Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden jackal/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 [1].

Golden jackal

Nominator(s): William Harris • (talk) • 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the golden jackal, which is a Eurasian canine that is similar in appearance to a small gray wolf. The article receives an average of 700 visitors a day with occasional spikes of twice that. It was listed as a WP:GA on 29 November 2016 based on the work of User:Mariomassone, has since been expanded by 30kb, and recently reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors. If successful, this will be the only extant wild Canis article at WP:FA level. William Harris • (talk) • 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the range map in the article body Now scaled up 300px
File:Tibetan_mastiff_(white_background).jpg: source link is dead New link provided. Note: this is a Pinterest link.
File:Dogs,_jackals,_wolves,_and_foxes_(Plate_I).jpg should include publication date and author date of death. Same with other images from that source Dates now provided on all of these images
File:MSU_V2P1a_-_Canis_aureus_skull.png: source gives a publication date of 1998 and has a clear copyright notice - the scan was digitized with permission, not seeing support for the given tag Replaced
File:Albino_Jackal_2.jpg: source link is dead, on what are we basing the given copyright tag, and what is the status of the work in the US? Pix removed; copyright held by the Iranian Cheetah Society 2015
File:Canis_aureus_subspecies_range.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Image now populated with references provided for their distribution found in the "Subspecies" section.
File:T2JB005_-_Good_luck_go_with_you,_O_chief_of_the_wolves.JPG needs a US PD tag.Tagged

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria, thanks once again for getting us "outlaws" compliant. My only concern is with the Tibetan mastiff image, and seek your opinion on that one, please. William Harris • (talk) • 11:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, did you have a specific question about it? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only the use of a Pinterest link and if that is sufficient; that pix appears to have been taken from the same site as our pix from China. The Chinese website that the image was derived from has a broken link (as you have found), and has most likely been moved elsewhere. I attempted to track down the artwork to a gallery in China (using English) but the best I could find was text about where it had once been displayed while on tour across a number of galleries. Thanks for your advice. William Harris • (talk) • 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments taking a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I wouldn't say straight off that it looks like something else, and you then mention gray wolves again in the next sentence. I have been bold and rewritten like this, how do you feel about that? I'd add female weight maybe and body length of both sexes.

I started off with a quick description of what it is. Then followed this with some detail (which could appear later in the lead). We appear to have shifted to describing where a thing lives before describing that thing. We need to ask ourselves what is most important for the first sentence - that it looks similar to a small wolf or what its distribution is? I saw a taxidermied one standing beside lupus at the city museum today - it looks like a small wolf. Perhaps there is other wording that comes to mind?

I had deliberately avoided putting too many measurements in the lead - I only wanted to compare the size roughly with the small Arabian wolf, and leave the other measurements to be found in the text.

Agreed/point taken. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated Corinne's earlier version of this paragraph; it is currently the best proposal on offer where we share common ground.

The distant ancestor of the golden jackal is believed to be the extinct Arno river dog that lived in Mediterranean Europe 1.9 million years ago. - "distant" is subjective...actually pretty close in paleonotological terms...

Agreed, amended.

Golden jackals are abundant in valleys and beside rivers and their tributaries, canals, lakes, and seashores - "beside" strikes me as an odd preposition to use here...I'd go with "alongside" or "near" or somesuch

Amended to alongside - much better word.

Despite its name, the golden jackal is not closely related to the African black-backed or side-striped jackals, being instead more closely related to the gray wolf, coyote, African golden wolf, and Ethiopian wolf. - I'd move this line to the etymology section.

Removed "Despite its name", removing this as a naming issue and focusing on the relationships under Evolution.

Given that we're saying in the lead it has seven subspecies, presumably the results that are discussed in para 2 of Taxonomy section are now accepted. In which case they should be written in past tense rather than present/future tense.

Amended.

When hunting alone, it will trot around an area and occasionally stop to sniff and listen. Once prey is located, it will conceal itself, quickly approach, then pounce - convert to present (rather than future) tense

Amended.

~~In the Cooperation section you're using italics rather than quote marks for jackal sounds. Need to align. Personally I prefer italics but not a hard and fast rule...~~

Amended.

In the past, the tiger and the leopard were enemies of the jackal, - err, "enemies" is not a word I'd use here .."competed with" or something

Amended.

