Wikipedia:Peer review/Wolf/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wolf[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because we intend to eventually bring it to FA and would like a first look-through.

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Finally! I'll review this soon as if it was a FAC, and then you'll have my support once it gets nominated there. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance there are a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[1]
I have no idea how to use it. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty easy, as stated in the link, just copy and paste the line of code into here:[2] Then a button will appear under your tools at the left. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did that and copied the article text, but it doesn't highlight the duplinks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you click on "Highlight duplicate links" in the toolbox at the left? FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, maybe Willian can try to see if he can get it to work? It's quote useful. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very neat. What does that other string of code in your user script do? William Harristalk 11:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remember actually, seems it has something to do with moving pages:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 195 is showing a red error.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the external links seem puzzling, and could probably be pruned. For example, why do we need all these Encyclopædia Britannica entries, when they don't even seem to hold additional info? Others are extremely specific, when this is a general purpose article, such as UK Wolf Conservation Trust or California Wolf Center.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on the type specimen that Linnaeus studied in Sweden" Interesting, not that this info should be added, but does the type specimen still exist? Often taxa this old were not even based on specimens. Maybe we can find a photo of it?
I found a book that states that it resides in the Museum of Natural History in Stockholm, where all of the Linn's type specimens reside. I cannot locate a photo - it would have been nice. Their website is under reconstruction - there is a Linn-server being set up to show all of these pix, currently elephant and a few others are available. William Harristalk 08:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the Beringian wolf drawing should be replaced with this photo[4], as it is more verifiable, being a museum mount. Also, they show dentition, which the drawing does not, yet the article deals with it.
Done. William Harristalk 05:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The age is not agreed but" Agreed upon?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both the spellings gray and grey, should be consistent. Watch out for other UK/US inconsistencies. I also see both ise and ize.
Its written in Canadian English which mixes UK and US spellings. LittleJerry (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, yes, but not by using the same terms inconsistently within a single text. Either it is grey or gray, not both, same with ise or ize. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicate that a population bottleneck was followed by a rapid radiation" But when was the bottleneck caused?
Specifically, we do not know. (There is a study that has been sitting in peer review since July last year that gives us an answer, and from where they originated, but we must await its publishing. Hint: the pix of the Beringian wolf is most valid.......) William Harristalk 05:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This implies that the original wolf populations were out-competed" By original, do you mean the more morphological diverse population from before the bottleneck?
Amended to now read "This implies that the original morphological diverse wolf populations were out-competed by a new type of wolf which replaced them." William Harristalk 05:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the etymology section could explain why the term grey wolf is used over wolf (and what the relationships between these terms are), since you only explain the name wolf, yet grey wolf is used immediately afterwards in the next sections without explanation.
Removed most mentions of gray wolves. Expectation being in the interbreeding subsection were Golden wolves and Ethiopian wolves are mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where the term "gray wolf" came from now in this section. It is a US term. I am half-inclined to remove it from the first sentence of the article, given that this is a northern holarctic species. William Harristalk 05:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know there is a spin-off subspecies article, but remember that though such articles are to go into more depth about an aspect of a subject, the info therein still needs to be summarised in the main article. So here, I'd expect to at least see a brief discussion of the subspecies, which that are considered valid, and that it has been a historically contentious issue.
Section "Subspecies" added. William Harristalk 10:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, the Population structure section leaves the obvious question as to whether these populations correspond to named subspecies or not. Again, just briefly, as details are to be found in the sub article.
Taxonomists deal in phenotype, evolutionary biologists deal in genotype, and never the twain shall meet! This work has been conducted by the EBs, who don't care much for subspecies. In short, that information does not exist. William Harristalk 11:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, though there is a sub article too, it seems like an oversight that there is not even a brief discussion about how wolves are related to dogs. Again, this article should briefly summarise all the sub articles, and not leave out subjects entirely just because they are covered in depth elsewhere. For example, though there is an article about canid hybrids, you have a rather long section about the issue here too, which should apply to the other issues mentioned above as well. In fact, I think the subjects of subspecies and relations with dogs are even more important to mention here than admixture.
Addressed under the section "Subspecies". William Harristalk 10:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a consequence of the omission of a disucssion f subspecies, it is now a bit confusing when you mention names like timber wolf and others out of the blue, without links. If there had beena discussion of the subspecies earlier, it would be easier to for the reader to understand what we are referring to.
removed timber wolf. LittleJerry (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acquired their coloration from wolf-dog admixture after the first arrival of dogs" When was this?
12,000 to 14,000 years ago - now included. William Harristalk 11:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an awful lot of white space at the top of this[5] image. Images with borders should be cropped.
An opportunity to update my work........done. William Harristalk 11:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say female wolves weigh less than males, but are they also smaller overall?
Yes, done. William Harristalk 11:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect the text about locomotion to be in the sections on behaviour/adaptation rather than description? Same with the bite force column (and discussion of bite force). I'd rather expect a column of canid body measurements in description.
