Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cooperative pulling paradigm/archive1


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2018.

Cooperative pulling paradigm

 * Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Something different: an article on animal cognition. Will two animals pull a rope in a synchronised manner such that they both can obtain food? In reading the research I encountered quite a few interesting findings, which I hope you will enjoy as well. I'm pleased to report one of the researchers involved kindly donated his drawing of a cooperative pulling experiment with elephants. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi
I fixed a few p/pp errors for you but there are still a dozen left. And 13 instances of Hyphen in pg. range Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing a few, I believe I have fixed them all now. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jackdude101
 It is—  well-written: The prose is satisfactory overall, but some things need fixing. Lead section: Researcher Meredith Crawford, who invented the experimental paradigm in 1937, used as apparatus two ropes attached to a rolling platform that was too heavy to be pulled by a single chimpanzee. The phrase "used as apparatus two ropes" should be replaced with "used an apparatus consisting of two ropes", or something similar. A similar sentence in the Apparatus section requires the same treatment. Overview subsection of Findings section: Bonobos, also social animals but with higher levels of tolerance, can outperform chimpanzees on some cooperative tasks. This sentence needs to be reworked. Perhaps something like "Bonobos, which are social animals with higher tolerance levels, can outperform chimpanzees on some cooperative tasks.".
 * Fixed both by following your suggestions. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)  

comprehensive: The article appears to address everything notable about the topic. well-researched: The article appears to be well-researched with 169 separate references cited. The vast majority of these are books, so good faith is assumed. neutral: Neutrality is satisfactory. stable: The vast majority of edits have been from the nominator, who is also the article's creator. All good here.  <li>Style guidelines</li> <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>a lead: Lead has no problems besides the item mentioned above.</li> <li>appropriate structure: Structure is appropriate.</li> <li>consistent citations: Citations are good overall and are present in every section. However, there are several instances where more than three citations are back-to-back. Whenever possible, no more than three should be used at a time, or else it's WP:Citation overkill. Either remove the unnecessary citations, spread them out within the information that they're citing, or give a solid case for why they should remain where they are.
 * Fixed, mostly by spreading them out.</li>

</ol> <li>Media: The number of pictures in the article is just right and they are spread throughout the article appropriately.</li> <li>Length: Length is satisfactory.</li> </ol>

This article looks solid overall. Fix the items above and I'll support it. Jackdude 101 talk cont 20:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time and effort to comment, much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All issues raised in my comments have been resolved. Support. Jackdude 101  talk cont 21:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review
 * Not sure there is a lot of benefit to having images just for the sake of having them - for example, I think it's safe to say most readers will understand the concept of "dog" without the photo
 * Hi Nikkimaria. The idea is that the images convey the actual subspecies that participated in the experiments, e.g. Asian elephants, spotted hyenas, and Labrador Retrievers. There are a few species that are uncommon and benefit from an illustration ((kea, tamarin), and it just looked better to be consistent once I had added a few. Happy to remove them all if that's the consensus of reviewers.


 * File:Sketch_of_a_cooperative_pulling_experiment_with_elephants.jpg: given that this image has been published in a copyrighted journal, I'm not sure the author retains the right to release it as CC BY. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article does not have this illustration. It has a better one, but this is the one the author says is still his.Edwininlondon (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The only difference between this illustration and Figure 1 View 2 in the source article is a dashed line - that's not significant enough a change to have a different copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Too bad. I've removed the offending illustration and have asked the scientist if he has an alternative sketch with full rights. If that fails, is it okay for me to make my own sketch or does that count as original research? Edwininlondon (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:OI. In that case you'd also need to avoid creating a derivative work of a copyrighted image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The scientist just responded and said that as per http://www.pnas.org/page/authors/licenses he has retained the rights.
 * Looks like under the default license only noncommercial reuse is permitted, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. So the license should be CC BY-NC 3.0, correct? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's not a permissible license - that's why cc-by-nc redirects to a deletion tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I drew one myself instead based on the raven, rook and kea experiments. I assume this is fine now? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked a friend to sketch one with dogs. Much better. No license problems anymore. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * I'll review this soon. I noticed that the elephant image mentioned here was removed as a copyright violation, but it should be fairly simple to redraw in a way that doesn't violate copyright? It does seem a shame that there is no lead image. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem a shame. I'll see if redrawing without violating copyright is possible. I'll do one of the bird experiments, seems safer than elephants.
 * Added a lead image. Not as good as the elephants, sorry. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good, could there be some arrows or description of what and how they are attempting? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A friend made an even better one. I think arrows will clutter it too much for mobile. Should the caption explain a bit more?Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the new image is very clear. FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There are some duplicate links, perhaps try using this script:
 * That's a nifty little tool! Thx for the tip. Deduped.


