Talk:Beringian wolf/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I propose to take on this review. After a preliminary inspection, it seems to be a well-written and carefully researched article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for volunteering to review the Beringian wolf. Having just completed my first GAC as a reviewer, I fully appreciate your time and your effort involved. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  11:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

 * Far too little wikilinks in the lead. All biological, geographical, and geological epoch terms should be linked.

Now linked.


 * I'm not sure about what's going on with the blockquote in the Taxonomy section. How can it be synthesized from two different sources? At any rate, wikilinks should not appear here per MOS:PMC.

I do not see an issue with using two reliable secondary sources, quoting the same author, with one reference providing more detail than the other. One provides less information but is easily accessible to the reader by a hyperlink, the other provides more information but is not easily accessible. MOS:PMC makes no mention of links. MOS:BLOCKQUOTE does not preclude wikilinks. MOS:LWQ states that "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." In this case, there is no clutter, the quotation remains unchanged, and the linking helps to inform the reader.
 * Yes, I meant to point you to MOS:LWQ. My opinion is that adding wikilinks never leaves the quote unchanged, unless one is quoting wikitext. I know that opinions on this vary.


 * Hatnotes should be placed at the top of sections, immediately below section headlines, not interspersed with the prose, per WP:HAT.

WP:HAT refers to WP:HNP regarding placement, and this relates to the placement in the lead section only. This guideline appears to be confused about its scope. One item was moved to the bottom of the section based on MOS:LAYOUT, refer Manual of Style/Layout. I think that it is pointless referring the reader to another article without first introducing the material they might refer to.
 * I read from Manual of Style/Layout that hatnotes are to be placed "immediately under the section heading"; "immediately after the section heading".


 * The final sentence before the templates reads "These additional references should be grouped along with the *Main}} template (if there is one), or at the foot of the section that introduces the material for which these templates provide additional information." The emphasis is on the "or".


 * Category:CS1 maint: Uses editors parameter and Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list should be fixed in many refs. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced that this is required for an article at GA standard, as opposed to FA. Perhaps the reviewer might advise. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  10:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. A GA status is not contingent on this, minor issue. But I think a GA review is a great opportunity to bring issues into the attention of significant contributors. Thank you for the replies. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I thank you for raising these 2 issues and I will progress them as the GAC edits continue. Thanks for your time here on the Beringian wolf. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  09:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The relevant GA criterion states "... contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline". It does not specify the precise formulation of these citations but I think for a GA they should at least be consistent with each other, and that seems to be the case here. If this article is going on to FAC, a higher standard of referencing is required. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I had just finished addressing this when you posted. It was not that much work, now done. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  10:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

First reading
I will start with the main body of text, and come back to the lead later, so as to be able to tell whether it is a fair summary of the main text.
 * It is not generally advocated to wikilink inside quotations, but I think it is reasonable in the Taxonomy section here, as several words with obscure meanings are used.

Addressed in the section above.


 * You need to disambiguate "rostrum".

Done.


 * "... there was once greater wolf genetic diversity in the past and therefore a larger wolf population than for wolves today." - I think this sentence could be better expressed.

Agreed and amended.


 * "The Beringian wolf became extinct " - What would have driven it to extinction?

We don't really know. The next sentence elaborates with "Multiple events appear to have caused the rapid replacement of one species by one within the same genus, or one population by another within the same species..."


 * You mention "Rancho La Brea wolves" without defining them.

I have tried to integrate with the previous sentence with "These wolves, referred to as Rancho La Brea wolves,..." Will this suffice?


 * "1.5 C degrees warmer than today" - This particular temperature has no conversion while the others do. I would personally use "°F" and "°C" rather than "C degrees", but you may disagree.

I missed that one. I prefer your expression, now amended.
 * "7.5 C (13.5 F) cooler" - this lacks its "degrees".

As above.


 * "Pacific ocean" - capitalise "ocean".

Amended.


 * Wikilink on first mention - herbivore,

Done.
 * "pre-galacial" ?

Too technical, replaced with "before the Last Glacial Maximum".


 * In the first paragraph of "Prey", the wolves are from Beringia and Belgium. Where are the wolves from that are mentioned in the second paragraph?