Overall, kudos for taking this article on, and I think it is not too far off FA status. I'll have another read later. Please check you're happy with my changes overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initial comments. William Harris • (talk) • 11:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some vertebrate species have binomial names after in brackets, others (such as pallid harrier) don't - they should be aligned. My personal preference is to do so to avoid seas of blue in links but not a hard and fast rule by any means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those members of genus Canis have binomials or trinomials to clearly distinguish who these are and avoid confusion, especially the aureus subspecies. The trees and shrubs have binomials because those were given in the orignal references but I am not sure that Wikipedia's attempts at matching these to article names has been entirely successful - there is some confusion. The diseases and parasites have binomials because these were given in references and I have absolutely no idea on this topic and will leave following what these are to the parasite purists. In summary, I have tried to minimize the use of binomials unless it helps to avoid confusion. There is some inconsistency, however it is also reasonably accurate.

point taken. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A thought, if GOJAGE is notable is it worth a sentence or two on them in material about conservation?

Excellent proposal, now included. Is the external link still required?

Nope, so I removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

muskrats constituted 12.3% of jackal faeces contents - "muskrats constituted 12.3% of jackal faecal contents"...?

Amended.

I am finding little ~~else~~ to complain about...which is a good thing.. ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree "Doc" - the more you prescribe, the healthier the article becomes. William Harris • (talk) • 07:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any other prose glitches standing out, nor any other glaring omissions of information. I am iffy on y'all's preferred version of the lead but accept your rationale for keeping it that way and can see the point. Is not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your improvements. I thought the external link might go. Regarding the lead, I expect there may be other proposals before this process has finished. We have yet to hear from "dino-boy" (Funkmonk) - it is only a matter of time :-) William Harris • (talk) • 10:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Just a few minor format points:

Page range formats should be consistent. In most cases you use the "full number" format. e.g. "140–41" but on several occasions you use shorter forms . See e.g. refs 9, 29, 32, 83, 91 and possibly others

In accordance with WP:CITET, for a journal article I provide the range of pages the article appeared on in the journal. For a book I provide the specific page that the topic refers to, unless it refers to text that spans multiple pages. Much of Heptner refers to text that spans multiple pages. I could have used here the one reference and covered pages 138-165 but that may have made finding one passage difficult for a reader.

You don't generally give publisher locations for book sources, but in ref 23 you do.

Many thanks: (1) I try not to give locations as it is not worth the effort in a world of global publishers, plus (2) I noticed that the link to the page is now broken, so I have removed that link, thanks.

Ref 48 has an open page range. Since the book has nearly 400 pages, is it possible to close it?

Ooops! Amended.

Subject to the above, sources are in good order, of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks; I wondered who was going to wade through all of that. I use inline citations and place all of the references neatly under the Reference section to help someone like you conduct an inspection. William Harris • (talk) • 08:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Corinne

William Harris While I am flattered you would reinstate my earlier wording with this edit, I have to say that I think Cas Liber's wording was better. It is too early in the article for a somewhat convoluted construction such as "compared with which...". The simple, direct wording of Cas Liber is better. If it is just the inclusion of Eastern Europe as one of the places in which the golden jackal is native, that detail can be fixed. Is there anything besides that you didn't like in Cas Liber's wording? – Corinne (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I will ping some people for further input as it is an interesting conundrum...@John:? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be very precise with this one because once it gains FA this will then form the "template" by which other wild Canis submissions will follow in the future. If you were a primary school teacher and were to ask your students the question "What is a golden jackal", how might you award marks to the following answers: (a) it is a small wolf (b) it lives in Southwest Europe........

I am inclined to refine the first sentence further to simply "The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a small, wolf-like canine". Or even canid. Then we might explore where it lives. Further debate is warranted. William Harris • (talk) • 03:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I much prefer "small wolf-like canine" to "looks like a small wolf" Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

I have provided a new version of the first paragraph, which attempts to capture our viewpoints. "Wolf-like canine" also sets the scene for its cousins to join it on these pages at some time in the future. From here on, I will be guided by the decision of the majority of editors here - over to you folks. William Harris • (talk) • 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Harris I know a lot of thought has already been given to the lead, but I'd like to make a few suggestions:

1) I would remove "wolf-like" in the first sentence. Two sentences later you have "It resembles a small gray wolf".

2) Upon looking at the first few sentences, I think the sentence beginning "In Europe, it is expanding beyond its current presence" interrupts material that is describing the species. I also think it is a detail that does not need to be so early in the lead.

3) I found a place where that sentence about Europe would fit. It is just before the last sentence of the third paragraph of the lead, which is:

In Europe, jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves, with the jackal's expansion being attributed to their occupying those areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

Both sentences are about expansion of range, so belong together. You could add the information as follows:

(a) In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe. Since jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves, this expansion is attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

If you wouldn't mind leaving the fact that jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves to later in the article, you could make this sentence more concise by leaving it out:

(b) In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, with the expansion attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

or

(c) In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, the expansion being attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

Then, without the sentence about expansion, the first two sentences of the lead are more cohesive:

The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a small canine that is native to Southeast Europe, Southwestern Asia, South Asia, and regions of Southeast Asia. It resembles a small gray wolf, but with shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle.

