Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elk (Cervus canadensis)/archive1

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 not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

---

Elk (Cervus canadensis)

Self nom. Article has been through peer review and suggestions there have been met. Suggestions have been made about adding more information on Eurasian subspecies, but this information is not well documented in published sources. Further advice as to what else is needed is appreciated.--MONGO 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mongo. I'll try and give this a good go-over, but likely in stops and starts. On the lead:

• You've capitalized Elk at first mention, but not elsewhere. On Cougar we've decided to use uppercase at all mentions and do away with the debate. (There is a great amount of inconsistency on Wiki in this regard.)
• Not sure about starting with genetic comparisons. I'd tend to start with the definition and move immediately to range. (This was only a suggestion--it's fine as is.)
• Over-specificity: "Elk antlers and velvet is [are] used by Asians in holistic medicines." Is this vital? At least, it should be shuffled to the bottom of the lead.
• "Elk are one of the largest mammals to inhabit their ecosystems." Clarify: "their" can refer to "Elk" or "mammals".
• Wordiness:
  • "...where they are oftentimes raised on farms and their products are sold to various markets."
  • "...indictates that they are in fact different" to "indicates otherwise" maybe.
• The dabbing drops off. Could you dab "migration" and perhaps "harem" to something useful?
• I would try to make the first sentence of the third paragraph two, giving "bugling" a distinct mention.
• The last paragraph is haphazard, joining three distinct points. (A common difficulty at the end of leads and sections).

Great work. I'll check back in. I'm worried about leaving Cougar and Elk on FAC at once, however—it could get bloody. Marskell 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Made adjustments to the capitalization issue throughout. Dabbed mating and Migration (disambiguation)...the latter doesn't have a better link to use. Couldn't find anything suitable to handle Harem though. The remainder of your comments I will address shortly (in a day or two) after I consider a minor article reorganization. Really appreciate the rapid input on this.--MONGO 12:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made further adjustments to the lead, incorporating your suggestions...it probably still needs some more tweaking. I'm not conviced it has the best subtitling format yet. I am looking over the Cougar article and others to see if I can make further improvements.--MONGO 06:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted the sections some, incorporating a few under a new heading as in the Cougar article. Also made adjustments to try and fix the last paragraph of the intro.--MONGO 07:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks terrible with "Elk" capitalized throughout. Should we now change the "Dog" article? Over time, the Dog has developed into hundreds of breeds with a great degree of variation, many of these Dog breeds are familiar only in certain parts of the world, while other Dog breeds are internationally known. Uhhggg. What is the precedent in the sciences for doing this? It looks terrible. KP Botany 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Very tricky where we draw the line here. Elk made more sense to me capitalized but I agree about dog...can we think of an in betwewen one..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought capitalization is quite clear: in German, elk is with a capital E; in English, elk is only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or in a name like Rudolf the Rednosed Elk. In running text, elk is therefore not capitalized. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

There's the other interesting aspect of capitalizing it in English, "Elk" with a capital "e" means something different in English from elk with a lower case "e." KP Botany 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We've gone round the capitalization merry-go-round many times. In fact, the example of familiaris is the one I always used when debating the other side. Elk as used here is a proper noun, and the prescriptivist argument is for capitalization. There are elk (the Irish Elk, the Moose) etc. and then there is the Elk, Cervus canadensis. But mammals are a mess in this regard, and you can argue against it on descriptive grounds (i.e., not many sources do it, so we shouldn't).

The precedent in the sciences is with birds. Upper case is firmly in use because of potential confusion in not using it. If Red-bellied Woodpecker and Brown Warbler make sense, moose and cougar cease to, IMO. Marskell 10:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside of the birds, I'd suggest that the use of capitals is rare. Even in birds, in my experience, the capitals are only used when citing a specific species in full. For example, one might see: "The Yellow Warbler is a small bird typical of..." but also "Twelve warblers were banded by the Minnesota DNR at their..." So the cognate, here, would be: "Eastern Elk have been extinct for a century." but "Some cultures revere elk." I can tell you, though, that this is in no way standard usage, even in the bird literature, and one can readily find a host of counter-examples. But why talk about birds, let's look at the precedents for cervids.

Among the cervids, resources/animals/mammals/deer/cwd/cwdplan2002.pdf here (pdf) is just one example of dozens I was able to pull down in just five minutes of trying. A particuarly good example, from the Wildlife Management Bulletin (i.e. the primary literature) can be found here (html). I even checked the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and they use the no-capital style. Here is the online entry for "deer" in the 11th edition; no capitals...

