Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bonn–Oberkassel dog/archive1

Bonn–Oberkassel dog

 * Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The Bonn–Oberkassel dog is one of the oldest known examples of a domestic dog that modern archaeology is pretty sure about. We've found more late Paleolithic dogs since it was discovered in the 1910s, but what's most important about this little pup is the evidence of early veterinary care, and how ancient humans cared for this creature, seemingly out of compassion alone. I hope you enjoy reading, and I hope I can make any changes needed to bring this article to the best state it can be. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Ob9.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Good catch, fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

750h

 * Will review. Feel free to refuse my comments with proper justification. I assume that this article is written in British English? 750h+ 12:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * lead
 * ==> "while the dog's other bones were put into the"
 * add a comma before "and"
 * add a comma before "disease"
 * ==> "it may have been due to the effects of its illness"


 * background
 * ==> "populations of grey wolves"
 * ==> "(Several/numerous) prehistoric dog burials are known"
 * ==> "Many Magdalenian dog"


 * discovery and research history
 * remove the comma after "February"
 * ==> "Several other animal"
 * ==> "grouping other bone"
 * ==> "in 1993 specified this age as slightly later than originally thought"
 * ==> "and grouped several other"
 * ==> "created a catalogue of the"
 * ==> "Finds of domestic dogs before this are"


 * physical description
 * ==> "identifiable bone fragments known are from the"
 * i'd remove "an age of" since the reader would probably know that you're talking about age


 * health
 * ==> "a behaviour potentially"
 * ==> "before the end of the Iron Age"
 * remove "down"
 * ==> "from the vomit and diarrhoea caused by"
 * ==> "if it was killed to bury it alongside"


 * second dog
 * ==> "differed in colour from the other teeth"

Whilst reviewing I was a bit confused as to whether we were using British or American English, as it is a German dog. Feel free to refuse the British English suggestions if the latter's the case. Fine work overall. 750h+ 13:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Made changes and added explicit english variant tag. Thank you for your review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 750h+ 16:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