Amended to Beringian. (I am too close to this work to be able to "see the forest for the trees"..........) Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  10:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * To be continued. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Continuing
 * The first three paragraphs of "Dentition and biteforce" are not relevant to the topic. I think they should be omitted, or moved somewhere else more appropriate. The fourth paragraph is relevant and uses some of the terms mentioned above, but these are glossed and understandable in isolation.

The first three paragraphs of "Dentition and biteforce" form the first two and the forth paragraphs of the same section in Dire wolf, rated at FA level. Perhaps these 3 paragraphs could be removed and a "See Also" template included that points to the material in the Dire wolf article?


 * "and they had evolved this way due the presence of megafauna." - missing word.

Now fixed.


 * The whole of the "Behaviour" section apart from the final paragraph of "Tooth breakage" is not relevant to the Beringian wolf. I think the article currently fails GA criterion 3b, "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I would suggest that much of the information on wolves' teeth could be hived off and form the basis of a separate article. I will pause my review here and wait for your response, and we can get a second opinion on the matter if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph introducing the Behaviour section is the second paragraph in the Behaviour section of Dire wolf, however it could be removed. I do not follow what you would include under "information on wolves' teeth"; is that the stuff mentioned above or could you elaborate further, please? Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  11:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph "Dentition and biteforce",


 * 1) paragraph one is about the teeth of mammals, with a mention of carnivores. It is not specific to the Beringian wolf.
 * 2) paragraph two is about the teeth of canids. It is not specific to the Beringian wolf.
 * 3) paragraph three is about the teeth of canids. It is not specific to the Beringian wolf.
 * In my view, the fact that this information is able to be copied wholesale from the Dire wolf article nicely demonstrates that it is unsuitable for inclusion in this article. I could analyse the Behaviour/Tooth breakage sections in a similar way. Much of the information would be better included in the article Canidae, which has a rather minimal section called "Dentition". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because both the Beringian wolf and the Dire wolf are carnivores, and mammals, and canids, and also both cold-climate, megafaunally adapted wolves that lived at the same time in North America, in my view the material can be reflected in both articles. However, I take your 3 points above and this matter has been addressed. (Additionally, some other Wikipedia articles have benefited from the transfer of fully-cited material.) Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for dealing with that. I think the article is considerably improved as a result. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Continuing the first reading
Addressed (perhaps). Amended. Amended. Amended. Amended. Further elaborated. Significantly less elaborated. Perhaps we should first confirm what is in and what is out before I do a final 3-para overview of the body for the lead. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  02:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "One study found that a wolf ..." - this sentence is too long and needs subdivision or rephrasing.
 * "had the same mDNA sequence as two Beringian wolves" - I would prefer "had an identical mDNA sequence to two Beringian wolves".
 * "Two of these four haplotypes includes one only found" - Perhaps change to "Of these four haplotypes, one was only found".
 * "These 4 haplotypes fall" - should be "four".
 * "In 2015 a study of the dental microwear" - - this sentence is too long and needs subdivision or rephrasing.
 * "Multiple events appear to have caused the rapid replacement of one species by one within the same genus, or one population by another within the same species, across a broad area." I can understand the Beringian wolf being driven to extinction by the results of climate change, the change in vegetation type and the disappearance of the megaherbivores but this sentence, which I see is repeated in the lead, seems somewhat of a non-sequiter.
 * The first paragraph of the section "Haplotype is not extinct" lacks specificity and does not mention the Beringian wolf. The second paragraph is more relevant.
 * The lead seems a bit short for an article of this length, but I have no time to study it properly now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the changes you have made, and I made a couple of small changes myself (which you can revert if you wish). In general, the article is looking good, so let me know when you are ready for me to give it a final assessment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the small edits. I have reworked the lead, which I believe covers the key points of the article plus captures the reader's further interest with the modern genetic finds. I have cut back "Phenotype is extinct" in the first paragraph and transferred material to the Quaternary Extinction Event. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  22:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
 * The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
 * The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed. Material that I considered superfluous has been removed.
 * The article is neutral.
 * The article is stable.
 * The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.


 * Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time and effort; they are much appreciated. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  08:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)