Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beringian wolf/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2017 [1].

Beringian wolf[edit]

Nominator(s): William Harris • (talk) • 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Beringian wolf (Canis lupus), an extinct type of wolf that lived during the Ice Age. It inhabited what is now modern-day eastern Alaska, the Yukon, and northern Wyoming but is morphologically and genetically different to the wolves that inhabit North America today. It existed at the same time as the more famous dire wolf that lived south of the glaciers. The Beringian wolf article has recently achieved GA listing and has been reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors. Please enjoy. William Harris • (talk) • 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Nice to see this finally up. I will add comments as I read along, so I might take some time to finish. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for initiating the comments. This page is not transcluding to the Talk:Beringian wolf page for some reason.
That is only supposed to happen automatically with GANs. It can be done manually for FACs, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, from reading the intro and skimming the article, I'm not really sure whether anyone is proposing this is a distinct taxon or not? Could we get a clearer statement on this in the intro?
Addressed; no subspecies classification has been applied. The wolves are similar in morphology to C. l. spelaeus (cave wolf) in Western Europe and C. l. brevis in Eastern Europe. Baryshnikov 2009 proposes that spelaeus and brevis may be the same species, and there are similarities with the Beringian wolf. Until further work is done clarifying a single wolf subspecies - or not - no name has been applied.
  • As I mentioned elsewhere, the wolves in the diorama photo seem so lifelike that it makes me, and probably others, wonder how this was made. Some readers may even inaccurately believe it is actual, stuffed Beringian wolves, so may be good to somehow clarify it. Is it rogue taxidermy? Made from extant wolf skins, or just models with fake fur?
Addressed. Models created by paleoartists; how they did it might be beyond the scope of the article.
Yes, what you wrote is what I was thinking of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the gif map could need a caption, to explain how it relates to the subject of the article. Seems a bit diffuse now, and you could explain what the numbers mean.
Addressed, perhaps. Your assessment?
Much better with context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with the photo of the bison hunt. How does it relate to the subject of the article? Is the Beringian wolf thought to have had similar prey?
Addressed. All of the Late Pleistocene wolves across the mammoth steppe loved bison and horse! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 06:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the 1930s a representative of the American Museum of Natural History" Name?
More than one representative after checking the reference.
  • "The historic population was found to possess twice the genetic diversity of modern wolves." Perhaps state in parenthesis why this was? I assume due to hunting? Would also explain this sentence: "However, much of their diversity was later lost during the twentieth century."
Addressed - extirpated.
  • "The replacement in North America of a basal population of wolves by a more recent one supports the findings of earlier studies." Rather than "support" wouldn't it be "is consistent with"? I'm not sure if something that is hypothetical can support anything. Or perhaps it is not that hypothetical after all.
Addressed - that sounds better.
  • You have a section called "two types of grey wolf", yet the cladogram shows wolves outside these categories. So there are more than two? So what does the title allude to?
I had originally named this section "Two gray wolf haplogroups" but that seemed a bit heavy going for the reader. A recent study found the Himalayan wolf to be more associated with the African golden wolf than with the holarctic gray wolf (Werhahn 2017). Perhaps I should remove it and the Indian grey wolf (the next one to be seriously studied) from the cladogram?
Could be, if it only confuses the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Title of that section changed to "Different genetic types of gray wolf" as that is what we are addressing. Let me know if you have doubts.
  • There is some quoted description in the taxonomy section, but I think this should be summarised in the description section, where anatomical features are to be discussed in detail. Now the description section only says it was "robust", which is too vague to mean much.
When I can find a holotype with a formal description, I include that under taxonomy. It is by this description that a taxonomist would tell a Beringian wolf from other types of wolves. In this case, I am more interested in Olsen's designation as C. lupus - despite the weirdness - than I am in the description. However, I am not fussed - your call. William Harris • (talk) • 11:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it doesn't have to be on expense of the quote, rather in addition to. We need to know which details that set them apart from other wolves in the description section too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relocated.
  • "Adaptation is the evolutionary process by which an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats." Isn't this definition a bit narrow? As you state later, it also involves other species and so on. Perhaps say environment/ecosystem instead of just habitat?,
Amended. NOTE: I have added a new sentence after this one, further highlighting the link between the wolf and its habitat.
  • "The term ecomorph is used to describe a habitat specialist." The way I understand the term, it is a distinct morphology/behaviour that is adapted for a specific ecology/purpose? So it does not itself mean a habitat specialist, but what may make a species a habitat specialist.
When you include behaviour, I believe you have just described an "ecotype", with "ecomorph" including morphology only (it is in the name). However, I have sourced a superior definition; let me know if it is not sufficient.
  • "his Beringian refugium, eastern Beringia's vegetation included isolated refugia of" Seems a bit redundant the second time?
Amended
  • " and was well-adapted to the cold" In what way? Doesn't seem to be specified anywhere.
"cold, megafauna-rich environment" is using the adjective "cold" to describe the environment, not the wolf. However, we have said that the environment was cold elsewhere, so it is removed here.
  • "twice the percentage of tooth crowding" Which is what?
Now included. 18% v 9%. Interestingly, the domestic dog was only 5%. (That an increased level of tooth crowding separates a dog specimen from a wolf specimen and demonstrates "domestication" is not supported by this study, and calls to question many of the ancient "dog" findings.)
Oh, I meant what is meant by the term tooth crowding? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, amended with explanation.
  • What is the "Rancho La Brea wolf"? Canis lupus?
Amended, they are lupus.
  • Any sources that explain why the Beringian wolf hasn't been named as a distinct taxon? Have researchers consciously refrained from doing so?