In any case, to me, the answer is simple. This is the English version of Wikipedia. Any native English speaker, writing any one of those sentences for any purpose other than this article, I'd submit, would not capitalise as a matter of course. Why would we wish to torture ourselves by doing it? Precisely what information is added by capitalising those words? What is lost by not capitalising?

I'd simply suggest you surf around and find an article that does not use capitals. Why not check out, perhaps, Brown trout for a non-mammal and, maybe, Moose for a cervid? If not those, select any others you might like; there are a plethora of them out there (contrary to those who have suggested that Wikipedia is standardised on capitals). Read them without focusing on the absence of capitalisation and then tell me if an article is any less rigorous than it would be if it had capitals peppered throughout. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm. Your first two sentences make the argument. The first is a proper noun, the second common. "Look a Yellow Thornbill!" and "Look a yellow thornbill!" denote different things, and only the capitals lead you to the difference. It's obviously standard in ornithology because almost all the species names are compounds. I realize mammal papers very rarely capitalize, but even with mammals it can be a distinction with a difference. To paraphrase another editor, the largest of the Canadian lynxes is the Canadian Lynx. Compare chimpanzees and the Common Chimpanzee. (Note that "deer" by itself refers to multiple species, and is thus a common nown.)

Also, I made no argument about rigour. In fact, I don't really care if you don't capitalize (until about ten days ago, I never did)—just be consistent if you don't. I realize a majority of our articles don't do it, and descriptivist "corrections" will likely ensure that indefinitely. Indeed, maybe I'll change my mind again. Marskell 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

• Support: looks really good. I agree about the capitalization raised above. The text and everything is much polished from when I helped out a bit. Two points in terms of layout:

• .the Naming section is a bit stubby, and lacks something which seems to have become standard in the past few months of many biological FACs coming through - namely a taxonomic history - who described it, what was it known as. This can then include the molecular stuff as a postscript (also a stubby subsection) - so solves two problems at once.

• .lack of subheadings in the latter half of the article - Cultural refs and human uses (rename Commercial uses) can go under an Elks and humans heading. Otherwise the contents table looks a bit funny.

• .As is true for many species of deer, and especially those in mountainous regions - lose the "and".

• .During the winter, elk tend to favor wooded areas and sheltered valleys more often than in the summer for protection from the wind and availability of tree bark to eat... "tend to" is redundant; also "more often than in the " comes across sounding odd, maybe a semicolon and two clauses is better.

• In Health Issues, link Mule Deer?

Ultimately I don't think either of the Style issues are strictly opposable, I'll keep processing now...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 10:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Working on these issues...addressed issue of "tend to", wikilinks. Probably won't use "Elk" in subheadings in keeping with MOS. Retitled Naming section to Naming and etymology and will work to see how we can combine the DNA material into that leading section. Got rid of "and" as suggested. Did a number of otgher copyedits to reduce too often repeated use of the oword "Elk" as it is overkill since I think readers will know what we are discussing. Thanks for the advice....it is very much appreciated.--MONGO 12:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have combined the DNA info and the subspecies under a Taxonomy heading, combining those sections--MONGO 07:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Very informative article, well-referenced, well-written, and meets other FA criteria. --Aude (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• No support yet. The article is not up to featured article specs. I left on the article's talkpage compliance issue for improvement, as found by the peer reviewer script. Notably, the lead (see WP:LEAD) ought to be limiting itself to be a definition of the subject and a summary of the article. Now it reads (on and on) with even it's own footnotes for clarification. Attention for details is recommended here, using the simple script for testing when necessary. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

  Trimmed lead, not much more trimming is possible unless we then run into single sentence dead ends. The lead does detail the major sections of the article. I do believe the article uses only American English spelling, but will double check. Footnotes all are immediately after punctuation and all numbers that are part of measurements have non-breaking page stops between the number and the measurement. The image in the infobox is free use, I uploaded at as such...so are all the other images.--MONGO 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Someone did do some good editing, but it was reverted. MONGO, I know you're not an owner of articles, so please look over the edits done by the other editor, and consider their value, rather than allowing the wholesale reversion to stand, as they did improve the readability and accessibility of the article to encyclopedia users. The article has good content overall, but it needs a lot more work right now. KP Botany 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. can you show me the diffs? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it over again, but I generally concur with the revert overall. I didn't do the revert, but I think spelling out measurements is unnecessary. However, I am not glued to having Elk always capitalized or only when used at the beginning of a sentence. I was going by Marskells comments as to how they handled it for the Cougar article.--MONGO 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, gladly.%28Cervus canadensis%29&diff=136150582&oldid=135968347 Here's an example, original prose:

Although native to North America and eastern Asia, they have adapted well to other countries were they have been introduced, including New Zealand and Argentina. In some parts of the world where Elk have been transplanted, their high level of adaptability is posing a threat to endemic species and ecosystems, and they are considered to be an invasive species.

