeni" Nebraska Museum 5-9-22 AKA Archie, at 383cm and estimated flesh shoulder height of 407cm. I've got nothing at hand about Gomphotherium though. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lister 2007 states 4 m for the Columbian mammoth though, so that one would be fine, I guess. I guess the modern elephants are within range? FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I don't know if it'll be an apples to apples comparison, the Asian elephant appears to be 2.5m at the shoulder (contra the description) and the African one is 3m, those are not the sizes of full grown males while Columbian mammoth at 4m and Stegodon at 3.5m are for the largest specimens. Mike.BRZ (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this image is better/easier to verify?[14] FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that size chart, assuming the human is 1.8m tall, M. trogontherii is 4.8m, M. meridionalis is 4.6m, M. columbi is 4.4m, M. primigenius is 3m and M. exilis is 1.5m.
  • M. trogontherii, you might find a mention of a supposedly 5m tall specimen (Garutt & Nikoloskaya, 1988) but is an extrapolation based on an skeleton, again, mounted with the shoulders too low in the torso, the best estimate for that specimen is that of Osborn (1942) at 4.5m in the flesh and that is to this day the largest specimen found however average height of a full grown male appears to be around ~3.9m in the flesh (Larramendi, 2014).
  • M. meridionalis, according to Osborn (1942) the largest specimen is the one in the Paris museum with an skeletal shoulder height of 3.5m, 3.7m in the flesh, Gaudry (1893) gives an skeletal shoulder height of 3.8m for the same specimen and Christiansen (2004) repeats it but this is once again a measurement to the top of the neural spines in a mount with the shoulders too low in the torso.
  • M. columbi, we already talked about this one, 4m is accurate for the largest specimen.
  • M. primigenius, this is tricky because there seems to be geographical size variation with those from the Siberian tundra being the smallest and some specimens ascribed to it might be M. trogontherii but Osborn (1942) gives a height of 3m while Christiansen (2004) mentions two mounted skeletons about 3.2m tall.
  • M. exilis, Agenbroad (2009) estimates an average of 1.7m for M. exilis and a max of 1.9m.
And the silhouettes are not very accurate for mammoths, they seem too Asian elephant-like. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could seem like a comparison should be made from scratch? I have an issue with the current image actually, which is that no source is provided for the silhouettes. In fact, after a quick Google search for Stegodon, it seems the silhouette is based on this image:[15] So I've now nominated it for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now cutting out some new silhouettes from free images on Commons, but I'll probably need some help for cross-checking and finding references. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you say the scapula would had extended above the neutral spines in life, Mike.BRZ? Here's a preliminary version, based on thenumbers in Lister 2007, all the big ones are given as 4 m:[16] Based on these free images:[17][18][19][20] I made the M. exilis outline myself after a skeleton, probably needs more belly. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the scapula is the tallest point of the shoulders in a proboscidean, I think M. exilis looks fine, that size chart is much better. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I've now replaced it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the work. I've tweaked the summary box a bit, too. However, as User:Crisco 1492 once pointed out on one of my FACs: "A JPG will display better [compared to a PNG] in the article (has to do with how MediaWiki downsamples)." If you decide to create a JPG version, here's an example of the image I had to create a JPG for, complete with template examples, etc.: File:Katzenmaki (Chirogaleus_furcifer).png – Maky « talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be pretty easy for me to do a jpg version, though the reason I used png is the "warning" template someone added here[21], and because it allows for transparent background. Not that the latter feature adds much... Thanks for the cool stuff on the image page, and of course thanks to Mike for the detailed responses. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically an image like this should be a SVG... but due to its content, I'm not sure how to best convert it (or create that way in the first place). Honestly, I'd say you're fine unless someone complains. – Maky « talk » 00:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not much of a vector guy myself, so maybe someone else will do it, also why I made sure that none of the shapes overlapped, so it would be easier for others to edit the image. By the way, am I the only one who doesn't see any image when I go to the file page? FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a server-side issue. I'm seeing that, too. It usually resolves itself in a day or two. – Maky « talk » 01:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A CC licensed paper with free size comparisons was just published yesterday[22], so if I do a new image, i'll use those images... Kind of annoying that it came out right after... FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Socoaststatebeachterracemammothrocks.jpg needs to go through Commons:OTRS. Simply saying "written permission has been received from the photographer to licence this image via "share-and-share-alike vers 2.5" Anlace 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)" is not enough. They will need you to send a copy of the correspondence, and hopefully it meets all the legal guidelines. Once things are adequately documented, they will archive the information in case of a legal dispute. Sorry, but this is not optional.
