Talk:Canidae/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a really well-developed article, and I am eager to review it. I have the following suggestions to make:

The subdivision of Canidae into "foxes" and "true dogs" may not be ... Perhaps you should say True foxes since you say so in Species and Taxonomy.

Not sure. The problem is, your suggestion would make the statement false. When it says "foxes" in that sentence, it means "a traditional group including both true foxes and not-true-foxes", which would be a somewhat clumsy rephrasing. I've tried to rephrase it a little further, but I don't know how much it helps?

Anaxial (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, could not fully understand it at first. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources list the domestic dog as Canis familiaris, but others, including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists, more precisely list it as a subspecies of C. l. familiaris Though not a major concern in GAN, some vagueness may be noted in this line during FAC, though I know it is unintended.

Not sure. I see what you mean, but am not immediately sure how to fix it. Would providing a link to, say, here do, since it provides evidence that "many sources" do, in fact do this, or is something more specific needed? Anaxial (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our aim here is to omit "many sources" and "others". Let me suggest a rough rewrite:"Though generally listed as Canis familiaris, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists, more precisely list the domestic dog as a subspecies of C. l. familiaris." (I know I am not so good at "rewrite"s, but this might help you proceed.) Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Although I've rephrased slightly from your suggestion, I believe this should cover it. Anaxial (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These branches led to the borophagine and canine radiations. I understand that "radiations" here means a spread of these species. But it seems an odd word to use here.

Not sure. It seems the normal and standard word for this phenomenon to me, but I've linked it to the relevant article, which will hopefully make the intended meaning clearer to readers. Is that sufficient? Anaxial (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Link Eocene, Oligocene, arboreal, Chauvet Cave, Yangtze River, Pseudo-pregnancy, anoestrus~~

Done Anaxial (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Canidae family soon subdivided into three subfamilies, each of which diverged during the Eocene Link diverged (probably to genetic divergence)

Not sure. I've linked "genetic divergence" where it appears immediately above. Is that enough? Anaxial (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, must have failed to notice that. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, canids are territorial or have a home range and sleep in the open, using their dens only for breeding and sometimes in bad weather (Reproduction) This line seems better placed in Social behavior than here.

Done Anaxial (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who are Wang, Tedford and Taylor?

Done Anaxial (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please clearly specify what the years mean.

Additional information needed Sorry, I don't understand what you're referring to here? The only years I can see are the ones that are standard parts of the citations - is this what you mean, or am I missing something somewhere else? Anaxial (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why is Dire Wolf in bold letters?~~

Done Anaxial (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Under Species and Taxonomy, I think Tribe Canini (beside True dogs) and tribe Vulpini (beside True foxes) should be in bold.~~

Not done At least, not yet, because I'm not sure I agree that that would be an improvement. Don't know what anyone else thinks, though? Anaxial (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think to avoid confusion (in Prehistoric Canidae) you should write subfamily Caninae, subfamily Borophaginae, and subfamily Hesperocyoninae.~~

Done Anaxial (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, awaiting your replies. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift response. So the issues left are:

~~Vagueness in one sentence, which, though not a major issue, is still something that needs to be fixed before FAC. My suggestion may be helpful.~~
You have tried to resolve the "Wang, Tedford and Taylor" issue. I wish you gave their full names and occupations (naturalist, zoologist etc.) By years I meant "1994, 1999, 2009". Here the problem is that the reader may not be able to understand their significance; I know the classifications were introduced in the respective years, so let us put it clearly. Actually I think that though you are clear, it would be more in style if you wrote as I suggest (here I have assumed them to be zoologists) :

Family Canidae has been classified into subfamily Hesperocyoninae by zoologist Xiaoming Wang in 1994, subfamily Borophaginae by Wang and zoologists Richard H. Tedford and Beryl E. Taylor in 1999 and subfamily Caninae by Wang, Tedford and Taylor in 2009 except where noted.

I hope you get my point now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, just one issue to go. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things seem to have moved on well in my absence, thank you Anaxial and Sainsf. I think I have dealt with your last point. Is there anything else? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Cwmhiraeth! Of course, your work is impeccable, so I reward Canidae the GA status. Congrats! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]