– Corinne (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good proposal, Corinne, and I can see that you have given it much thought. It would be wise to wait a day or so and see if other editors have any comments on it. William Harris • (talk) • 03:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, FunkMonk: because this article may form a "template" by which other wild Canis submissions will follow in the future, do you have any comments on Corinne's proposal for the lead above, please? I believe that we need to keep "is a small, wolf-like canid" in the first sentence, using the word canid and not canine (I have changed my position across all of the wolf-related articles now on the use of canid). This is because it is an evolutionary biology term - the group that you see in the cladogram in the article are the "wolf-like canids" as defined by Wayne 1993, refer Canidae#Phylogenetic relationships point one. These have been widely referred to in the literature by this term since then. How the rest of the lead paragraphs should pan out I am not concerned.

William Harris • (talk) • 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If "wolf-like canid" is a specific term/concept, then I agree that it isn't necessarily redundant when you say it is similar to a grey wolf later on. Other "wolf-like canids" may not be as physically similar to grey wolves as this jackal, the African hunting dog certainly isn't, for example. But perhaps "wolf-like canids" could be in quotation marks or something, to show it isn't just a descriptive term. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would hyperlink it similar to what I have done with the Dog:

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is a member of genus Canis (canines) that forms part of the wolf-like canids.

or words to that effect. We could then begin to link all of the cousins up with this statement and adjust for relative size....

The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a small, wolf-like canid that is.....

William Harris • (talk) • 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks reasonable to me. Is it a widely accepted term? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Google Scholar and Google book it is. I know that Wayne used it in a secondary source which I will track that down later tonight. It is now time for me to further develop that section in the Evolution of the wolf with a ton of secondary sourcing. William Harris • (talk) • 00:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have included what we have to date in the lead, which includes Corinne's second point. I am still not sure about her first point: "It resembles a small gray wolf..." William Harris • (talk) • 08:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Corinne, I think I have cracked the puzzle. Please review the first paragraph as it reads now and let me know what you think. I am not sure about using "...the jackal is smaller and possesses...", the word "still" might fit in there either before or after the word "smaller". Else, you may be something else in mind! William Harris • (talk) • 20:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Harris The beginning of the lead sounds much better, and I'm glad you moved the expansion-into-Europe sentence to the end of the lead. Two concerns:

1) About the first paragraph of the lead: the first part sounds fine now. I have a concern about this sentence:

The heavier male weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf that weighs 20 kg (44 lb).

I believe, by "the heavier male", you mean relative to the female golden jackal, but to the average Wikipedia reader, this may not be clear. This sentence follows a sentence in which you mention three species and do a lot of comparing. Some readers may wonder if this is more of that comparing, and refers to a male of one species being heavier than one of the others and, since three species were mentioned, ends up being confusing. I'm not sure you need at this point to mention that the male golden jackal is heavier than the female. I recommend being very clear and avoiding any possible confusion. Instead of "the heavier male", I would write: "the male golden jackal", or, if you think it is clear enough, "the male jackal".

The other concern is in the last sentence of the lead, which presently reads:

In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, the expansion being attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

I know you used one of the two versions I suggested, but now, upon re-reading it, I think it would be better to make this sentence more concise:

In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

You can explain more later. – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Fixed ping. – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amended as suggested, thanks Corinne. If you are happy with it, then I am happy with it. I look forward to bringing articles for FAC review as it attracts some very talented editors that see things from different aspects and they add value to the article. It is similar to developing a work of art - it is a work in progress. William Harris • (talk) • 00:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this sentence in the lead:

The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf that weighs 20 kg (44 lb).

I don't know why I didn't see this before, but unless "that weighs 20 kg (44 lb)" is being used to restrict "Arabian wolf" to one type of Arabian wolf, the weight information is non-restrictive (non-limiting, non-identifying, non-essential information), so the clause should begin with "which" and be set off by a comma:

The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf, which weighs 20 kg (44 lb).

Another possibility is to change "which weighs..." to a prepositional phrase:

The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf, at 20 kg (44 lb).

It's a bit odd to compare the "male jackal" to the "Arabian wolf". Shouldn't it be the "male Arabian wolf"?

The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the male Arabian wolf, at 20 kg (44 lb). or

The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the male wolf, which weighs 20 kg (44 lb). – Corinne (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Harris I'm still not happy with the wording of the first paragraph in the lead. I'm going to copy the second and third sentences here:

Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest gray wolf (Canis lupus), the jackal is smaller and possesses shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle. In contrast to the Arabian wolf, at 20 kg (44 lb), the male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb).