UC
I've been wondering if this one would come up here for a while. Greatly enjoyed reading -- comments below which are, as ever, suggestions rather than demands. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I would try to get the dog's rough date into the first paragraph, if not the first sentence: I know we give "Late Palaeolithic", but most readers won't know what that means beyond "a really long time ago".
 * Done. - G
 * : I think we would say was, wouldn't we? In the same way as "Christopher Wren was an architect who is buried in St Paul's Cathedral"?
 * Good point. - G
 * : I think we should decap here, unless that name was used in a very formal sense (for the British Museum, for example, we would talk about its Roman collection, or the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities)
 * Done. - G
 * : MOS:FIGURES discourages starting a sentence with a number in figures.
 * : again, I would be tempted to promote this to the first paragraph, as this is pretty fundamental information as to what readers are picturing to be the subject of the article. The current final sentence of the first paragraph could then be "demoted" to the second, as that information becomes useful and interesting once we know what this animal is that we're talking about.
 * Good idea, done. - G
 * : this isn't quite idiomatic: you've done it much better in the body with tall at the shoulder.
 * Done. - G
 * : for humans, admittedly, but most medical style guides (including the MoS) discourage "suffered from (WP:SUFFER). Could do "survived", and rework the next sentence slightly?
 * That works. - G
 * It might be a nice touch to do a double-image in the lead, with the second image being a modern dog(s) of similar build (e.g. an Indian wolf and a sighthound?).
 * : "Expansive" means "over a wide area"; I think we mean "extensive" ("very thorough").
 * : or, more cynically, that the dog was very useful?
 * This is an interesting point, and I see you raise it throughout the review so I'll put it here; the Janssens et. al source makes the point that the disease would have prevented proper training, and none of the other sources really make the cynical argument here — though now that I'm thinking about it, they really should. I guess I should lean on the training thing a bit? - G
 * I've got no problem with foregrounding the compassion argument (though I'd suggest keeping it attributed -- "Janssens et al have argued that...") -- but I do think we should do so in a way that doesn't claim to rule out other or complementary explanations. Interesting point about the training, but we could still have, for example, "that dog had a seizure as a puppy, so it must be inhabited by the spirits, and they will get out and haunt us when it dies". Mentalising people in the far past is a very dangerous business. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting that this (in broad terms) is my only real remaining "grump" -- the article is otherwise excellent, but I do think we need to be careful with the boldness of our assertions here, and draw a clear(er) line between what is known and what is conjectured. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"Second" might be a more natural word here than "separate"?
 * : I would cut the first dog: it would be surprising for the dog to have owned some other animal's molar.
 * Good point, lol. -G
 * Yeah. -G
 * I would link "domestication" on the word "domesticated".
 * Done. - G
 * : you place something in or with something, not to it.
 * Done. - G
 * : I think we need to be a bit careful about motives in this article; we often speculate about religious, compassionate, hygenic or so on motivations, but the honest truth is that we have no idea what far-ancient people were thinking when they carried out death practices. In particular, I'd need a lot of convincing that we can trace a meaningful distinction between "we should bury that dead thing because it's dirty" and "we should bury that dead thing to avoid religious pollution/the anger of the spirits that comes from being around dead things", or indeed that people in the Paleolithic would have drawn one themselves.
 * There are quite a lot of "many", "some" and similar words in the Background section. Can we give a ballpark for these numbers?
 * Sadly, these are not given by the sources and I can't find more firm ones. - G
 * : when quoting in italics, we don't use quote marks, but what's the rationale for the German here at all?
 * No clue what I was trying to do here, removed. - G
 * : I would cut themselves and put human before Oberkassel, as the dog's remains are, strictly, a skeleton.
 * Lol, good point. - G
 * : can we name-check them?
 * Name added. - G
 * Use a lang template for words like Landesmuseum, with no, so that screen readers handle them correctly.
 * Done. -G
 * : similarly, can we name and, ideally, cite it? In general, when we refer to a specific work of scholarship directly, it's good to be able to cite it and, if possible, direct interested readers towards it.
 * Done. -G
 * : this needs a circa.
 * Done. - G
 * : in the Background section, we gave 17,000 BP as the terminus ante quem for dogs being "well-established" in the Magdalenian.
 * Ope, realized that's ambiguous. Cleared it up: dogs begin being found during the Magdalenian, not at the end. - G
 * : do we mean the Oberkassel dog specifically, or the dog in general? Would clarify. Might be nice to add a footnote to say what the next couple are?
 * Good idea. - G
 * I would link premaxilla and coronoid process in the footnote; we have generally done similar in the body text.
 * Done. - G
 * : firstly, I would give the BP/BCE equivalence the first time we use BP, and then not again. Secondly, are you sure about "estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction"? That's more precision than I'd expect in an estimate that far back: it's more usual to write something like "15,000 BP ± 200 years", which means that the tools involved are only precise enough to give a reading that's accurate to within about 200 years either way, not that someone thinks it's 15,000 BP, someone things 15,100, and so on.
 * Ooh, yeah. ± is what I meant, thank you. - G
 * : can we explain, without unduly bothering the reader with details, what it means for a growth plate to be open or closed?
 * Gave it a shot. - G
 * : I think we could make this a bit tighter and say something like "The dog's remaining canine tooth showed heavy abrasion and enamel loss, probably caused by compulsive stone chewing". The Chalcolithic is a long way away from the Paleolithic, so any talk of cages is just going to confuse people.
 * Fair point. - G
 * : slightly devil's advocate, but how many specimens are we working with here (OK, I know there's quite a lot from the Bronze Age, but how many really comparable examples have we got?), and how many of them were old enough to get what is usually a disease of old age? How visible is it on a skeleton, anyway (I notice we're diagnosing it by a proxy here, which isn't perfect -- just ask Donald Trump).
 * : similarly, I would explain this by outlining what these causes typically are.
 * : I don't know whether it needs to be said that all of those animals died (or were killed) in adulthood?
 * Elaborated on this a bit. - G
 * : again, I want to believe this but have to be a little cynical: the humans may well have considered it possible that the dog would recover, and therefore become or remain valuable. Compassion isn't the only possible motivation here.
 * : do any of the studies note signs (or absence thereof) of cut marks on the bones? I'm particularly interested in the possibility of butchery here.
 * Sadly not; though Janssens et al. 2018 says that cut marks on Paleolithic dog bones are rare. -G
 * : this isn't really extrapolated in a strict sense (you can't extrapolate from a single data point, or from apples to oranges): based on? Suggest linking the technical terms and converting the cm value.
 * Done. - G
 * : Were is a verb, so capitalise.
 * Done. - G
 * : in title case, capitalise the first word after a colon or similar. Likewise for Morrey 2006.
 * Done. - G
 * Can we use trans-journal for the two German-language journals?
 * Done - G
 * Some journals have ISSNs, others don't: advise consistency.
 * Done - G