LittleJerry, I agree with Funkmonk: "Dentition and biteforce" should appear under "Adaptation" rather than "Description". Description is a place where you dump everything else that does not have a proper home elsewhere. The environment dictates the prey species, the prey species dictate the physical and behavioural adaptations of their predators. Detention and biteforce are adaptations. I also believe the table should stay - everybody wants to know how the biteforce of the wolf compares with the dog - the dog has 90% the power of the wolf. This is what we did with the Dire wolf and the Beringian wolf, which then passed FA review - the "Wolf" has yet to do that. William Harristalk 21:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added back. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both relocations now completed. William Harristalk 05:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison with cousins - these are isometric and if a wolf were to be shrunk down it would look like a coyote or a jackal (Miklosi 2015). So we get down to weight comparisons. There are some strong opinions on Wolf, who would expect a comparative table to reside in the Canis article rather than Wolf. I suggest the reader can visit the related Canis articles and do their own comparisons. William Harristalk 09:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with some hair loss around their nipples" Aren't these called teats in animals?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(2.4–2.8 in),and the guard hairs" Missing space.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the guard hairs on the shoulders generally does not" Do not?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph on coat colour only covers distinct, uniform colours, not possible combinations and patterns, which could be a nice adittion.
A description of the coat shading of the nominate subspecies is now provided. William Harristalk 10:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be stated if any of the same patters apply to other subspecies, and if the description is therefore somewhat universal? FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I finally found it. There is little variation apart from those wolves which are black and white, and this ties in with their "descend from a common ancestral wolf population that existed as recently as 20,000 years ago" as we say elsewhere in the article. I followed on from what we know about the Black wolf - ancient dog admixture. Similarly, white coat colour may have come from dogs as well, however the research has not been conducted - Hedricks 2009. William Harristalk 09:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were due to predation by other wolves" Doesn't predation imply feeding? Here it seems like it is more about fights?
Fixed. I think William Harris can do the rest. LittleJerry (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect more info, or at least a mention of, the alpha beta/lone wolf dynamics. For example, how does a wolf become outcast, what determines who is the leader, etc.
Its explained that wolf packs are nuclear families. The alphas have their positions because they are parents to the others and it already states what causes other individuals to leave (maturity, competition for food). Right William Harris? LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry is correct. Early studies were based on zoo "packs" and their formation; wolves do not behave like that in the wild. It is basically mum, dad, the older kids, the younger kids (pups), the odd maiden aunt who helps with the kids, or old uncle Joe who was made lame saving the pack against the cougar several winters ago and therefore could not leave to form his own pack - their packs reminds me of Victorian-age families. There is no such thing as the "lone wolf" and wolves do not howl at the moon, these are media myths, as a wolf observed on its own is either one of the pack who has left to seek a mate or one of the summer-hunting wolves when they separate from the parents and later all meet up again. This is in the article, but we cannot expect a reviewer to absorb everything in a 130kb page. William Harristalk 00:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I think we could help kill the myth(s) by stating it specifically in the article that such ideas are outdated? Because from reading here, I didn't get the impression that it was incorrect as such, and was left believing it was a valid variation of their social behaviour. FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now addressed - as best we can - at the beginning of the section "Social behaviour". William Harristalk 21:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any notable fossils or other museum specimens that could be shown?
I have had a look around the internet and could not find much. We have some Late Pleistocene museum specimens in some of my other articles, but I fear that putting any of these into Wolf might raise more questions than this article wants to explore - you know what those FAC reviewers are like. William Harristalk 01:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention location in some photos, I wonder if it would be good to be consistent with this, for example in the taxobox photo?
All done. William Harristalk 05:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it would be better to show a photo if pups rather than a somewhat idealised and fuzzy painting?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but I wonder if an actual photo like this[6] (perhaps cropped) showing different species seemingly competing over a carcass is more appropriate to show than the pronghorn carcass painting?
Cropped, uploaded, implemented. William Harristalk 11:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, seems the only wolf in the photo (I believe the one on the far left, the ones near the bear are coyotes?) has now been cropped out? FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I admit that I cannot tell a coyote apart from a wolf, and you folks cannot differentiate between a feral cat from a tiger quoll (Note: a feral cat will not rip your pack to shreds in order to get at your rations!) Jerry fixed it. William Harristalk 07:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From my admittedly inadequate experience, the coyotes seem more yellowish? FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all of the points raised above have been addressed (as best we can). William Harristalk 10:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, will review from Reproduction and onwards. FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "redish film" Reddish?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why shorten the caption "Wolf in northern Rocky Mountains" to "Wolf at rest"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no evidence that this wolf was in the northern Rocky Mountains. William Harristalk 07:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are covered in short soft grayish-brown fur." Are they really all born the same colour, even those that later become white or black?
