Talk:Aurochs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 03:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
There are many points where I feel a little elaboration would help, but spelling, grammar, layout, etc. are fine.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Excellent source selection.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No issues here.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No bias.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Very stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Excellent selection of relevant media.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I think it meets all six criteria, but since I am not experienced with reviewing GANs, I am calling for a second opinion.

Second opinion

For a full assessment I would have to read it in depth first. Generally, we try not to rubber-stamp articles, but point out some issues, even if minor. Just to use the process to actually improve the article, and to show that the article received a deeper look by the reviewer. You are mentioning that "a little elaboration would help", and I agree; it would be great if you could elaborate with some examples, and request some changes here. Based on a quick look, the article has issues that can be pointed out. Examples below:

What comes to mind are too many images on the right side destroying the layout (reaching down into the references list); images could be placed alternating left-right, there are other options.
Extinction is biased, with most of it just about Poland (and that paragraph seriously lacks dates). We need general information here instead; I think this is not a minor objection.
Spelling details: Late Middle Pleistocene -> late middle Pleistocene; central Europe -> Central Europe
The use of the plural form aurochsen in English is a direct parallel of the German plural Ochsen and recreates the same distinction by analogy as English singular ox and plural oxen.[7] "Aurochs" is both the singular and the plural term used to refer to the animal. – The first sentence seems to contradict the second; this needs more explanation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.

Re the images: I basically agree that some can still be removed and would much appreciate YOUR advice which ones.
- Generally, I would remove those that seem the most redundant and/or do not directly relate with a particular section. You have three images showing rock engravings (that seems like a lot), and two showing reliefs. The "Taurus bull in Germany" seems redundant as well. Alternatively, or additionally, you could change the multiple images template from "perrow=1" to "perrow=2", saving vertical space; but use only with a maximum of two images. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Taurus bull : I thought so too, but then the photographer reinserted it. I'll try again. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re the plural form: I did not use 'aurochsen', though several authors writing in English did use this plural form.
- Then I would make clear that both plural forms are in use (I didn't know that, and other readers may not as well); cite a dictionary as source if you can't find anything better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re extinction: what do you think is needed, what do you mean by 'general info'? – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would look for a high-quality secondary source discussing Aurochs extinction from a global perspective, and re-write the section based on that. If you have a whole paragraph just about Poland, you would need similar sections for all other countries where this species lived as well, which is too much. Since the last Aurochs lived in Poland, there is some argument to have some info specific to Poland, but not a whole paragraph. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do have such a source, a PhD thesis. Do I understand you right to shorten this paragraph on Poland? And remove all the stuff about hunting rights, poaching + gamekeeper. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are the expert, and you certainly have a better judgement than me. The stuff about hunting rights and poaching etc. could be highly relevant, but only if it is valid for some other countries as well; and you will need a source for this that does not restrict itself to a single country. PhD thesis is ok, a well-received book would be better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poaching and hunting rights are apparently NOT an issue anywhere else, but lots of speculation about possible reasons for decline in other range countries, like competition with domestic cattle + rise of sea level in particular in Britain, since youngest subfossils found there are ~3,500 years old. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Poland is for some reason significant, there could be more discussion on it, but that should be from a global point of view (stating why Poland differs from other countries, maybe). I don't know the topic, so I have to stay vague. But in general, I would look how a secondary source with a general and global perspective approaches this topic, and what this source considers relevant and what not. This, then, I would use as a guide. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I need to give it back to the main reviewer now, I don't want to "steal" this review! Good luck with everything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One question I have ad hoc to you : Do you think that the BC dates + years BP are clear enough, especially in section Domestication? Or would you recommend to convert ALL to years BP? – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they could be clearer if you use them consistently. Not use both "years BP" and "years ago", because the reader might think you mean two different things here. That only confuses, stick with the same term. If you ask me, I probably would avoid "BP" and just say "years ago", which should be (almost) the same. This makes it as comprehensible as possible. I would link the first mention of "years ago" to the article Before Present, i.e. years ago. And using BC for historical times seems reasonable to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again thanks. I already linked Before Present when used first. There is a difference between years ago + years BP, latter means 'years before 1950' + refers to radiocarbon dating. Whereas years ago may mean 'years before writing the article', i.e. the sources are that vague, alas. So 2,000 years BP will always translate to 50 BC, which is not the case for 2,000 years ago : this is relative + understood as the year 22 today, but in a 100 years from now can be understood as year 122. Confusing indeed, will try to sort that out. – BhagyaMani (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, with numbers like 230,000 years, "years ago" and "BP" do not make a big difference and may be used interchangeably. The error of such estimates is much larger than the difference in definition of these terms. But I see your point, and consistently going for BP instead of "years ago" is totally fine as well. If this abbreviation is spelled out at first mention, it should be easy enough to understand. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all the sources with years ago + years BP. Latter refers to fossil material that has indeed been radiocarbon dated, with one exception: Verdugo et al. (2019) on hybridisation between zebu and early taurine cattle referenced under Domestication, no. 92. The former refers to estimated years or rather guesstimated, i.e. without radiocarbon dating, in particular those with 10,000+ years like 50,000 or 230,000. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment There are a lot of images. On my screen, 4 images extend down from the See Also section into references Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nice that you pass by. Which ones would you remove? – BhagyaMani (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of similar images so let's see how many are left when there's only one of each. Like you have 3 of cave art, 4 insignia, 5 life restorations, and 3 skeletons. Also, remove the memorial Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Do you like this better now? I'm tempted to replace the 'Prejlerup Aurochs' in the section Evolution, as I think this may be the same skeleton as already shown in taxobox. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a bit iffy to nominate articles that already have substantial text written by previous editors. Does the nominator have access to important sources used, such as Retracing The Aurochs? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have access to the 2005 book, only to the 2002 article by Van Vuure. Whereever possible, I replaced text with references to newer sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you enable your email, I can help you out. I don't think this article can really be considered comprehensive without use of such sources. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The book has been referenced 17x already. I want to avoid over-representation of one source, especially if newer sources are available. But if you think it necessary to use it more often, e.g. if something is missing but worthwhile to add : can you make it available on a cloud for download instead of sending it by email? Once I downloaded, you can delete it. That's how we exchanged material before when working on other taxa. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For an animal this well known, it seems the article could be expanded further, it's on the shortish side. Using one book source a lot is fine, since it is a secondary source summarising past research, see for example woolly mammoth or Smilodon. If that book is the seminal work on the species, there is no good reason to under-represent it on purpose. But yes, if you enable your email, it can be worked out. You can also send me an email, then I will reply. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then please let me know where, which sections and aspects you think need to be expanded. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually suggest you skim the entire book and add missing info as you come across it, and verify existing citations that you didn't add. That should be the least for a GAN or FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- And does the nominator make progress on the "extinction" section (which, I think, still needs a re-write, as detailed above)? Is access to sources the problem? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As already explained above, it is not possible to replace years ago by years BP in all instances, because the former represent estimates or rather guesstimates, and the latter refers to radiocarbon dating, i.e. is somewhat more precise. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting a re-write of the extinction section (sorry if that didn't became clear). The BP's are a minor point only. But that extinction section needs a lot of work overall, a lot of general information is missing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next step?