Changed prose, now deleted:

Although native to North America and eastern Asia, elk have adapted well to countries where they have been introduced, including New Zealand and Argentina. In some places where elk have been intoduced, they pose a threat to endemic species and ecosystems, and they are considered to be an pests.

This latter is just one example of taking something that is well-written and making it into clear and beautiful prose. I urge you to reconsider wholesale deletionn to this editor's edits--in fact, please just revert to his/her second version and change details as necessary. I'm also going to try to con him/her into editing/deturgidifying some of my articles, so be nice.

This editor did not just spell out measurements, this editor really improved the prose of what was already a well-written article. The two need configured, though, as invasive species is better than pests, and the prose needed edited also.

A dog is a dog, and an elk is an elk--dogs have been artifically bred for centuries to bring about the variation you see, that's all. KP Botany 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There were a few incorrections in Fluris edits. I have readded some of the changes back in, such as the intro and a few passages in the early sections. I am still on the fence about the capitalization issue...I tend to think it looks better uppercase, as does Marskell, while you and Fluri disagree. I'm heading out but will look this over again in 4 or 5 hours.--MONGO 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest moving this to whichever name is suggested by MSW3. Possibly move Elk to Elk (disambiguation) and move this article to Elk. Also, when referring it to as a species, use the singluar. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  I favored doing that move long ago, but during the effort to split this article off from Red Deer, there was strong opposition. I'm not clear on what you mean by using the singular when it is referred to as a species.--MONGO 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I got rid of the red link for the Huemul Deer (you can re-dab it to South Andean Deer, if you like). I notice the link,[1] however, actually refers to the Red Deer and not the Elk as the invasive species. Marskell 06:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think since there is still some confusion in the general public about the diffs between Red Deer and Elk, it could go either way...the animal they are mentioning in the link might be either. I'll look it over again.--MONGO 07:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It did say Cervus elaphus. Marskell 08:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but until 2004 they were both Cervus elaphus. Marskell 08:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am looking over the links...I don't see any yet that specify that North American elk were ever introdcued to S. America...only that Red Deer were, from Europe. In New Zealand, the link I have here states that 15% of the large cervids there are Elk imported from Canada and the rest are all Red Deer from Europe...I need ot look this over some more to see what else I can figure out. If there is no evidence that North American elk were transplanted to S. America, then a lot of that will need to be removed perhaps.--MONGO 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that may have to be cut and reworked. The IUCN doesn't specify that it's not the Elk, but I assume it's the European Red Deer they are speaking of. Marskell 08:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Marskell, I do appreciate the help with this. It might be a couple of days before I can resolve this issue, but it needs a resolution for I definitely want to stick to the facts here.--MONGO 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I found one minor ref that states that Elk were introduced to Argentina. I know I have read somewhere they have also been introduced other places, but we can't go on what I read. I'll continue top look for more refs and I have contacted someone I know at the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming to see if they have any more leads. It might be a few days before I have abetter answer, but essentially, as to the IUCN, I think their definition of Elk being a nuisance applies to both the Red Deer and Elk since both are non-native and in some areas, free ranging.--MONGO 05:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Object Why should elk be capitalized in the middle of a sentence? That'd be like saying Dog, Cat, and Deer should be. They should uppercase only if at the very start of a sentence or referring to a specific named elk. Rlevse 17:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  We're still working on this issue. But, in answer to your question, an Elk is a specific species of animal that has far less differences in it's "races" or types than a dog and even less than the various cats even more so...cat is oftentimes a very broadly applied word that emcompasses the cat family...lions/tigers/etc. Deer is the family of animals that Elk are but a part of, along with White-tailed deer, mule deer, Sika Deer, etc. Specific common names of a species like Elk, Wapiti and Sika Deer, seem to need to be capitalized in my opinion, but as I said, we still need to clarify this yet.--MONGO 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  I notice you used "lion" nad "tiger" in lower case in your arguments.... I would also need you to provide a sources on the dog "races" thing. The article is looking good, remind me to change my vote when you get it done.KP Botany 20:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  To be clear, caps/no caps are not in any way an oppose rationale. There's no right answer. That the article is consistent in its usage would be the only question. Marskell 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Lions/Tigers, just typing my comments, it's not in article text so I didn't pay a lot of attention to whether I capitalized my comments or not. This matter could really go either way, but again, I'm not sworn to it either way. I'll look over MOS and see what I can come up with. Dog is just a generic and not specific, Elk is specific as is Wapiti and is part of the offical name of particular subspecies. Cougar is capitalized throughout and was just promoted to FA.--MONGO 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just pointing out that lion and tiger are specific. What, by the way, is the outside source/reference/citation for capitalizing elk? KP Botany 21:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes,it is an oppose rationale as it relates to grammar. you shot yourself in the foot by lc'ing lion and tiger, which are types of cats, as you say elk are a type of deer. Rlevse 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not an oppose rationale insofar as the grammar is not incorrect. Marskell 09:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

