Talk:Bonn–Oberkassel dog

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that ancient humans cared for a 14,000-year-old puppy? Source: Janssens, L., Giemsch, L., Schmitz, R., Street, M., Van Dongen, S., & Crombé, P. (2018). A new look at an old dog: Bonn-Oberkassel reconsidered. Journal of Archaeological Science, 92, 126–138. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2018.01.004, p. 10 "The dog was young and sick, likely was untrained as a result, and thus had no obvious utilitarian value to surrounding humans. Thus, we hypothesize further that the inferred supportive care probably was due to compassion or empathy, without any expectation of reciprocal utilitarian benefits. We suggest that the Bonn-Oberkassel dog provides the earliest known evidence for a purely emotion-driven human-dog interaction."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Estoppey D-series

Moved to mainspace by Generalissima (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 40 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Great work on the article, Generalissima! That's quite an interesting hook; humans caring for a 14,000-year-old puppy?! Anyway, for the hook's source, which I managed to track down using the DOI in the article and leading me to a ScienceDirect source, and verifies the hook as the data "statistically overlaps 14C". Again, great work! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bonn–Oberkassel dog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 20:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Since you reviewed my FAC for Hotline Miami 2. It'll take me a little bit to get to this one, but I'm going ahead and marking it. λ NegativeMP1 17:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Just checking in! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I forgor, got caught in some stuff. I'll try to get to this before too long. λ NegativeMP1 20:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I was unable to find any issues within the prose, and I'll be performing a spotcheck later when I have enough time to go through the Wikipedia Library to look at sourcing. λ NegativeMP1 18:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I've spotchecked #8 and #20, they seem to verify the content they are cited to. I greatly apologize for the long wait, as I explained on Discord I was doing a lot of other stuff and this slipped my mind for the most part. I'll be approving this nomination now that I've actually been able to do the spotcheck, good job. λ NegativeMP1 20:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dog's date

This statement is puzzling:

The Oberkassel site was previously dated to the Middle Magdalenian .... Radiocarbon dating of the remains in the 1990s instead dated the site to the early portion of the Late Glacial Interstadial.

The puzzle is that (according to WP) the middle Magdalenian is 14,000-15,000 BP and the early Late Glacial Interstadial is 14,000-14,600 BP. They are in the same time range. So, what does this statement mean? Zaslav (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaslav Good catch, think I had intended to write that the date was further specified but wrote that unclearly. I think it's worded better. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. It seems the same to me. I think you're trying to say the age was "narrowed", but I don't see how. We non-experts don't see any difference at all between Middle Magdalenian and early Late Glacial Interstatial (with which we are unfamiliar) and no meaningful difference between 14,000-15,000 BP (my guess about "Middle Magdalenian") and 14,000-14,670 BP. Note that I use dates because the period names have no meaning to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

If radiocarbon gives a date range, please just state the date range. That's independent of conventional names and more precise. Thanks. Zaslav (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I added a parenthetical date; what differs is that it's specifically the earliest portion of that range and that the dating was in reference to geological period rather than cultural periods, which are usually messier and vaguer to date to. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)