 * The first paragraph under "Elephants" ends without a citation.
 * Fixed


 * I know it may not be necessary, but could the first sentence under "Conditions" get a citation?
 * Done.

Thank you for you helpful comments so far. I look forward to more. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Does the name Meredith Crawford have to be spelled in full after the first mention in the article body? Everyone else only gets last names anyway.
 * Removed Meredith in the second mention.


 * "who invented the experimental paradigm in 1937" Does the idea have any history before this?
 * No source has mentioned anything. De Waal calls Crawford the pioneer.


 * You are inconsistent in whether you list the publication year of a mentioned study or not.
 * Would the following approach be alright: years are mentioned in Apparatus section, for pioneering work by Crawford, and Hiroto's invention of loose string, but then nowhere else. With the exception of "In 2008, Seed, Clayton and Emery said the study of the proximate mechanisms underpinning cooperation in animals was in its infancy" as that statement leads to misinterpretation without a year. Should I follow that approach? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I made this change and I think it looks better now.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure how that happened, but seems the talk page of this article is not tagged with any Wiki projects?
 * Added.


 * It is a bit unclear in each animal example whether wild or captive animals were tested (you specify for some of the chimp experiments, but not for many others). I think this would be interesting to note.
 * I have added this for each.


 * "was the Clever Hans effect" Could be briefly explained in parenthesis or in a footnote.
 * Added explanation in parentheses


 * "Labrador Retrievers" Is this the kind of dog used in the studies, or is the image just arbitrarily chosen? If the former, could be mentioned.
 * It is one of the breeds used yes. Added to caption.


 * "10 meters apart", "1 cm, 3 cm and ultimately 6 cm apart". Perhaps a conversion could be given, as in other science articles.
 * Done


 * "Asian elephants (Elephas maximus)" Missed italics.
 * Good catch.


 * It seems off to have a section on "parrots" and one on "keas", considering the latter are parrots too. Since the first section is only about a specific kind of parrot, I think it should be renamed "African grey parrots" accordingly. Or simply "Grey parrot", as that seems to be the preferred name.
 * Done


 * "birds native to New Zealand" Also seems misleading, as they are simply parrots. Saying "parrots native to" would make more sense, as we already know they are birds by them being in the bird section.
 * Done


 * "use cooperative pulling experiments in order to try to understand how cooperation works and how and when it may have evolved." Maybe it should be stressed there that it only applies to animals with high intelligence and cognitive abilities (judged on what species have been chosen for study). Social insects cooperate, but I doubt they would be considered for such experiments.
 * Funny you mention that. I have asked two researchers mentioned in the article if any one ever has done anything with ants. I will try to find a source that makes your point and then add. Thanks for all your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will try to find a source that describes the selection criteria.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not much luck. The best I can find is something like this: "Researchers of experiments in cooperation have favored as subjects species that are tool users or live in complex social groups." This doesn't really exclude the ants, plus is broader than the cooperative pulling paradigm. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, not much to do then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - the content looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and support. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim
Just one thing really
 * observed in the air (e.g., among hawks&mdash; I'd prefer a link to bird of prey, instead. if you follow the link, hawk is somewhat imprecise, and although you cite only Harris hawks, cooperative hunting is reported in Aplomado falcons (Hector D.P. (1986). "Cooperative hunting and its relationship to foraging success and prey size in an avian predator". Ethology. 73: 247–257. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1986.tb00915.x.) Cooperative between different species has also been recorded (Cudworth, J., and Massingham, C. 1986. Hen Harrier and Merlin hunting together. British Birds 79:430, also Dickson, R. C. 1984. Falcons hunting close to harriers. British Birds 77: 481-482, and this <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> -  talk to me?  14:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I only picked out hawks as an example. I changed hawks to Aplomado falcons, but still only as an example. It should probably be species specific and not make readers think all bird of prey hunt cooperatively. Plus keeps it in line with lions, killer whales, driver ants. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, not a big deal anyway, supported above <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  10:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord note
Source review for reliability/formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Under Conditions, I'd expect to see L4 headings rather than bolded text, unless MOS specifically recommends the latter; won't hold up promotion over it though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks Ian! Edwininlondon (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources review
One small point: Ref 92 (video) needs publisher information and retrieval date. Otherwise the sources appear to be of the appropriate quality and reliability, and are regularly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for checking Brian. I have removed 92 altogether. The statement already was covered by 19 and the External Links section has a link to TED talk which features the video I was referring to, so no need for 92 actually. Thanks again. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.