Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raccoon

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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008 [1].

Raccoon[edit]

Nominator(s): Novil Ariandis (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that this article offers a very good overview over all main aspects of the raccoon. The article has gotten a thorough copy-editing in its previous GA review. Since then, I have extended the section about subspecies and checked all facts and given sources once again.

  • The three links to the IUCN Red List are dead at the moment, but the relevant information is also available in the given book by Samuel I. Zeveloff.
  • The often cited website Projekt Waschbär is maintained by Frank-Uwe Michler and his team. Frank-Uwe Michler was the student of the raccoon expert Ulf Hohmann and has studied the raccoon for over seven years. His recent research project is funded, among others, by the Technical University of Dresden and the Office of the Müritz National Park. There is a large number of newspaper and magazine articles about his research: [2]

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The figure: 0.03 km2 (0.01 mi2) is a bit messy, shouldn't it be in metres and yards? Though this would contradict the range in km2 and mi2 afterwards.
  • Reply: I think using 30,000 m² would suggest an accuracy not present in the source which says "3 ha to 38 ha". Using the same units of measurements is also good for comparisions. Therefore I propose to not change it. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to rename 'Nomenclature' to 'Etymology'?
  • More right-left staggering of images (in 'Physical characteristics' for e.g.) per MOS:IMAGES.
  • Images shouldn't break up headings per MOS:IMAGES.

Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Current ref 145 (Michler...) is lacking a publisher. it needs to note that it's in a non-English language and what language also. Same for Current ref 171 (same author)
  • Reply/Done: I have provided the language information. It doesn't have a publisher since it's a diploma thesis. I have provided that information now, too. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I ask the same for Image:Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 2.jpg. I see it has been a Featured Image, but think the template info cannot hurt the page. Can the caption for image be more descriptive than "portrait"?
  • The reliability of the source for Image:Waschbaer-verbreitung.png is unclear because the site is in German. Is this a Wikipedian? Are you able to confirm the individual who created the data for this map is an expert in the field?
  • Reply: This website is maintained by Ingo Bartussek, the author of the book Die Waschbären kommen (The raccoons are coming), which is used as a source for the article. The URL of the website is given on page 48 of the book. Ingo Bartussek is a wildlife photographer who was a member of Ulf Hohmann's research team in the 1990s. Furthermore, he has written articles for GEO and the BBC Wildlife Magazine about the species ([3]) and is organizing an ongoing traveling exhibition about raccoons ([4]). The data for the map was provided by Frank-Uwe Michler (see my nomination intro for some info about him) --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This File:Spiromoundsraccoon.svg needs a source to verify that such pre-Columbian art exists. Best would be to state exactly where in Oklahoma it can be found according to a reliable source.
  • Reply/Done: I was not the one who added this image to the article. I think it's a quite ugly drawing and I have found nothing to verify the claim made. Since there is a large number of other, very good images in this article, I have removed this image. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For accessibility issues, the image should appear below the subheadings.
  • I also have concerns that the image Image:Raccoons eat deer.png is an experiment to track chronic wasting disease among raccoons, but the image illustrates group feeding. That scenario has been set up by scientists. Does it depict what it is being used for?
  • Reply: Well...... it's certainly borderline and would be okay otherwise, but probably not for a featured article, so I have removed it. However, it would be nice to have an image of a raccoon group. I'll see if I can find a photograph with a free licence elsewhere, but I can't make promises. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are, as well, quite a few images. It makes the article appear messy in places. What are your thoughts on spacing some of these or removing a few?
  • Reply: I have removed the sketch in the mythology section and the group feeding pictue (see above). Besides that I believe that all images are showing something unique which could be of interest to the reader. The penis bone illustrates another part of the anatomy of raccoons. However, I would certainly remove it, if we had a full-body skeleton available. The picture of the raccoon on an apple tree illustrates its climbing abilities. The image with the skunk illustrates urban wildlife which gets fed by humans, quite important issues in an article about raccoons. I am not attached to the Baylisascaris procyonis larvae, but some readers might be interested to know how this potentially dangerous pathogen looks like. All other images are even more important in my eyes and it's good that we have them. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me know if you have questions. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Comment English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign sources when they are of equal quality. It appears that about half of the references are to sources in German. Is the English scholarship on raccoons really that much less reliable? 65.96.164.13 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Monographies written by noted experts of a field are the best possible secondary sources. Therefore, no equally reliable English secondary sources exist for the information taken from German books. This is especially true for most of the information contained in the chapters "Distribution outside North America", "Distribution in Germany" and some of the information contained in the chapters "Social behavior", "Conflicts" and "As pets". If you are questioning certain facts for which German sources were used, I can provide the original text and an English translation. Some information is also available in English sources, but I have always tried to use the best possible source. For example, Anke Lagoni-Hansen is offering especially comprehensive lists of statistics in her book Der Waschbär, but very outdated information regarding social behavior. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Overall very thorough and well-rounded, but a few issues.