Hey @An anonymous username, not my real name: are you planning to continue and finalise this review? If so: do have any questions, or suggestions for improvements? Or do you want to hand over this review to somebody else? If so, then please announce this on the nominations list. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it could use a little work elaboration-wise. A line that sticks out to me is: "The Hebrew Bible contains numerous references to the re'em, thought to represent an aurochs." There are many possible translations of "re'em"; what makes this one noteworthy? --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the translation of re'em seems to be ambiguous as has been translated as domestic cattle and oryx. I found and am reading a few more sources and will revise this part within the next days. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I revised this with a new source. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else that sticks out to you ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe make the intro a little broader? Otherwise I think it's ready to be finalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk • contribs) 17:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fully agree that the intro is a bit short and will add 2-4 sentences. But before that and with your consent, I suggest to move a few statements from Evolution, i.e. those that refer more to its distribution. – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While working on the revision of the intro, I keep stumbling over the last sentence of the present intro referring to some characteristics of modern cattle breeds in common with the aurochs like fur colour + eel stripe on the back. I think this not relevant in the intro, because it is speculation : fur colour of aurochs is "maybe" and "probable", see subsection on coat colour. Those who followed up on my revisions of the page since about mid Dec know that I added at least 2 dozens of new references, but none contains such a statement about characteristics in common, nor is this part of any section. Please comment. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course not speculative, but a fact. I suggest you to read more about the aurochs, f.e. the standard work by van Vuure 2005, to broaden your knowledge about the aurochs before removing sentences from the article that just reflect facts. DFoidl (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I also mentioned above, I don't think this can be taken through either GAN or FAC without study of that book, it would fail the broad coverage and comprehensiveness criteria, and a nominator should be able to verify the existing citations to it, which is not possible without it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hide, no photo of one, no photo of an aurochs, i.e. NO evidence to support that speculation, but see above : is maybe and probable. Comparisons of maybe features with domestic breeds is OFF topic in the intro, since THIS page is about the aurochs, which should be the focus of the intro. I look forward to what others think. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's your interpretation, and aurochs experts have a different interpretation that is based on facts. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and there are well-researched sources that do diagnose that numerous breeds have horns, colour traits or a morphology that is reminiscent of the aurochs. So it is neither a speculation nor is it "unsourced". DFoidl (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a formulation that I agree to : morphology reminiscent of the aurochs, but not to referring to distinct fur colour and eel stripe. The question however is still: does this warrant to be mentioned in the lead, because the lead is about the AUROCHS and not about morphology of domestics. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This page is still being smoothed out a little, but I think it's more than enough to officially become a good article. It has come a long way, and has improved leaps and bounds. Congratulations! --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for your cooperation and patience!! – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]