No sources available. (Pers. Comms. J. Leonard - the relationship between these and the other megafaunally adapted wolves across the northern holarctic during the Late Pleistocene is unclear and further research is required.)
  • "The Beringian carnivores included the Beringian wolf (Canis lupus)" Since the article is already about the wolf, I would say "In addition to the Beringina wolf, other Beringian carnivores include".
Amended.
  • "A study of Canis dentition shows" You give dates for most other studies, but not this one.
Amended.
  • Who coined the name "Beringian wolf" and when?
Amended. (As always, there is a team behind this, this one under the guidance of Bob Wayne.)
  • "This type of wolf has been referred to as the Megafaunal wolf." Needs source. And your text implies the megafaunal wolf is the same as the cave wolf?
Provided. As above, we do not know if this is the same subspecies across the northern holarctic during the Late Pleistocene. (I understand that this is being worked on now, and we should have an answer sometime in the next 12 months.)
  • " and if the study is correct then it suggests that the wolves were able to migrate south between 23,800 and 23,000 YBP but were then unable to return north due to the closure of the corridor." Needs a source.
I have removed this section altogether. A corridor that is impassable to bison may not be impassable to wolves.
  • "presenting new competition for large game." No source. May seem like common sense, but do we have a source that specifically says this?
Amended to what we know the humans ate; the reader can follow what this means.
  • "Beringia was once an area of land that spanned the Chukchi Sea and the Bering Sea, joining Eurasia to North America. Eastern Beringia included what is today Alaska and the Yukon." Needs a source.
Cited.
  • I'm not sure what the second paragraph in the "range" section has to do with the subject's range? Rather seems to be about relatives in other parts of the world?
Relocated the text to "Differenct genetic types of gray wolf", which now adds to further support that narrative.
  • "Ancient DNA and radiocarbon data indicate that local genetic populations were replaced by others from within the same species or by others of the same genus." This would of course only be true for those animals that ave modern representatives, which should be clarified. There are no elephants in America, of course.
Amended.
  • "Phenotype is extinct" I think you need to define phenotype somewhere in the section, I wouldn't think casual readers necessary know what this means.
Amended.
  • "The study did not support two wolf haplogroups that had been proposed by earlier studies." This should probably be noted in the section titled "Two types of gray wolf"?
Are we to say this twice in the text or leave the disagreement within the section that indicates a new study has found ancient lineages still existing in remote places today?
As is, it is kind of like one section supports one interpretation, while the next supports another. I am tempted to say it should be mentioned both places, but I don't really have a strong opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. It does not detract from the key evolutionary scenario in the next paragraph that is supported by other studies: "A scenario consistent with the phylogenetic..."
  • The title "Haplotype is not extinct" does not seem to be consistent with the fact that the text only says "One ancient haplotype... was similar to that of modern wolves"?
Amended - the same haplotype was shared with them.
  • "The Beringian wolf (Canis lupus) is an extinct type of wolf" This should rather be: "The Beringian wolf is an extinct type of wolf (Canis lupus)", as the name of course isn't specific to the Beringian type. I seem to have missed this when you asked about it earlier...
Amended.
  • "The Beringian wolf is the first ecomorph of the gray wolf to be identified and comprehensively studied" This is only stated in the intro with no source. It should be mentioned and sourced in the article body as well.
The source was unclear on this, so amended.
  • Support - everything looks good to me now, and I think it is clearer for the average reader in places. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time and the intensity of your reading for this review. William Harris • (talk) • 10:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up phylogenetic tree
Done, thanks.
  • File:Beringian_wolves_diorama.jpg: what is the copyright status of the diorama? See references here. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A fascinating case. However, the copyright status of the diorama is not relevant as at no time is that called into question. I believe the copyright status of the photo is the issue here, and we have that well covered. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're taking a photo of something for use on Commons, either freedom of panorama must apply or the thing being photographed must be freely licensed / public domain. Absent FOP, a photograph of a non-free thing is a derivative work. The status of the diorama is relevant if you want to have it pictured here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, you are quite correct - I never knew this stuff existed. Given that the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre is located in the Yukon of Canada, we should be OK: Freedom of panorama#Canada and also on Commons here plus "The Beringia Centre is owned and operated by the Department of Tourism and Culture, Government of Yukon. In many ways, it can be seen as the public front of the department’s Museums and Heritage Resources units." plus "" Personal photography and videography is permitted in our exhibit galleries.". Do you concur? William Harris • (talk) • 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian government works are not public domain by default, but sounds like a FOP tag would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the image on Commons with FOB/Canada in the "Licensing section"; please let me know if anything else is required. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and for your review of the Beringian wolf. (Another thing to bear in mind in the future!) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Just going to praise you here for knowing how to cite current ref 12 (Editorial board)... thank you, thank you, thank you. So nice to see.
I am finally learning.....
THank you FOR learning.... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, plus we have the other citation supporting that statement.
  • Current ref 17 - all other books sources are "last name, first name" but this one isn't it's "Sam Turvey" ... needs fixing to be consistent
Amended, one always slips through.....
  • Current ref 42 (Elias, etc) per the MOS, we don't do all caps even if the original does, needs fixing.
Amended
  • Current ref 43 - you give the location here for this book source, but don't on others... pick one system and be consistent (either include locations or don't include locations)
Locations removed. They don't add a lot of value and have become meaningless in this age of global publishers.
  • Current ref 61 has the author as "first-name last-name" which needs fixing to the more commonly used here "last name, first name" system
Amended, so two slipped through.....
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
You taught me how to run earwig over articles and it was a valuable lesson.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time wading through all of these references. William Harris • (talk) • 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