The first sentence begins, "Compared with the Arabian wolf". The second sentence begins, "In contrast to the Arabian wolf". Those phrases are too much alike to have both of them in such close proximity. I actually think the second sentence, with the weights, is not necessary in the lead. You've already said the jackal is smaller than the Arabian wolf. You can leave the weight details to later in the article. Also, between the two sentences, you have the word "wolf" three times. If you remove the second sentence, that goes down to two. You might consider changing "which is the smallest gray wolf" to "which is the smallest of the gray wolf species", or "which is the smallest of the gray wolves":

Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest of the gray wolf species, (Canis lupus), the jackal is smaller and possesses shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle.

Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest of the gray wolves, (Canis lupus), the jackal is smaller and possesses shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle.

– Corinne (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Corinne, I concur fully. Although when looking at specimens "compare" usually means "where are these the same?" and "contrast" usually means "where are these different?", your suggestion produces a superior product. Many thanks. William Harris • (talk) • 20:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Harris I hope you don't mind that I've continued to make a few small edits. I wanted to ask you about something in the big table in the middle of the article. In the far right column, you have a list of about ten things in small print (a small font). I was wondering why there was a space between the first item, balcanicus, and the second item, caucasica. – Corinne (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am always thankful for your edits, Corinne. If you find a way to remove that weird space, then please do so. William Harris • (talk) • 05:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Harris Regarding this sentence:

The taxonomic integrity of the colloquial name "jackal" is therefore questionable.

I think this sentence would be beyond the comprehension of the average WP reader. I wonder if you would consider either explaining the phrase "taxonomic integrity" or changing the sentence to something like:

The usefulness of the colloquial name "jackal" is therefore questionable.

The accuracy of the colloquial name "jackal" to describe all jackals is therefore questionable. – Corinne (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Corinne; second sentence implemented. (I am beginning to feel as if I am running a marathon, the finish line approaches, and I am exhausted. William Harris • (talk) • 20:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, William Harris. I read the comments of Edwininlondon with interest. I think most are spot-on, and good catches. Regarding the last sentence of the lead, while I prefer "where wolves are few or non-existent", I can go along with the "where there are few or no wolves" wording (I changed "no or few wolves" to "few or no wolves" – I think it reads better). However, I'm even wondering whether we need "few or no". I would guess that there is no way to determine for certain whether an area contains no wolves at all. I'm wondering if we could avoid using "few or no wolves" and merely say "where wolves are scarce", or "where there are no wolves". If not, then O.K., leave it as it is.

Leaving it as is would be best because it captures what the researchers were saying. Areas of few wolves is good for jackals, areas of no wolves at all are even better.

On another issue, in that sentence, "The jackal is expanding beyond its native grounds in southeast Europe into Central Europe, occupying areas where there are few or no wolves", you have "southeast" in lower-case whereas in the first sentence of the lead you have it capitalized: "Southeast Europe". Shouldn't capitalization be consistent? Also, in the first sentence of the lead, why do you have "Southeast Europe" and "Southeast Asia" but "Southwestern Asia". Why is it "Southwestern" for one but "Southeast" for two? Finally, I forget – is this article using American English or British English? If the latter, "Southeast" might be written "South-East" or "South East". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Compass points and MOS:COMPASS. – Corinne (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have gone for American English, and the inconsistencies above have been amended. Thanks! William Harris • (talk) • 10:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John

Is the article intended to be in British or American English? It currently uses both which isn't allowed. --John (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, the article was developed by two editors that write in British English but we are aware that we write largely for a North American audience on Wikipedia, even though there are no jackals in NA. Please feel free to make edits where you find it necessary. William Harris • (talk) • 09:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a good answer. Due diligence would have been to take care of this prior to the nom. It appears (tentatively) to have been written in American English per this old revision. Therefore per MOS:RETAIN it should still be. --John (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you can make that assumption based on a 300 word article. To the best of my ability, this is American English. On what basis do you believe that it is not? William Harris • (talk) • 12:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread what I wrote above. It cannot have both as it has now, and it certainly can't pass FAC with mixed spelling. --John (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example? That would be a basis. William Harris • (talk) • 12:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right there in the lead. "Gray" is American, "colour" is British. --John (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(butting in) given it's an Old World species...my preference would be British...but not strongly fussed. William Harris, it's a Thing that we just choose one regional spelling and go with it. If US is easier go with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) easiest is to make it US, have changed the "colour"s and "odour"s...no "-ise" words...so I think we're US-ified now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou both for your edits that have improved the article. I was initially considering which flag to put this article under and was not aware of MOS:RETAIN. Given that if it were to be placed under British English then there would later follow a battery of unknowing changes from mobile phones across North America and endless reverts, which gets us all nowhere, I went for US spelling as best I could. (Note to self: when creating a new article, badge it under Australian English to begin with, unless similar to my Dire wolf and Beringian wolf FAs they have a North American association.) William Harris • (talk) • 21:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strewth cobber! We better do dingo in strine when we make it bonzer! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have slowly been redeveloping dingo over the last year, a bit at a time, as there are a number of competing "interests" at play in that article. One day she may make it to these pages and she is clearly badged under the Southern Cross. But Crikey!, that does not stop some of our western hemisphere cousins from trying to place a "z" where an "s" should be. :-) William Harris • (talk) • 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

