Talk:Coyote/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since I believe there are some tricky taxonomic issues involved, I'll ping William Harris, who is our resident canid expert. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First observation, that table list of species is awfully long, couldn't it be collapsed like the "Local and indigenous names for Canis lantrans" list?

I'm not sure a black and white sketch is the best choice for an image in the description section, rather have a close up photo of a head or similar, which isn't present in the article already.

I've got two options: File:Coyote closeup.jpg (head-on) and File:Coyote portrait.jpg (profile) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the second one; you have no photos of a normal coyote head in profile, plus it is a featured image. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Melanistic coyote" mention in the caption why it is relevant to the hybridization section.

It briefly talks about the origin of the melanistic mutation User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, could it be added to the caption? The the text says melanism may be due to hybridization with dogs, this could be mentioned in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the images uploaded by Mariomassone (here and elsewhere) are problematic because they don't have a link to their original sources in their file descriptions. Not much the nominator can do about this, but Mariomassone needs to make it a habit to include the original links, otherwise it is impossible to check for copyright issues.

I might be able to find them. Which images were uploaded by Mariomassone? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ones in the subspecies table and those in the cladogram. But yeah, would be nice if Mariomassone would take this into consideration henceforward (and retroactively). FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the ones in the cladogram are from the Biodiversity Heritage Library, and all their images are in the public domain. The ones on the subspecies table are from the book The Clever Coyote which was published in part by the U.S. fish and wildlife service, so I think that means the images are in the public domain, but following that logic means the book itself is in the public domain (which it's not), so I'm not entirely sure about that one. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are mosy likely free, but the issue is that if their licences are to be verified during for example a FAC, there should be links to where each picture is taken from in their file descriptions. Mariomassone is adding a lot of such pictures with no source links to many articles, which will become problematic as the articles are further scrutinised. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There surely miust be synonyms to list in the taxobox?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd expect there to be a long and convoluted taxonomic history, which does not need to be explained in detail, but at least mentioned, if true.

No infoto add here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Taxonomy section is long and complicated now User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No conservation info under "Relationships with humans"? Has there for example been times where coyotes were more vulnerable than now, etc?

not that I'm aware of User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should state in-text what the cladogram is based on. And the citation should be moved out of the cladogram, and into the preceding text.

I just added a caption User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies are generally redirected to the species articles (unless there is enough distinct information about them to warrant separate articles, which there rarely is), and I don't see why we need tiny stubs for Northern coyote, Mountain coyote, and California Valley coyote.

If you feel the need to propose six PRODs, go right ahead User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with deletion. It is simply redirection/merging, mere routine with such subspecies stubs (was recently done on impala before it went to FAC). If those were long-standing, well-developed articles, there would be an issue, but they are just recently created, one paragraph stubs, with little to no information that is not found in this article, and little chance they will have anything but duplicate info. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. I think the only information that would be added here is the additional common names of each subspecies User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selflinks from those redirected names should now be removed from this article.

I think I got all the selflinks User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and red or fulvous" Explain in parenthesis.

the colors? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page says " dull reddish-yellow, brownish-yellow or tawny", so whatever if right here should be explained. Per, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."[1] "Fulvous" is a very uncommon term. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Body length ranges on average from 1 to 1.5 m (3 ft 3 in to 4 ft 11 in)" and "The largest coyote on record... measured 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in)" Seems it wasn't longer than average then, only heavier?

there was a 3 missing there, fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect some info on the dentition. How does it differ from that of other canids?

added a sentence User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are inconsistent in whether you use common names or scientific names in the captions. You could use both, with the latter in parenthesis.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The coyote was first scientifically described by Thomas Say in September 1819 on the site of Lewis and Clark's Council Bluff" Seems the name was only published in 1823? Should be mentioned.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should explain what the species name "latrans" means.

it's explained in the Vocalizations section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info on taxonomic names should always be explained in the taxonomy section first. If you want to refer to it again in the vocalisation section, you can just say something like "Its loudness and range of vocalizations was the asis of its scientific name" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should introduce the various people mentioned in the article (occupation, perhaps nationality).

that's what wikilinking is for User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you don't state these things consistently. But if you do it some places and some places not, you should make it the same. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added their occupations User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Wang and Tedford proposed" Full names, date.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nowak found" As above.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"having a more slender skull and skeleton than in the modern coyote." The "in" seems redundant.