I was thinking the same, though it has passed DYK and been on the front page without problems. I'll now ping the uploader Anlace, so the email correspondence can be provided. Also noted on talk page:[23] I have temporarily added this photo of some of the same rocks instead:[24] FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it passes somewhere else (particularly DYK), doesn't mean it's golden. FAC is the final check. Hopefully we can get this one resolved. It's a nice photo. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the uploader doesn't reply, I guess it'll have to be nominated for deletion, if the photographer can't otherwise be reached. The replacement image is fine enough for me (borders will be cropped), and I'm sure better free images will be found in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort and for replacing it. The replacement image is good and checks out. I've flagged the old image as needing OTRS approval, and you've given the uploader notice. If nothing is done in the next couple of weeks, it will be deleted. – Maky « talk » 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be made into a regular deletion request, to buy it more time? I could imagine others would want to make an effort to save it if they saw it there. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change it to a regular deletion request, go for it. I just marked it so it wouldn't slip through the cracks and sit there unquestioned for another 5 to 10 years. – Maky « talk » 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added dates. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Waco mammoth site W.jpg ... This one confused me for a minute. Apparently Nv8200pa is Larry D. Moore. Regardless, the infobox is contradictory. When the source says "© 2013 Larry D. Moore" and the license is CC BY-SA 3.0, something's not right. I suggest asking Larry to clarify this. Also, for the "Author" field, I suggest including his Wiki username for clarity. When I first looked at it, I thought it was another OTRS case since his Commons account makes no mention of who he is.
Dual licenses are allowed on Commons[25], if the © is of concern. Note that Larry D. Moore links to Nv8200pa under author, so it is the same person. I've added that to make it more clear. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke to some people on the #wikimedia-commons IRC channel, and we fixed this summary box up. The uploader should have used {{own}}, so we removed the username from the Author field and changed source to that template. Apparently the {{own}} template has "native" support for multi-licensing. It should be good now. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I moved it from the Description to the Source, though. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:A Mammoth Hunt.jpg, date is given "17 March 2013, 17:53:36" yet claims PD-US. Also, "John Steeple Davis (1844-1917)" found here. It would also be nice if the pink could be edited out.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Columbian mammoth petroglyphs.jpg, the sources says "Artwork: © Rob Ciaccio" and comes from a 2011 paper, yet the license is PD-old-70-1923? I'm not an expert on tracings, so I'm not sure if this can be used.
Exact tracings of PD work cannot be copyrighted, as they are merely derivative works.[26] "Replicas of artworks: Exact replicas of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself." The site also has the following, which I don't think applies, as this is not a photo: "Cave paintings: Cave walls are usually not flat, but three-dimensional. The same goes for antique vases and other uneven or rough surfaces. This could mean that photographs of such media can be copyrighted, even if the cave painting is in the public domain. (We are looking for case studies here!) Old frescoes and other PD paintings on flat surfaces should be fine, as long as they are reproduced as two-dimensional artworks." FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're right, PD-old-70-1923 isn't the right license. It would be either {{PD-scan}} and {{PD-art}}. However, the PDF source claims it's a "drawing" by the author. In other words, this is a borderline case. I took the issue to the #wikimedia-commons IRC channel, and the two people I spoke to agreed that it was very sketchy (no pun intended). Both felt the image should be removed. I think the best thing to do is discuss it at the Commons Village Pump and remove it until the matter is resolved. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, whether it's a tracing or freehand drawing doesn't really change the fact that it's clearly a derivative work of PD art with no original input. I'll bring it up at the pump. Here's the discussion:[27] FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't fly, I'll do my own tracing, if allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the best route to go. I'm sure you're allowed to trace it and release the image. The question is whether you need to release the image, or whether it's automatically in the public domain. – Maky « talk » 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now replaced it with my own tracing. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me! – Maky « talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, there might be too many images in the article. That's just my opinion though, and I'd want the opinion of other reviewers. For example, there are three illustrations of their molars, which seems a bit much.
The images that show molars also serve other functions (they have been carefully chosen for this reason). The first one shows the holotype specimen (which just happens to be a molar) and gives historical context, the second shows a lower jaw as well as lahar preservation (now noted in caption), and the last shows the underside of a tar pit skull under preparation. Subjects not shown in any other of the images. Furthermore, showing lower and upper molars in place in either the mandible or skull is not really interchangeable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. There's no hard limit to the number of images an article can have, so I can't hold things up over this. Looking again, I guess it's fine. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You probably know I'm a bit picky about image captions. Although I'm perfectly fine with noting in the caption the excavation site at which the photo was taken, I really dislike naming the museum (or zoo) where specimen photos were taken. If the reader wants that information, they should go to the image description. Otherwise it feels like advertising... and in fact, some people (not you) put their photos on Wikipedia to highlight their personal travels or bring attention to their local attractions. Again, that's just my pet peeve. You're welcome to discuss.