I'll review this soon, some preliminary comments here. I ran the citation bot on the article some days ago[2], and it highlighted some issues. Maybe they have been fixed since. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"|journal=Boll. Mus. Civ. St. Nat. Venezia" Better to spell out journal name.

I missed that one; amended.

"Mammals of the Holy Land" has an incomplete pages field: "pages=142–". It actually has two page fields, also "|page=142".

The dash is completed. There are two page 142s because 142-145 is the reference, and the other 142 is the page delivered when clicking on the google books link.

it is probably best to merge the etymology section nto the taxonomy section. The MOS discourages single-sentence (or single-paragraph) sections.[3] They disrupt the flow and simply look bad...

Agreed, amended.

The last paragraph under "In folklore, mythology and literature" needs a citation.

Reference cited. The 1920 US publication was the earliest available in Google Books that offered clear page numbers; a 2016 version by Macmillan - the publisher of the original 1894 version - did not. William Harris • (talk) • 03:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"(Canis aureus, "golden dog") I don't think this should be hidden away in a parenthesis, and we could know what language it is in.

Amended.

"Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) passes along the maternal line and can date back thousands of years.[8] Therefore, phylogenetic analysis of mDNA sequences within a species provides a history of maternal lineages that can be represented as a phylogenetic tree" This seems a bit much for an article that is not about DNA analysis, I think it could be made much shorter, if it's even needed.

Disagree. Have a quick look at the latest at Talk:Coyote regarding the simple term "basal" - please don't underestimate what "basics" some editors might challenge in the future. I do not want to have to be drawn back to this article in the future and have to search for citations and explain basic concepts to a disagreeing editor. We have it both explained and well-cited; if people find it a bit much then they can press on and ignore it.

You don't link various species when they are first mentioned in the article, such as coyote, wolf, black-backed jackal, and African golden wolf. Check throughout.

Amended.

You could also give their scientific names in parenthesis, but that is of course optional (though I think it helps), and I see you do it in some cases, so it should be consistent.

Please refer to my reply to Cas Liber commencing: "Those members of genus Canis have binomials or trinomials..."

I'm not very impressed by the photo selection, we have no close up of the head (could be nice in the description section), and no good photo of the entire animal. I think even the taxobox image is dull, since most of the legs are obscured, and there is out of focus grass in the foreground (even the animal itself is unsharp). Surely there must be something better on Commons or Flickr, where dozens of photos can be found.

Hello Mario, I understand that you have artistic interests and can differentiate a picture of a jackal from a wolf, would you like to select from Flickr] and Commons where appropriate, please?

Flickr has too many copyrighted pix or those not meeting Commons requirements. Commons has provided some pix now added to the article. The taxobox image has been replaced by one showing the complete animal.

"Results from two recent studies of mDNA from golden jackals indicate that those specimens from Africa are genetically closer to the gray wolf than are the specimens from Eurasia." But are the African jackals more closely related to the wolves than to the Eurasian jackals?

Expanded on.

"The word "jackal" appeared in the English language around 1600. It derives from the Turkish word çakal, which originates from the Persian word šagāl." What does this have to do with evolution? looks like it belongs in the former section.

Ooops, amended.

I think you could define what a jackal even is, and state if they are not a "natural" taxonomic group.

Addressed after much searching, a major improvement to this article and will be to other related articles.

"An unusual fossil found in Azokh Cave" Why unusual?

Clarified.

Looks like the range map could need a source for the information shown in it on Commons. And on this note, you have a better map fully sourced under distribution that could take its place, I don't see why we need both images, the one with the subspecies makes the one without redundant. Also frees up space for better photos in the distribution section.

Replaced.

"A haplotype is a group of genes found in an organism that is inherited from one of its parents.[23][24] A haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes that share a single mutation inherited from their common ancestor." Also seems a bit too detailed.

Similar for mitochondrial DNA above.

"Three golden jackal–dog hybrids from Croatia" I don't think that vertically long image looks very good here. There is already clutter in that area between the cladoigrram and other images, and it doesn't really tell of much of this animal as a species. If any photo of a hybid should be used, it would be better of a live animal.