These opposes are, well simply silly. I shot myself in the foot...what? How many times have I stated that I am not married to elk being always capitalized or not? But, frankly, if Cougar is always capitalized, just became featured and is now, as we speak, on the mainpage, I hardly see any reason this article should alter its capaitalization of Elk just to appease a few who "think" it needs to not be uniformly capitalized. This entire argument is ridiculous, so uinless you have a better reason for opposing, then I think I'll see what else I can do to make the article better without making capitalization changes just 'cause you guys say so. But if anyone wants to change it, feel free...I really don't care and I'm not anyones secretary.--MONGO 05:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The National Elk Refuge website [2] doesn't capitalize it unless it is used as a proper noun or at the beginning of the sentence. I'll just change it back to the their standardization, which is where I had it to begin with. Are there any other comments which I can use to help make the article better?--MONGO 05:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Anyhow, what happened with the invasive species info? We ought to be sure about whether it ranges in Argentina. Do you speak Spanish? Someone could ask for a ref at .es Marskell 09:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are there in Argentina, and I added a ref which states they were imported, but not sure they are free ranging. There is a lot of confusion on this point since the Elk and Red Deer (or elk and red deer) were, until very recently, considered to be the same critter. Give me another day or two.--MONGO 09:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I went and changed the capitalized wordings of elk to small case except where it is used as a subspecies naming...maybe someone would care to quickly scan and see if I have missed anything. I found a couple more references regarding where elk have been introduced and added them to the section on Introductions.--MONGO 06:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Check your captions for upper case. Also, it shouldn't be done in the first sentence if not done elsewhere, so I just changed it. Sorry I brought this up MONGO—you've been bullied here over a triviality.

Also, support. This is a fine, information-rich article. I'll continue to scan it for any other fixes. Marskell 06:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Took care of the captions...I seemed to have missed those...thanks. It's no big deal, as I usually allow others to comment and I follow their suggestions most of the time. I do agree that this is a technicality and it could go either way actually. I see on Cougar everything was also changed to lowercase...oh well...not sure it really matters that much. I do appreciate your assistance and the comments left by everyone who have taken the time to look over the article.--MONGO 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—needs a serious copy-edit; the requirement for professional formatting is not met because of the linkitis.
  • While it's not hugely linked, there are many useless patches of blue. Why "Europe", "mammals", "North America" and "Asia", "New Zealand", "Argentina", "infectious diseases" (about human diseases, not those of the elk—same with "vaccination"), "beef", and heck, what does "chicken" mean? These are such unusual, arcane terms that we need to spray blue everywhere by linking them. Delink them and the text is easier to read, looks much better on the screen, and the high-value links are more prominent. The whole text needs auditing for useless links.
  • "Elk are susceptible to a number of health issues"—susceptible to issues is not quite idiomatic.
  • "poses a threat to endemic species and ecosystems and they are considered an invasive species"—Two "ands", and you need a comma. Surely you need to say where they're invasive—not in their native locations ...
  • "a loud series of screams designed to help attract females"—Do the elk really sit around and "design" their mating call? Remove "help". Tony 07:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blue-linking all locations has become common practice at first mention. Has any guideline been updated in this regard? I agree they don't require it but editors will "correct" in that direction. I would tend to link mammal on a mammal article, as well as all other species names. Marskell 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reworked a couple points brought up by Tony, Thanks, but not interestd in removing blue links just on an opinion since they are not overly done and don't repeat later in the text that I can see...it seems to be correct formatting to have major articles linked in their first appearance in other articles. "Susceptible" is idiomatic, it is the correct usage of the word for the situation...ie: see susceptible as well as this.--MONGO 15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Note - Per Uther's suggestion above, I've moved this page. To avoid confusing gimmebot, I've restarted this nom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elk Raul654 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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.