  • In conflicts with humans, you mention that they very occasionally prey on cats/dogs. But you neglect to mention that raccoons are one of the most common predators of poultry, though mostly chickens and ducks (turkeys and geese are generally too large, as are other livestock). If you like, I have a list of poultry-related books that can be used to cite this, but this source and this source confirm this fact and are already used in the article. Please mention it in any section you like.
  • Reply/Done: I have provided a sentence about it in the "Conflicts" chapter. Along with two sentences about their impact on corn and other crops which seemed a bit more important to me. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the image of the penis bone in the article where it isn't mentioned? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in the Reproduction section?
  • Reply: The penis bone is mentioned in this paragraph: "The penis bone of males is about 10 cm (3.9 in) long and strongly bent at the front end." --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Hunting and fur trade, the various breeds of coonhound should probably be mentioned, even if their use wasn't exclusive to hunting raccoons.
  • I hate to bring this rather sad idea up, but is there a relationship to the animal at all etymologically to the other uses of the word Coon, such as the ethnic slur? If there is, the Etymology section should mention it briefly. If there is no relation, it should link to Coon and say that the word is used in other contexts with a different definition.
  • Reply: The origin of the ethnic slur "coon" is probably derived from the act of using coonhounds to hount escaped slaves. But reliable sources could be very hard to come by... The etymology section also shouldn't get much longer, so I'll see if I can write one additional sentence about the subject. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all else fails, a simple see also link to the dab page would suffice. Steven Walling (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are still many other minor facts not included in the article which do not lack reliable sources like this one. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS supports the right-left staggering of images, but it's also best to avoid divorcing headers from section text with a left-aligned image. No big deal, but it would be easier to read if you fixed a few of these.
  • Reply: I am quite sure that it is impossible to meet the inconsistent requirements regarding the placement of images proposed by various users in this nomination. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, no big deal. Image placement is not exactly a key issue. Steven Walling (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these few things, the article definitely meets FA standards. Nice work! Steven Walling (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

I'm fairly close to supporting. It is a comprehensive, well-researched and thorough article, but I still have some concerns:

  • I've done some copy-editing on the article and left some questions in hidden comments.
  • Reply: I have addressed most of your concerns, except the ones I disagreed with or which were just not clear enough. You can add them here again for further discussion. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead could do with some work: it is too detailed in some areas while ignoring others.
  • Reply: The lead is certainly on the short side which is the way I like it. I absolutely hate it when the lead is just a bit shorter version of the article. Is there anything specific you are missing in the lead? --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm certainly not encouraging you to make it longer, but I think it could summarize the article better; currently we get the length and weight ranges and the percentages of the components of the diet but no mention of evolution, subspecies, disease, or use as food or pets. Yomanganitalk 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most distinctive characteristics of the raccoon are its good memory, facial mask and extremely sensitive front paws — the latter two features are themes in the mythology of several Native American tribes. Admittedly I've rewritten this so the good memory isn't awkwardly shoe-horned in, but are these really the most distinctive characteristics? Facial mask yes, but memory? Perhaps dexterity, rather than sensitive front paws (this ties in better with the claim about the mythology, since the front paws are not a theme)
  • There are some inconsistencies in the text to do with the island subspecies/not subspecies - I suspect this is problematic, but it needs explaining.
  • I echo Steven Walling's concerns over the penis bone (I never thought I'd write that). It is somewhat glossed over considering it has a big in-your-face photo. None of the other bone lengths are mentioned. Is it unusual?
  • Reply: Ulf Hohmann writes that it is particularly strongly bent. Samuel I. Zeveloff describes that it can be used to make rough age estimates. There's also a picture of it in both books. So I guessed that I should mention it at least in one sentence. I included the picture to offer a wide variety of motifs in the article. I am really not that attached to it. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might like to expand the mention to include the age estimation. Yomanganitalk 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not really. Such specific pieces of information belong into a textbook and not into an overview article which is quite long already. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Conflicts" section has too much advice and not enough reporting for my liking
  • Reply/Done?: Parts of this section have been reworded. I think offering bits of advice in this section is appreciated by many readers. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks OK now. I'm sure there is some MoS diktat against giving advice. Yomanganitalk 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mythology section is weak. The Dakota Sioux and Aztec information needs expanding.
  • Reply/Done: The information on the Dakota Siouxs and Aztecs has been expanded. The mythology section shouldn't get too long, though. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hunting section mentions a population decline in the 30s, but doesn't mention if this is directly attributable to hunting. We don't get a lot of population information on the North American population aside from the hunting. I would have expected to see more in the "Distribution in North America" section
  • Reply: According to Zeveloff, the reasons for the population decline are not well understood. There are no estimates of the total number of raccoons living in North America. Is there anything specific you wanted to know which was not in the article? --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more recent information on the population statistics. For the US we have only the 5 times increase in the 1980s from the 1930s (with no figures for either). The hunting section later on gives us some idea that the populations must be larger than the numbers killed, but are there really no populations estimates for any area in any period in North America? If that is the case, it deserves a mention in the distribution section in itself. Yomanganitalk 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would love to add some information about population numbers in North America. However, I can't find anything, not even for an U. S. state. On the other hand, I also can't find a reliable source which says that no such population estimates exist, the best one was Actual raccoon population estimates are difficult to obtain and most states have had to be satisfied with simple indices of relative abundance. from http://www.wvdnr.org/Wildlife/Magazine/Archive/04Winter/monitoring_mountain_raccoons.shtm --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is putting dousing its own section giving it undue weight? For a behaviour only seen in captive animals it gets a lot of attention.
  • I would say that dousing is a characteristic behavior of raccoons that deserves extensive treatment. It's not well understood by most folks, and is a common question. The more we explain about it the better, as far as I'm concerned. Steven Walling (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: It certainly deserves its own chapter. The name for the animal in many languages is directly derived from this behavior. There also has been more feedback on this chapter on the discussion page by other readers than on all other chapters. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yomanganitalk 12:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Comments a comprehensive and well organized article
  • first as Ursus cauda abrupta (“long-tailed bear”) - abrupta would indicate something like broken-tailed bear ?
  • Reply/Done: Wow, thank you for the note. I slipped into the next row and took abrupta instead of elongata. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diseases section may be better as "Diseases and parasites"
  • Reply/Done: Another user changed it in "Health". Is this okay? --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamal (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not sure, but parasites can be present even in perfect health. Shyamal (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Oppose I'm concerned with the fact that you have two images of raccoons facing the right while being positioned on the right. (I feel silly saying that). Also, I am not comfortable with the images in "Evolution", the second in "Physical characteristics", "Senses", "Diet" and "Dousing", "Distribution outside North America", and "Hunting and fur trade" extending into the next sections and screwing up formatting. I am deeply concerned with the MoS violation of images under a third level header in "Health" and "Habitat". The "Habitat" picture can be fixed by removing the level header and just having it connected to the second level header. The "Health" image could be moved down a paragraph, or the top paragraph split and then moved down. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Sorry, but I won't spend any more time on such an irrelevant aspect like the absolute correct placement of images in an article. I am very happy with their current placement. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you made it clear that you wont change any of the images, I am opposing on grounds of direct violation of rules set out in WP:ACCESS. An article does not deserve Featured Status if it cannot accommodate all browser set ups. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have repositioned some of the pictures to aovid breaking the third level headings from the text, as that is a valid concern. I think worrying about which way the raccoons in the pictures are facing and pictures bleading into another section are minor and not enough to stop the article from becoming featured. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I am deeply concerned with the MoS violation of images under a third level header in "Health" and "Habitat"." This is NOT something to be deeply concerned with. You CAN be deeply concerned with the economic crisis, the suffering of the Burmese people under their military regime or the extinction of thousands of species each year, and MAYBE with a terrible factual mistake in the article, but NOT with the placement of images before or after or in between a heading. Please get your priorities straight. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good economy or bad, I still want you to obey the MoS and that is my primary concern right now. :P By the way, your placements still disrupt part of the headings. Your skull image disrupts "Evolution". Captive racoon disrupts "Dousing". The evolution section can be fixed by expanding the first paragraph by a few sentences then splitting it in half, then expanding the last paragraph by 2-3 sentences. Move the picture to the second paragraph. Same can be done for "Dousing". Split the first paragraph into three, add two sentences to each second. Move the picture to the second paragraph. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they do not disrupt anything to do with the headings. The part of the MoS which concerned you is in place so that section headings do not become disconnected from the text below when using large font. This is now taken care of. My understanding is that the issue with the layout now is that text to speech browsers will describe the image before the section, which, though arguably as logical as other arrangements, is against the MoS. The nominator may wish to look at the issue in this context.
  • I hope people reject the notion that we pad articles for the sake of image layout. 86.44.27.169 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the issues with the images should now be resolved. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Excellent article! Comprehensive, well-structured and an interesting read. Good image balance and well-cited with reliable sources. Everything a species FA should be. Well done! --mav (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. This is a well-researched, well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that can and should be held out as a model to emulate for any Wikipedia editors developing an encyclopedia article about any species of animal. Henry8787 (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have taken the liberty of removing a little redundancy [5]. To tell us that raccoons are predominantly nocturnal in a sentence about their diet is a bit odd and the section about the danger of ingesting worms from latrines could be clearer. But these are trivial points. Thanks for an interesting article. Graham Colm Talk 15:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is well-written and informative. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - The article is very informative and meets the FAC requirements. Though, a very minor issue ... I noticed some links to disambiguation pages. Please check (using the disambig links tool) and fix them. --Aude (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply/Done: I've fixed two links. The remaining link to the disambig page coon is desired. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs, please correct the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 21 December 2008 (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/Raccoon&oldid=1066793338"