Such a photo does not exist. Galov 2015 is the only record where we have specimens, photos, and a DNA analysis confirming that these are hybrids. The only option now would be to remove the pix, and given that it already exists following the link to Jackal–dog hybrid then I shall do that. Relocated phylotree to section "Evolution" - clutter removed.

"Outside of India, golden jackals in the Caucasus and Turkey indicate the next highest genetic diversity,[25] while those in Europe indicate low genetic diversity,[27][28] which confirms their more recent expansion into Europe" Doesn't this contradict what you said about the lack of fossils in the Caucasus earlier?

No contradiction - the fossil record for every ancient lineage is sparse. We do not know when they first took up residence in the Caucasus, but based on DNA it was after they expanded out of India and well before they arrived in Europe.

"may represent two ancient populations that have survived into modern times" What does "ancient" mean here?

We did mention 6,000 year-old fossils from Greece 2 paragraphs above, however this new amendment spells it out.

"It is regarded by some authors as not a separate subspecies but is C. a. moreoticus" As?

Reworded sentence.

"All species within the wolf-like canids" Among? Also, the term could maybe be defined.

I have added some further detail.

"One of the largest in the world" Largest what? Jackals? Golden jackals?

Amended.

Just a thought, but many of the subspecies articles are very short and have redundant info, I'd personally just merge them here.

The consolidation of some of those articles into here is a good one, however given that their creator was also the editor that brought this article up to GA standard and we do not know what his future plans for these articles are, plus it is outside of my scope here, I believe that it is best left for now.

I think that covers it and the article has greatly benefited from it, thanks. William Harris • (talk) • 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, I'll review the rest of the article soon. You could perhaps experiment with image alignment, staggered placement, so they don't all form a wall on the right side. And as a general "rule", the subject of an image should face the text, not away from it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some further layout edits. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Adults may howl to accompany the ringing of church bells, with their young responding to sirens or the whistles of steam engines and boats." If they react to such, what about howls by other canids?

I could find a study within species but not exposure to the howls of different canids.

I still see various species mentioned throughout which are not followed by their scientific names, also, all species linked in the intro should be linked at their first occurrence in the article body.

Regarding links, refer to MOS:DUPLINK - what is your assessment of its application to the article?

It says "a link may be repeated in ... and at the first occurrence after the lead." FunkMonk (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. My request for your assessment was regarding: "Do you believe that would be helpful to the reader?

I would personally find it helpful, so I assume other readers would too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and now have a reference point (FA Review) should I come across this matter in other articles the future. Will implement.

As mentioned to Cas Liber above: Those members of genus Canis have binomials or trinomials to clearly distinguish who these are and avoid confusion, especially the aureus subspecies. The trees and shrubs have binomials because those were given in the original references but I am not sure that Wikipedia's attempts at matching these to article names has been entirely successful - there is some confusion. The diseases and parasites have binomials because these were given in references and I have absolutely no idea on this topic and will leave following what these are to the parasite purists. In summary, I have tried to minimize the use of binomials unless it helps to avoid confusion. There is some inconsistency, however it is also reasonably accurate.

It would be best if there was some kind of consistency, but seems arbitrary now. There are also some plants mentioned that don't have binomials, though you list them for others. I'd just add binomials from the linked articles if the sources don't mention them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too much work for no value-add; I have removed the binomials. If people want further information on the plant then they can follow the provided hyper-link to the article.

"3–8 pups, Tajikistan 3–7 pups, Uzbekistan 2–8 pups, and Bulgaria 4–7 pups; in India the average is four pups" Why do you only spell out a number at the end?

In accord with MOS:NUMERAL, "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". Ranges are currently a subject of discussion here. My preference is to always use numbers - that is why we invented them. However, that is not the MOS approach.

it seems that there is quite some overlap in scope between the foraging and diet sections to the point where they might be better off merged into a "foraging and diet" section. What is the rationale behind separating the two? Messes a bit with the flow when related info is divided by several sections.

A good point looking at the text, now restructured. Foraging describes a behaviour, diet describes items that are eaten. There is also an overlap between "diet" and "livestock, game, and crop predation", however I regard these as "stand-alone" summaries.

Hello FunkMonk, after discussion with Mario concerning the rationalisation of the subspecies, the following is decided:

Mario believes that the Sri Lankan jackal article should be maintained because it is an island subspecies, and may in future turn out to have interesting genetics
I believe that the European jackal article should be maintained because it is class=B, size=26kb, 27 visitors per day, and I can envisage further interest being shown by European readers and editors in the future as this jackal expands further north and west
The other subspecies are now consolidated into the golden jackal article and they now act as redirects.