I personally disagree, noting the museum hints at the context and history of a specimen. Many of the specimens are rather famous (Huntington, AMNH, the Page Museum specimen, etc.), some have been exhibited at the respective museums for over a century, so their institution is part of their "identity", just like other museum objects. Very different from living zoo animals in this respect, I think, which are often moved between zoos for breeding purposes, and are therefore not especially connected to any of them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, though there are a few zoo animals that stay put. I'm not entirely convinced, but in this case I'm fine with the museum fossils. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise things look pretty good. Once these issues are fixed, I'll add my support. – Maky « talk » 01:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (by far the most detailed image review I've ever seen), all should be addressed, apart from two issues that await response from the original uploaders. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sorry for the extra work. And sorry for the additional item (below). I've been put through a rough image review or two, and I learned a lot for it. (And I'm still learning!) Good points were made, particularly about sourcing and licensing, and I feel they should definitely be requirements at FAC. (I believe they all are.) Fixing up the descriptions is a pet peeve, as explained above. But most of what I pointed out either directly or indirectly dealt with licensing and/or sourcing... as does my next point. (Also, I just had another major edit conflict. Hopefully I haven't missed anything you were adding while I was replying.)
  • For all the old art (PD-US, etc.), can you please convert the sources from raw links to proper citations with the link(s) wrapped around it? To ensure you have the right license (e.g. PD-US, PD-1923, etc.), we need to know when and where these books were published. (The best way to show this is in a proper citation.) For example, if one were published in the UK in 1921, the image might be usable in the US, but not in other countries. This is part of the reason why I think we should have death dates on the artists—to show we've carefully reviewed the image and determined it's proper license.
Should now be done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, File:Columbian mammoth.jpg needs verification of the 1909 date. The source cites if from 1942, and the other page doesn't seem to give the copyright date. – Maky « talk » 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The painting itself has 1909 written in the lower corner, and the caption by Osborn on that page states it was painted under his supervision in 1909. If that is not enough I can search for other sources. Knight made several small paintings for the AMNH in the late 19th and early 20th century. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the date in the corner, and to be honest, I can barely read it. Please note in the information box (next to the date in parentheses) the source of that 1909 date, and then I think you'll be good.
1909 now links to the same page as what is under source, where this info is found. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the license was wrong, so I got some help on the IRC channel again, and we fixed it. You should be good now. – Maky « talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After this and the three lingering issues, all should be good to go. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I guess we can only wait for answers from the two uploaders and the villagepump. Have to wait for the source review too anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like matters are resolving themselves. It looks like you're going to have to do your own tracing, and it seems you're getting lots of good discussion about the size comparison graphic. I'm sure this will all wrap up soon. Sorry for dragging it out. – Maky « talk » 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright, I think this needs a fourth support following another article review perhaps, and of course the source review, so it's not necessarily the image review that's holding it back at least. FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As long as the sources and text check out, based on the images I give my support for this article. Good job! – Maky « talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the help! FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Overall, formatting/layout of references looks sound and consistent.

  • footnotes 26 and 44 - can we find some form of identifier (doi, issn, isbn, url etc.)
Here's a URL for the first one, but it's not free and seems a bit sketchy, is it ok?[28] And here's a giant PDF with all Natural History issues of 1967, relevant article on page 762 of the PDF, ok?[29] FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use Eurekamag - I've seen some wierd mishmash of stuff on it. ok, just leave that one if nothing comes up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lister refs don't link to bibliography.
How is this done? FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the bibliography ref, use the parameter |ref=harv. In the body, use the citation template {{Sfn}}. I use Sfn all the time, so if you need an example, see my FAC. – Maky « talk » 05:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i'll try it out. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I do something wrong?[30] Doesn't appear to be linking correctly... FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you need to number the "last" and "first" parameters if there are more than one. So "last=" and "first=" should be "last1=" and "first1=". Secondly, because there is a "last2=", then {{Sfn}} needs to include both authors, so include a pipe after Lister and use Bahn (the second author). If you need help, I'll fix it. – Maky « talk » 08:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, worked! I'll now replace the other page ranges. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All should link now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources appear to be reliable.

Spot checking to follow: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • footnote 23 faithful to and not copyvio of source material.
  • two items cited to footnote 12 are faithful to source and are not copyvios.
  • footnote 27 faithful to and not copyvio of source material.
  • footnote 17 faithful to and not copyvio of source material.

i.e. spotchecks appear to be all in order....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2015 (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/Columbian_mammoth/archive1&oldid=1136098362"