Talk:Woolly mammoth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose: done some ce; Copyright OK; Spelling OK; Grammar OK
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead:OK; layout:OK; weasel:OK (there are some reasonable "probably"s); fiction:n/a; lists:n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Please dress all naked "http://" links with relevant citation data.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	OK
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	OK
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	OK
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well-chosen images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is now clear, interesting, and well cited. Good work, everyone who helped.

Questions (from GA reviewer)

• How did a land bridge act as a barrier? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed, it was due to the mesic habitat there, but it does not seem to have affected the mammoths. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• How do the teeth of "Lyuba" indicate the length of gestation?

I will clarify this. FunkMonk (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW ""Lyuba" is believed to have suffocated by inhaling mud as she struggled while bogged down in deep mud in the bed of a river which its herd was crossing." isn't wrong but it lurches from one clause to another (6 verb clauses, 3 prepositional). Please simplify or split.

Shortened. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why are two maps needed?

One shows the distribution of woolly mammoths, the other shows the distribution of specific habitats, including the "mammoth steppe". But I can remove the second one, if necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This Manta Ray map is wonderfully clear.

OK, then the 2nd map's caption should say "Distribution of Mammoth steppe (orange [or whatever, I can't see it]) at last Ice Age maximum". The map may well need simplifying - ideally it would be all blank drab continents, white ice, and bright coloured only for Mammoth steppe.

It's "steppe tundra" on the map, but I'm colour blind, so I'm not entirely sure what colour it is. Pink? fuchsia? Grey? May be a good reason to remove it... FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed the image. This article isn't about that habitat anyway.

FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• How is Hay, 1924 responsible for calling it both Elephas and Mammuthus? Did he perhaps just give the name M. boreus (or vice versa) so (E. boreus) would then be ascribed to him indirectly?

The other way around. But sometimes the author of the new combination is credited instead, but that seems to be elusive information. Both should be valid. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that when the generic name changes, the credit changes from "Author, 1900" to "(Author, 1900)" if people are being careful. So given what you say I'm not sure there should be 2 credits to Hay. Doubt if it matters but I'd like to understand.

I'm not sure myself, form the articles here at least, all names are in parenthesis? As for combination credit, I've seen both versions used in many books. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, not to worry.

• Lister 2007 is cited for numerous early theories (Hannibal's elephants, etc). It would be better if possible to have explicit early references for each of these theories, perhaps with a little more detail (even a section, "Early theories").

Most of these theories are so old (and not part of modern journals) that it will be hard to track down, but I'll see what I can do. FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be very nice but it's not a showstopper for this GA.

• In which year did Jefferson use Mammoth as an adjective?

Added, and discovered the cheese itself had an article! FunkMonk (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

;-)

• In what sense is M. rumanus the earliest known type? The earliest European one?

Yes. Will make that clearer, if it isn't. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• "A 2011 genetic study showed that two examined specimens of the Columbian mammoth were grouped within a subclade of woolly mammoths. This suggests that the two populations interbred..." How does it do that? Maybe a diagram would help show the relationships of all these species and types.

I cannot find a cladogram of how mammoth species are interrelated, and I don't think there are any, because their evolution is pretty linear, and not very branched. I was thinking of adding one that shows how mammoths are related to other elephant genera. Unfortunately, I'm very bad at coding cladograms (I tried on Dodo and Moa, with varying results)... Maybe I can ask somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be nice. But why does being in a subclade suggest interbreeding? It could suggest a process of separation...

Well, that's what the source says, and I think the Columbian species was present in America before the woolly one, so they would had been separated long before. But it seems further study is needed to clarify this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask[1] someone to adapt this cladogram[2] from Shoshani and Tassy 2005. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be helpful but it's not a showstopper for this GA.

• "they can be considered either primitive forms of a derived species, or derived forms of a primitive species." Makes the reader's head whirl - I think I know what this means, but again a diagram could make this a lot easier.

Maybe say "advanced" instead of derived? Though I know such terminology is frowned upon by some today.... FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be better; try something like "Such an intermediate form could be considered as part of either species" (please tweak as appropriate, you get the idea).

But the point is that it is not "just" part of either species, but are, depending on who you ask, either advanced steppe mammoths, or primitive woolly mammoths. We can't haver it both ways. If we simplify it, that meaning is lost. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not asking for simplification but clarification. Why don't you explain to readers what you've just explained to me...

Alright, I'll give it a shot. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great.

• "was even proposed to be a new subspecies" - is this editorialising, or is there reason to doubt the claim?