William Harris • (talk) • 00:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Will return with more. FunkMonk (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like the diet/foraging issue, it is also a bit puzzling that the "cooperation" section is 50% about interaction with other predator species, so it would seem to fit under ecology as well. Personally, I would just have a unified "behaviour and ecology" section, like you see in for example bird articles, so that the separation and placement of the various subsections doesn't seem so arbitrary.

You have opened up a major cross-road here. Currently, the golden jackal structure is similar to Gray wolf (class=GA) and a number of other Canis related articles. However, it could be restructured similar to Dire wolf (FA) and Beringian wolf (FA), which both includes the major topic of "Adaptation" with a number of sub-headings covering these topics. My preference would be to follow the two FA-level Canis articles. Your view on this approach, please?

Yeah, I think it's more sensible to follow current, recently featured articles, than one that was featured long ago and now demoted... But then again, the GA Coyote, which I reviewed, incidentally, seems to have a structure similar to this article... FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume that the same person in the past has had influence on both topics - the Eurasian golden jackal and the North American coyote are comparable. Either structures look fine. Given that environment gives rise to prey species (and other food sources), and prey species gives rise to predator species, I will pursue a structure in line with the 2 FA articles.

^Why do you have two quotes by the same writer in the same section, but in different quote box styles? I'd just cut the short one. Furthermore, how do we know those quotes refer to the golden jackal specifically?

The technique allows part of quoted text to be extracted to give more emphasis, however in such a small section of the article it can be removed. The cited reference chapter is titled "Golden Jackall", but I see your point and have put a short sentence leading to it.

I'd give author and date for all the artworks.

Amended.

I'd list current competitors first and past competitors last.

Amended.

Text on habitat would usually be grouped with text on distribution, and legal status would be on its own.

Split as part of the recent restructure.

It seems very unnecessary to write "hunted or "unprotected" after every single country listed. Rather say, something like "hunted in the following countries:" and then list them there.

Amended - looks much better.

"Taenia hydatigena, T. pisiformis, Taenia ovis" Why is the last name not abbreviated?

Ooops! Amended.

"that can be caught from ingesting infected raw fish, which can lead to metagonimiasis." What does this have to do with the jackal?

Amended.

"forests and crop fields. Jackals den in the bouldery hillocks that surround flat areas" Something seems to be wrong here. Dens?

The noun "den" can be used as a verb in the English language, meaning to build a den. However, for clarity I have now spelt that out for our wider readers.

This frame[4] is from a supposedly freely licensed Youtube video. If we want, we can simply upload the full video and ad it to the article.

Excellent idea! WP:COPYVIOCITE warns to be careful with Youtube regarding the copyright status of works on it. The video was reviewed on 15 May 2016 by an Admin, who was happy with its legal status. I will place it under External links unless you advise otherwise.

The video could even be displayed directly in the article instead of the image (like the videos[5] I once added to the thylacine article), but that is of course outside the scope of this review. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the footage comes with a Beyond Russia logo displayed and a piano soundtrack, else this would have been a good addition.

"born on the Golan Heights" In?

Amended.

"There are no known attacks on humans in Europe." Why is this in the livestock section?

Amended. It was located there before we had an "Attack" section.

"Its winter fur also differs from a wolf's by its more fulvous-reddish color." Only stated in intro.

Amended to something more descriptive. I question the original reference - Heptner - over the tawny colour as there exists the Red wolf, but of course he was referring to wolves just within Eurasia. Let us take a global perspective.

"It is listed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List due to its widespread range in areas with optimum food and shelter." Only stated in intro.

Amended.

It seems habitat and distribution should perhaps be grouped together? That is at least how it's done in many other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beringian wolf, Dire wolf, Coyote, and Gray wolf as examples do not do this. However, I had already been giving this some thought and it seems a logical step under Adaptation. I am not clear on which of these two would come first - could you provide me with a couple of examples to look at, please?
Structure: your view on "Livestock, game, and crop predation" and whether it should be moved out from under "Relationships with humans" and placed under "Diet"?
Structure: your view on "Attacks on humans" and whether it should be moved out from under "Relationships with humans" and placed under "Behavior"?
Else, leave the above two of these where they sit now because it appears that humans are largely responsible for driving jackals to this attack behavior and the jackal's predation on cattle, crops etc.