FM

 * I somehow missed this when first glancing the nominations page, I guess because of the long placenames, but seems right up my alley. Will have a look soon, probably after UC's issues are resolved so we don't tread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I see a few WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:
 * Fixed. -G
 * Various anatomical terms like premaxilla, maxillary, coronoid, etc., should be linked, and perhaps even explained in parenthesis (see recent palaeontology FA articles for example).
 * Linked. - G
 * Not much that can be done about it, but I wonder if the diagrams tagged as de minimis here aren't really based on some images that are already in the public domain. Perhaps has come across them in their many image searches for canids?  may also be interested, if not entirely inactive. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They appear to be based on this. The pose is exactly the same. Mariomassone (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. Just a suggestion, but based on the measurements, couldn't someone do a size chart like this one? Mariomassone (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems extremely close to the diagram, well spotted! I think that could be linked as a possibility in the photo's Commons description to avoid copyright claims. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Add a note of this on Commons, ? FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "including the "rechter Unterkiefer vom Wolf", 'the right lower jaw of a wolf'" Why do we need a seemingly random snippet of German text here? I think it would make more sense to include the German nickname for the specimen in the article body if anything.
 * Removed this. - G
 * Do we have any other images of artifacts from the site that could be shown for flavour?
 * There's one at least! - G
 * Perhaps a location map of the site?
 * I don't really have room to put that here - I feel it might be better suited for a future article on the double-burial itself. - G
 * "While the Oberkassel skeletons themselves" Specify "human", the dog is also a skeleton.
 * - Fixed. - G
 * Link the term canine.
 * Fixed. - G
 * Link Domestication of the dog instead of just the general domestication article.
 * Done. - G
 * "later supported by separate radiocarbon dating taken by Kiel University" Give year?
 * Done. - G
 * Is this supposed to be UK or US English? I see both paleo (US), palaeo (UK), archaeo (UK), catalog (US), color (US) etc., should be consistent.
 * US; corrected "palaeo", though archaeology is correct in US spelling.
 * Link Radiocarbon dating.
 * done. - G
 * Not sure how important this is, but you use Latin plural for vertebrae, but common English plural for scapulas and ulnas (should also be "ae" if you go the same way).
 * Dictionary I used says vertebrae is the only correct plural, but scapulas/ulnas are both okay. - G
 * "Modern scholarship dates the dog to c. 14,000 BP (c. 12,000 BCE), with estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction." Why is this under physical description?
 * Fixed. - G
 * "as 46.8 cm" Give conversion as you do for other measurements.
 * Done. - G
 * The article body says "comparable to the Indian wolf and some breeds of sighthound" while the adjacent caption has more detail "similar to West Asian wolves (such as the Indian wolf), or some modern sighthounds, such as the Saluki", which could be repeated in the article body, which is where the main unique info should be.
 * Fixed. - G
 * This image has no description template on Commons and only German text; it should have a template and English text as well.
 * Done. - G
 * Could probably briefly explain in-text what pica is.
 * Done. -G
 * Link University of Bonn in intro.
 * Done. - G
 * Any more info about the buried humans and their culture for context?
 * Added. - G
 * There's a nice close up of the skull material, a bit of a shame not to use it.
 * Done. - G
 * I think that's everything! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Looking good, there seems to be something wrong with the bolded part of this newly added text: "A team comprising physiologist Max Verworn, anatomist Robert Bonnet and geologist Gustav Steinmann examined the skeletons and a tentative dating to the Magdalenian due to commonalities in grave goods." Missing words?
 * Oops. Fixed. 18:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Did a little fix. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good to me now, and nice to see an article like this around here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

 * Sources are all of good quality. The few instances of old / primary sourcing is supplemented with modern secondary sourcing.
 * Source are roughly formatted consistently. Some journal papers have the month included, others don't. I would exclude it everywhere for simplicity.
 * Removed these. - G
 * I imagine dog domestication is a heavily studied field (but not at all an expert here). 2018 is not that old, but have there been developments since? In particular, are the dogs from the Aurignacian still debated?
 * Still debated, yeah. Dogs, Past and Present: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (2024) mentions a general archaeological consensus of ~14,000 BP domestication, except for some "intriguing sites" from the Aurignacian. - G
 * I have spot checked the prime numbered citations, and did not find any issues with text-source integrity
 * I have not been able to find any sources that may be missing, or any contradictions in more general sources about background information. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)