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern variety arose 1,000 years after" Variety of what?

coyotes? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you don't mention the name in that paragraph, should be for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done marking so I don't forget

Done it seems someone already did this User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"ochraceous tones" Explain.

wikilinked User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As above, better to be clear in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done marking so I don't forget User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should attribute all the claims made under fossil record to their authors (only done in the first paragraph of the section), since they seem to conflict with the DNA evidence to some extend.

C. S. Johnson is also the name of a steel company so I can't find his first name

Fine if it is just initials there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure all those subspecies listed in the long table are considered valid today? The source used is from 1897!

yes User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on which recent source? You should supplement those claims with a more recent source. A century is a lot of time to make taxonomic changes, and there are practically no collection of subspecies of any animal that has been stable for that long, so I very much doubt it is the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added ref from 2003 (which also said 19 subspecies) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FunkMonk and Dunkleosteus77. It is a pleasure to read your approach and cooperation on this undertaking, I assume it has something to do with reviewing the Coyote article. I am not sure about being referred to as "our resident canid expert" but I do have an interest in Late Pleistocene wolves and DNA research. In my opinion, the recent findings by Professor Vonholdt in July should not alter the taxonomic status of the Coyote at this stage. The wolf-coyote link does not appear to have been "launched to the media" just yet, her focus to the scientific media was on the Red and Eastern wolves being introgressed/hybrid specimens, and I am expecting another paper to help clarify this subject in the not too distant future (Bob Wayne is the lead coordinator on this series). For the Coyote article, when it comes to the Red and Eastern wolves, you might consider a simple link to those two articles rather than covering them here. Regards and keep up the good work! (Yes Dunkleosteus, I have cloned your signature block, please regard it as "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"!) William Harris |talk 10:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your observations. Yes, this is about improving the article for "good article" status, so feel free to point anything you would want to add or change in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have amended the cladogram to include Koepfli 2015. It is much neater, however it highlights the "Canis dilemma" - the Dhole and the African Wild Dog are from different species, however based on mDNA they are closer to the coyote than are the two African jackals that are members of genus Canis. (Our issue at present is that mDNA tells us one thing and nDNA another.)

I would suggest giving the Red and Eastern wolves less profile here; these have their own articles and the subject of what they are, or should be classified as, remains unresolved at present. (If the Red wolf is a case of ancient introgression and what we are seeing is evolutionary adaption to a changed environment, there is an argument that it should be classified as a different species. Having recently read some past Great Lakes wolf research, the researchers give just a hint that its ancestral Gray wolf was a smaller, specialized ecomorph that had adapted to predating on white-tailed deer in the Great Lakes region - its unique signature has not been found in gray wolf populations today, but it lives on in some Eastern wolves. Due to human impact and loss of mates, this smaller, unique gray wolf later crossed with Coyotes and then backcrossed with larger grays - what is hiding there underneath the fur should probably not be easily dismissed as "just another wolf hybrid".) Regards, William Harris |talk 21:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I was invited, I could not resist and now the Evolution section has been rebuilt. Regards, William Harris |talk 11:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! One thing that puzzled me in the sentence "In 2016, a whole-genome DNA study suggested, based on the assumptions made", the part after the comma seems a bit redundant? "Suggestions" and "assumptions" seem interchangeable here?

