Wikipedia:Peer review/Bonn–Oberkassel dog/archive1

Bonn–Oberkassel dog


Howdy, y'all. I am usually a history and archaeology editor, but this puppy goes a fair bit more into biology territory than I am normally used to, so I thought I would it open it up for folks to look at; I want to bring this to FAC eventually. :)

Thank you all so much for your time, Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool article :). Thanks for your work so far. My first impression is that it's too difficult to read in places. If you read over the article to make it come closer to WP:MTAU, I'm happy to give a deeper read at a later time. Feel free to ping. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The first sentence equates the dog to its remains. Would the following not make more sense: "The Bonn–Oberkassel dog (German: Hund von Bonn–Oberkassel) is a Late Paleolithic dog whose skeletal remains were found buried alongside two humans."
 * Fixed. -G
 * I would generally avoid paragraphs above 125/150 words for readability
 * Fixed. -G
 * mandible --> lower jaw
 * Fixed. -G
 * A canine mandible (...) Geological Collections. --> very long sentence. Maybe better: "The dog's lower jaw was first thought to be from a wolf and placed into museum storage with the human remains, while the other bones from the dog were placed into the university's Geological Collections." Or something like that?
 * Fixed. -G
 * Osteoarthritis (...). Again a difficult sentence. Could it be simplified as ""Osteoarthritis, along with signs of enamel defects, missing teeth, and gum disease, show that the dog had a distemper infection as a puppy but survived despite low chances without help."?
 * Fixed. -G
 * Thirty-two identifiable bone fragments have been identified as portions of the Bonn–Oberkassel dog --> I think identifiable can be removed here, as it's repeating identified.
 * Fixed. -G
 * Second individual --> individual sounds like a human. Would second dog be a better heading?
 * Good idea, done. - G
 * mesiodistal --> wiktionary link? wiktionary also has jargon, but may be bit clearer. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I realized that the specific metric measured isn't really necessary here, because what's important is that the tooth was smaller than expected. - G
 * Hi @Generalissima: ping, in case you hadn't seen my feedback :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thank you very much, I had seen it and forgotten about it. Let me do some work here. :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay! I think I have removed a satisfactory amount of jargon. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant! As promised, a more in-depth review: That's all from me! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead says twice it's a Late/Upper Paleolithic dog. Can we omit the second one? I got mildly confused about the different wording.
 * Good idea. - G
 * I find this sentence a bit awkward: "The 32 identifiable bone fragments attributed to the Bonn–Oberkassel dog have been used to estimate a number of the animal's characteristics.". Can it be simplified? I'm not quite sure ChatGPT's suggestion is better: The 32 bone fragments identified from the Bonn-Oberkassel dog have been analysed to estimate various characteristics of the animal. It has fewer verbs at least.
 * Rephrased it. - G
 * The sentences in the lead and body about the puppy surviving don't quite work. You state that the disease is usually fatal without help in para 2, and talk about the help in para 3. I think it works best to combine these ideas in paragraph 2.
 * Perhaps this text works: Despite the high likelihood of death without assistance, the puppy survived, likely due to human care. People probably cleaned the puppy and gave it water, even though there was no practical benefit to them.. Is it completely certain there was no practical benefit to the humans? Or is there no apparent benefit to them?
 * Arranged the paragraphs differently. - G
 * It is unknown why the dog died --> how the dog died?
 * Good fix. - G
 * .., are all unknown and heavily debated among scholars. If it's heavily debated, there is some knowledge right. The sentence may flow better without "are all unknown".
 * Good point, fixed. - G
 * interment is a difficult word. Can it be replaced by burial? If not, please link
 * Yeah, burial is easier. - G
 * baculum?
 * "Penis bone" is easier (but somewhat distracting, lol.) - G
 * but various other pieces of the animal were stored in the University of Bonn's Geological Collections without clear provenance --> I don't understand what "without clear provenance" means in this sentence.
 * Clarified. - G
 * contour découpés ?
 * Bone figurines. Clarified. - G
 * .. duplicate examples .. --> all without any duplicates in the skeleton, better?
 * Yeah, clearer. - G
 * usually closing at an age of 8 months --> is this in modern dogs? Are these fully comparable given the different diets and all of modern pets?
 * For modern dogs, without any clear specifics otherwise. Clarified. - G
 * with an estimated fatality rate of 75% in puppies --> would it help to say domestic or modern puppies here? Are these again statistics from modern animals?
 * Domestic, modern puppies. Clarified. - G
 * The start of the condition in the Bonn–Oberkassel dog likely began around a month before death --> The condition likely began around a month before death. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - G
 * Most typical causes of elbow osteoarthritis in modern young dogs are unlikely to have created the bone spurs seen in the Bonn–Oberkassel dog --> I don't understand.
 * The entire paragraph is a bit difficult to follow. I will admit to not knowing when the Iron age is. What changed then? Why is it relevant here?
 * a sample of 544 wild dogs and wolves failed to find a single example of horizontal enamel damage, characteristic of the disease in puppies --> in a study of 544 wild dogs and wolves, not one had the horizontal enamel damage typical of the disease in puppies.. May sound better?
 * Abrasion and heavy enamel loss ... Very long complicated sentence and repeating "links" feels a bit off --> The dog's remaining canine tooth showed heavy abrasion and enamel loss, resembling cage biter syndrome. However, since there was no metal in the Paleolithic, this wear was likely due to compulsive stone chewing, a behaviour potentially connected to canine distemper.
 * I would omit the scary Latin name morbillivirus canis in the prose, and possibly keep it in the caption. Not necessary to repeat it.
 * Do we need in-text attribution to the 2018 study? The Morey & Jeger study also mentions the pet, so it's not just an idea from a single paper.
 * A right maxillary molar .. (avoid was found close together twice) --> A right maxillary molar found in the burial, initially believed to be part of the Bonn–Oberkassel dog, was determined to belong to another dog.
 * Do we need the German and Latin in the first sentence? The fact we had a Latin name made me think it wasn't the same species as the modern domestic dog. Otherwise, why would we need to specify this? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)