I have spent far too much time on this one; I can find no source that tells us! William Harristalk 16:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Young females give birth with 4-5 young, and older females from 6-8 young" Give birth to? Birth with seems odd.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, we would also like your opinion on the "cooperation" subsection. See our conversation here about 17 lines down. LittleJerry (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the main problem to me with these sections is that, by looking at the titles alone, I would think they were about competition and cooperation with other wolves. I think at the least the titles should specify that it is between species. Then we can take it from there? FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both now retitled. (There exists an opportunity for an article to be created on "Wolf behaviour" that would cover the topics of wolf cooperation and competition; currently there are some comparisons sitting under "Dog behaviour". The biggest threat to a wolf pack is another wolf pack!) Back to you. William Harristalk 20:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can still merge them. Call it "Interactions with other predators". If "communication" doesn't have own section then I don't think cooperation should. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I am a bit of a "mergist", so I would keep them in one section (since the latter is so short), but that is a matter of taste rather than policy. I think maybe it could be left for the FAC reviewers? I don't think either choice would be considered a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jerry's comment on Wolf communication, I believe that topic is well-covered on Wikipedia. William Harristalk 00:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But its still merged with social behavior. LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is because it is a social behavior; refer Golden jackal (FA). You may give it its own sub-section if you like, but it will not last long. William Harristalk 03:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This matter is now resolved. William Harristalk 21:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "behavioral", you changed "behavior" to "behaviour" throughout, shouldn't it go for " behavioural" too?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, one error in judgement and it can be badly injured or killed." How about "one error in judgement can lead to serious injury or death"? I think it reads a bit awkwardly now.
Much better. William Harristalk 21:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A wolf must be able to kill without being killed." Hmmm, I guess this goes without saying?
Removed. William Harristalk 21:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at least one kilometre" Convert?
An eye for detail; implemented. William Harristalk 21:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is killed by biting large chunks of flesh from the soft perineum area, causing massive blood loss" Ouch, made me squirm a bit...
That did not ring true, so I have replaced it with 3 reliable sources - they bite at the hocks of the hind legs. William Harristalk 12:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such instances are common in domestic animals, but rare in the wild." Domestic wolves? Not sure what is meant here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wolf chasing magpies and ravens from an elk carcass" Strangely, I only see magpies? Oh, seems because the ravens have been cropped out[7], the caption and image description should be changed accordingly.
Given that a flock of birds - be they ravens, magpies, eagles etc - are not competing but just biding their time until the wolves have finished eating, I have recropped and replaced with the older wolf/bear/coyote/raven shot again. It may not be the best pix given its wide scale, but it highlights what we are talking about. William Harristalk 00:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Custer Wolf moved across the landscape " I think you could introduce this wolf in parenthesis or something ("a wolf that was held responsible for extensive damage to ranchers' livestock" or something), a bit esoteric now.
Done. William Harristalk 23:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A brown bear killed a wolf pup that was travelling with her pack in Wyoming" We already know this by "Both species kill each other's young", why do we need such a specific case which doesn't seem to add additional information?
Removed. William Harristalk 23:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wolves have been recorded on numerous occasions to actively seek out black bears in their dens and kill them without eating them." Adult bears?
The reference does not say. William Harristalk 23:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only human depleting of tiger numbers" Depletion?
Fixed. William Harristalk 23:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lengths of 100 cm" Convert?
Done LittleJerry (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Alaska, 7,000-11,000 wolves are found on 85% of Alaska's 1,517,733 km2 (586,000 sq mi)." Seems a bit clunky with the double Alaska.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "orks of Tolstoy, Chekhov, Nekrasov, Bunin, Sabaneyev" You give full names for the other author's mentioned.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Wolfes" Disambiguation page.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it could be stated specifically that the wolf has been exterminated from many countries where it formerly occurred. As a fun fact, which isn't significant enough for this article, wolves reappeared in Denmark (where I live) in 2012, for the first time in 200 years (having migrated from Germany).[8]
It already states that it was eliminated but has recolonize parts of its former range. LittleJerry (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, range, but from entire countries is not mentioned. I think it would be good to stress this to get the message across clearly. Yes, borders are arbitrary constructions, but it paints a more severe picture than just "former range". FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Domesticated animals are easy prey for wolves, as they have evolved under constant human protection" Is evolved the right word here for bred animals?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you say "colour" shouldn't "favor" and "favorable" be "favour" and "favourable"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but is controversial" Why?
William Harris, I think you should take this one. LittleJerry (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. The controversy relates specifically to Alaska, where so called "trophy hunters" were exterminating entire packs. The fact that airborne hunting - regardless of location - is highly effective is the key message here. William Harristalk 08:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "typically an apex predator" Only stated in intro.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A seven-year-old wolf is considered to be relatively old, and the maximum lifespan is about 16 years." Only seems to be stated in the intro.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wolf is one of the world's best-known and most-researched animals, with probably more books written about it than any other wild species." Likewise.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, the article looks mighty fine now, and I'll support it once it's at FAC. Since you're both native Anglophones, I won't recommend a copy edit as I otherwise usually do... The final issue I see is unsourced ends of paragraphs, such as "However, the geographic origin of this radiation is not known.", and the third paragrapgh under "Parasitic infections", which should be fixed before FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently working my way through Conservation:Eurasia, and will clean up the last bits as I go to the end of the article. Thanks for your detailed review, Funkmonk - I am not sure that you have left anything for the FAC reviewers to review! William Harristalk 08:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Wolf/archive1&oldid=935373888"