  • In 2016 a genetic study showed that some of the wolves now living in remote corners of China and Mongolia are genetically identical to one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen - if possible, avoid two "genetic(ally) in one sentence
Amended; now looks more elegant.
  • Should add rationale for status (i.e. why not subsp.)
Please see editor Funkmonk's 17th and 21st dot point above.
Yeah I figured - but it needs to spell it out succinctly, once in the lead and again under taxonomy. This is important as it is part of what defines (or currently fails to define) a taxon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some explanation but I have no citation to support it. Intuitively it fits, as does the link to the cave wolf.
Yeah, I understand it's a tricky one. I think that's about as good as we can get it without veering into OR. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully things will be clarified within the next 12 months and with it some media interest. This is one of the reasons why I wanted to get this article at FA standard - once people come looking for further quality information, Wikipedia can provide it.

Otherwise looking good...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. William Harris • (talk) • 10:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbsouthwood[edit]

Lead:

  • In 2016 a genetic study showed that some of the wolves now living in remote corners of China and Mongolia are genetically identical to one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen, indicating that both types of wolves share a common maternal ancestor. If they are genetically identical, why are the Beringian wolves considered extinct? Alternatively, does this refer specifically to mitochondrial DNA as hinted by the maternal ancestry?
Good point. I would like to avoid saying "shares the same haplotype" this early in the article, as we define a haplotype later and that would be more tidy. I have amended it to read "share a common maternal ancestor with one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen."
Better for the lead, as everyone will understand. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phenotype is extinct:

  • Phenotype is defined right at the end of the section. If it is necessary to define (I think it is useful), it should be described earlier so the definition is more useful to the reader.
Agreed, let's move it to the start of that section.
Fine. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haplotype is not extinct:

  • The earlier definition given for haplotype implies that there are several. The section states that one of them not extinct. Is this connected with the statement in the lead mentioned above?
If you are referring to the "four modern European mDNA haplotypes", these are "phylogenetically associated" but the Beringians were not ancestral, i.e. more like "auntie" than "mother". I once had in the article the phrase "but the Beringian wolf was not ancestral...." Perhaps I need to reinstate that phrase? Or "close on the phylogenetic tree" rather than phylogenetically associated? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rewrite of the lead clears this up sufficiently for me. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as intelligible and interesting to a person with a moderate amateur background in evolutionary biology (no formal training). • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have just described the person who wrote it! :-) Thanks for your time and comments. William Harris • (talk) • 11:40, 14 August 2017 (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/Beringian_wolf/archive1&oldid=796458614"