Later studies have downplayed their distinctness, but named woolly mammoth subspecies are discussed extremely little or at all after they are named, as it seems most researchers don't find them valid. But they never state this unambiguously, for some reason. But I will remove "even". FunkMonk (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There are some other "even"s in the article - probably all right but please look.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest use {{convert|...}} for all measurements.

I'll try, at least where the measurements are not converted yet. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What to do with something like "2.6-2.9 m in height"? FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe best to convert by hand there, but I'm sure the language lawyers have a clever trick!

All measurements are converted now, but not necessarily with the template. FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Female Asian elephants lack tusks, but there is no fossil evidence that indicates some woolly mammoths did too." Please clarify.

Which part? Should I write "female mammoths" specifically? FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that female mammoths ever had tusks"; or Some female mammoths did have tusks, and we don't know if all of them did"; or what? I can't parse the "no...some..." in the sentence.

There is no indication that any grown mammoths lacked tucks, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(has been reworded)

• Ref 6 - missing data (date, journal, url...)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 7 - needs publisher...

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 11 - needs conf, paper details

What kind of details? FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's Ref 12 now (Foronova & Zudin) - it just says "International Congress" with no page number or anything. I think it was Proceedings of the 1st International Congress, Rome, 2001. pp 540-543.

Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't, but it is now - I've filled in the page range for you.

• Ref 18 - needs date

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please check all refs for completeness.

I've replaced all bare URLs now. Was a remnant of the old article. I don't like all those press releases myself, and have tried to replace them with actual scientific papers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Still something wrong with links 24, 71. 75.

I removed 75, because it was unnecessary, but I'm not sure what's wrong with 24 and 71? FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed 3 refs by hand, one was a DOI cite that didn't expand for me, the other 2 were just naked URLs, see the article's edit log.

• Thanks for the review and copyedits, I'll adresse these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure.

• By the way, do you know why the two last synonyms in the taxobox appear smaller than the rest? They shouldn't. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

yeah, needed to be </small> not <small/>

• Comment - Apparently the first ref (Lister) is so detailed on one page (192) that that one page alone can be used for over 30 citations. Even if that's the case (which I highly doubt), it should say "p.192", not "pp. 192". --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. I've left the original ref (near end of article) but have changed all the rest to "Page needed". They need fixing either with other pages from Lister or indeed other sources entirely. I've removed the name=Lister from them so they stand separately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Should be "pages" in plural. For a potential FAC, I'll add individual pages, because I'm pretty sure it isn't needed for GA. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Gosh. As far as I can tell from WP:CITE, there is no general need to cite everything, and a ref at the end of a paragraph or section that all comes from one source is acceptable unless something is challenged (which it now has been, by FT). However, it looks as if (and common sense dictates that) the rule is "if there is a citation, it should be correct". It could possibly have been all right just to put Lister in the Bibliography; it is not all right to put "Lister page 192" for facts which did not come from that page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, the singular page was an old mistake, and as I said, it should had been plural (192 pages, not page 192). And that's what I meant, that as far as I know, specific pages do not need to be specified for GAs. But I will do that eventually, so might as well do it now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What would be acceptable page ranges? For example, if biological issues are covered across fifteen pages, is it enough to list those, or should it be broken further down? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't see anything very clear written down either way, and honestly I much prefer to see articles improved, as here, than to spend time arguing. The article is much the better for the accurate page refs. I've no idea how wide a page range can be; I have myself once or twice been picked up for excess ranges, and the cure is obvious. If you've summarized a chapter in a paragraph, it's surely sensible to give a wide range; when it's a matter of BLP or right-wing dictators, the page has to be exact, one at a time, one ref per sentence. BTW I'd wondered long ago if "pages=" meant "number of pages in the book": it seems that it's very rarely understood that way by editors! People use it for page ranges.

• There are 2 citations to the same letter by Breyne, but the refs given are different. Please correct and unify them under one name.

Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thorough review and I'm happy that you pushed for some improvements that will benefit an eventual FAC. I'll try to get the remaining issues fixed before such. Your copyedits were also invaluable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's brilliant. It's a sweat at the time, I know. Glad to have been of service. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If a wolly mammoth is ever cloned, would it be possible for it to live in one or another of the so-called Pleistocene Parks? I ask because I'm extremely interested in the mammoth, but I'm also aware of the ethical dilemmas involved in bringing one or more back to life.

Dr M Wimsatt2602:306:C409:52D0:225:4BFF:FE86:F858 (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Of course I know how to spell "woolly." In my post about the mammoth, I inadvertently typed "wolly." Please excuse!

Dr M Wimsatt2602:306:C409:52D0:225:4BFF:FE86:F858 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is uncertainty if exactly the right milieu exists anywhere on the earth today. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)