Talk:Marquesan Dog/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one too, I like the topic. --FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As in the other article, there could be a characteristics section.
- Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The intro seems a bit skimpy, could be expanded.
- Added a bit more.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The linguistics section seems like it could be a subsection of the history section.
- @FunkMonk: I think it is a okay the way at the beginning, almost like an etymology section. It would look weird if incorporated into the history part.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but it seems a bit strange to have it before the animal itself is introduced in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this. I am a little busy right now but I can get to this in a few days from now. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some further comments below, will add more later. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They were thought to be fairly rare and "never numerous in the islands" even before the arrival of Europeans." What is the rationale for thinking they were rare?
- I think it is rooted in the author's synthesis of spatial data gathered from the bones and images of the dog before European arrival and also these their proximity to religious sites and political centers.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Many of petroglyphs" Seems of should be removed.
- Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"by University of California, Berkeley" Do we need to know the university affiliations of one person in the article?
- I guess not.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"or a Spanish loanword from perro" Which means what?
- Added "(dog)".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"but may have some connection to wanuhe" Likewise.
- Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zoomorphism could be explained in parenthesis.
- Should it? I think it is simple enough to understand i.e. animal-like and it would be odd to add a parentheses between that and quadruped, another descriptor..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it, but do you think the majority of the readers would? Compared to "quadruped", this isn't exactly a common word. FunkMonk (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Added "animal shaped". Thanks.

Since bones have been found, there must be some sort of estimate of their size and proportions?
- You know that is a question that I've ask as well especially at the Tahitian Dog article, but the scholarship in that field seems to be lacking. In her paper at the end, Millerstrom mentions that a study of bone morphology is something future scholar needs to look at. I think each of the archaeologists must have recorded measurements but no one has taken the time to study those results and I am not sure how to access those measurements given that I have no idea which papers they published it in plus some are not even in English.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did the islanders recognise the European dogs as being the same kind of animal as those they had once kept themselves?
- I am not sure. It is not specifically stated in the sources but they did greatly desire the dogs brought by the Spanish. And in the case of Pato, the chiefs definitely like having them as pets. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks fine to me now, so will pass. It is annoying that some info about the dog remains unpublished, but let's just hope someone adds it here once it is. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]