The study suggested, or we could change that to proposed. The assumptions were made on 3 variables within the study. Please feel free to alter my wording for a better flow on any of this - I tend to be abrupt in my treatment of these matters. Regards, William

Taxonomy and Evolution - I am not convinced that the section Etymology and the section History sit comfortably under here. William Harris |talk 10:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say something to the last few points before I continue, Dunkleosteus77? So they don't get lost in the process. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, Dunkleosteus77 hasn't edited on Wikipedia since September 12 (those last edits were to this page). You may need to decide whether it make sense to continue the review given the extended absence. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm late. I'll try to get to those last points today User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got all of them User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll continue the review before long. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In captivity, F1 hybrids" Add "first generation" or such in parenthesis.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"but generally retain the coyote's adult sable coat color, dark neonatal coat color, bushy tail with an active supracaudal gland, and white facial mask." If these features are distinct for coyotes, why are they not mentioned under description? Also, some of the uncommon terms need explanations.

moved User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hybrid play behavior includes the coyote "hip-slam" Likewise, why is this not mentioned in the behaviour section, if it is somehow a distinguishing feature?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the hybridization section is way too detailed and is given undue weight compared to the other sections that are specifically about this animal only (it is almost the longest section). I'd say cut it by at least half. It goes way off topic, we already have the coydog, Coywolf and eastern coyote articled for this stuff.

reduced User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"combined with extensive backcrossed with parent gray wolf populations." I guess you mean backcrossing?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"coyote pups begin seriously fighting prior to engaging in play behavior." What is meant by seriously?

as opposed to play fights (clarified) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Like wolves, coyotes use a den (usually the deserted holes of other species) when gestating and rearing young" Some of this info is repeated form the prior section?

you mean where it says "Coyote pups are born in dens, hollow trees, or under ledges..."? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Coyotes catch mouse-like rodents by pouncing," Seems a bit weird. Mouse sized? I'm sure it catches mice as well?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"border on apparent friendship" I think "friendship" should be in quotation marks here, seems too anthropomorphic.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"walk around 5–16 km per day" Needs conversion.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"travel at least 0.8 km" Likewise.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many occurrences of words being linked only second time they are mentioned, though it should be the first. Too many for me to list here.

that's probably because a lot of the sections have been shuffled around. I got a couple (I'm not sure how to check exactly how many there are) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the Communication section should come after the behaviour section rather than after ecology? It is behaviour after all.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text immediately under "Relationships with humans" and "In folklore and mythology" both deal with folklore, and some of the info is even repeated entirely, so why are they separate?

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you also removed some text that wasn't repeated (the "cowardly" part), which should probably be reinstated, because it is also mentioned in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

readded User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me from reading the article that most, if not all, of these hybrid populations have come into existence relatively recently, due to human actions? Or are some hybrid populations older than that?

none that I'm aware of User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mention if there have been any fatalities resulting from attacks? I think I remember a hiker being killed by coyotes a few years back, at least? Oh, seems she even has an article: Taylor Mitchell

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service USDA report, "All sheep and lamb inventory in the United States on July 1, 2005, totaled 7.80 million head, 2% above July 1, 2004. Breeding sheep inventory at 4.66 million head on July 1, 2005 was 2% above July 1, 2004."[135]" This very long, complicated quote doesn't seem particularly relevant here. You can state the exact number or just leave it out.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Coyote predation can usually be distinguished from dog or coydog predation because coyotes partially consume their victims." In contrast to what? Dogs or coydogs eat everything?

seems this is outdated info. Removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Coyote kills can be distinguished from wolf kills by less damage to the underlying tissues in the former." This sentence seems it would be long next to the one quoted above. Now they're at each end of a paragraph.

what? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Be long": "belong". But doens't matter now, sicne you re4moved the sentence about "partially consume their victims". FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No word on conservation status? Extinct subpopulations, etc.?

nope User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"being roughly the North American equivalent to the Old World golden jackal, though it is larger and more predatory." Only mentioned in intro.

any idea where to fit that? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be about its ecological niche, so somewhere under ecology or behavior. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added to Diet section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It is listed as "least concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), due to its wide distribution and abundance throughout North America" Likewise.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no physical description in the intro. Even when much less important aspects (like folklore) are repeated word for word from the article body.

added sentence on physical description and reduced third paragraph on folklore. Some sections are given more weight in the lead than others simply because of their size (and the Description section is the shortest section in the article) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much specific detail in the intro, as above, repeated word for word form the article body.

I think I fixed it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, I'd probably add to the intro that it is smaller than the wolf, but will the article pass now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]