The project with most FAs that uses a similar structure is the bird project, here is a list of their articles:[6] Most have a separate section called "Distribution and habitat", and the info seems to be covered in that order within the section. I think the order doesn't matter, but the info at least seems it belongs grouped together... As for livestock predation/attack sections, I think it belongs in the human relations section, since, well, that's what it is. Jackals wouldn't be able to attack livestock if humans hadn't made it readily available... FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like their approach and have now implemented - Genus Canis just joined the birds! William Harris • (talk) • 05:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it works, it works! FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing before I support, I think it could be stated more explicitly that jackals are not a natural group, but simply a name given to similar looking/living canids? FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are stepping onto thin ice with this statement. They are "not a natural group" in what way? They are morphologically almost indistinguishable in size, dental, and skeletal measures, and identified apart by coat colour (Wayne 1989) e.g. "golden", "black-backed", and "side-striped". Therefore, the original namers called them all "jackal". Before the identification of the golden wolf in Africa, they were regarded as sympatric in East Africa and have been noted sharing a kill together (Wayne 1989). On the phylogenetic tree, the next step in "Canis" out from the golden jackal (i.e. discounting "Cuon" and "Lycaon") are the two African jackals. They can potentially hybrize as they have the same chromosome number. To the best of my knowledge, no researcher has stated explicitly that these are not a natural group. The best that we might do is to highlight that these are 3 separate species that happen to share a common name of "jackal" as they look very similar in size and morphology, that they do not have a "single exclusive common ancestor" (Vila 1999), and perhaps that the African jackals diverged from the lineage that led to the wolf/dog one million years before the golden jackal did. William Harris • (talk) • 21:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a "natural group" would be a group wherein the members are more closely related to each other than to anything else. Jackals, on the other hand, do not seem to form such a group, and the term does therefore not refer to a monophyletic group. So if any source states they are polyphyletic, don't form a clade, or something like that, it could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

Support - there ya go! Everything addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your attention to detail and the inordinate amount of your personal time that you have put into it. The standard of this article is now beyond my expectations. William Harris • (talk) • 11:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table

The table in this article doesn't appear to comply with MOS:DTT. (Please {{ping}} me if you have any questions; I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WhatamIdoing, I did not know that MOS:DTT even existed. How does it look to you now? William Harris • (talk) • 06:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but that looks correct to me. Thank you. (I think that a lot of people don't know about MOS:DTT.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few points

1. Redundancy. The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a wolf-like canid that is native to -> The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a wolf-like canid native to
2. Redundancy. Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest of the gray wolves -> Compared with the Arabian wolf, the smallest of the gray wolves
3. Redundancy. It is described as being a small, jackal-like canine -> It is described as a small, jackal-like canine
4. Redundancy. The oldest golden jackal fossil is 20,000 years old and was found at the Ksar Akil rock shelter near Beirut, Lebanon -> The oldest golden jackal fossil is 20,000 years old, found at the Ksar Akil rock shelter near Beirut, Lebanon
5. Poor structuring
- 5.1 You have: "There are seven subspecies of the golden jackal. The golden jackal is not closely related to the African black-backed or side-striped jackals, being instead more closely related to the gray wolf, coyote, African golden wolf, and Ethiopian wolf."
- 5.2 Try: "There are seven subspecies of the golden jackal, all closely related to the gray wolf, coyote, African golden wolf and Ethiopian wolf, but only distantly related to African black-backed or side-striped jackals"
6. Possible improvement. Golden jackals are abundant in valleys and beside rivers and their tributaries, canals, lakes, and seashores. They are rare in foothills and low mountains, and they avoid waterless deserts and snow areas -> Golden jackals are abundant beside rivers and their tributaries, canals, lakes, seashores, and in valleys. They are rare in foothills and low mountains, and avoid waterless deserts and snow areas
7. Redundancy. a breeding pair and any young offspring -> a breeding pair and (young) offspring
8. Style. with the ability to exploit food -> and able to exploit food
9. Redundancy. and the raccoon in the Caucasus -> the raccoon in the Caucasus
10. Style. RE: "In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast". This doesn't work. If the jackal's presence has expanded to beyond the southeast, then the southeast is obviously no longer its "current presence". Re-write along the lines of:
- 10.1. In recent times the jackal's habitat has expanded to include areas / territories in .....
- 10.2. Evidence obtained since [enter date] indicates that the jackal now exists (thrives?) not only in southeastern Europe but also ...
- 10.3. While the jackal was traditionally found only in the southeast of Europe, it has in more recent times adapted to environments in ...

The above points cover your lead paragraphs. Bangkok / Nov 19. 49.49.233.169 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really good catches of less-than-optimal wording. In item 1 and item 2, I prefer leaving in the relative pronouns "that" and "which". I think it makes the sentences clearer. Leaving them out is, of course, more concise, but slightly more journalistic and may make the material slightly less clear for the non-expert reader. In item 3, I changed the verb form from "as being" to "as having been". I think it makes it clearer that the sentence is referring to the extinct species, not the modern golden jackal. In item 4, I reversed the order of the phrases, putting the participial phrase, "found..." first. In item 5, I also reversed the order and put "not closely related to..." first. This wording keeps the word "instead". Regarding item 6, before deciding upon a possible change in wording, I need to ask William Harris something about this sentence:

They are rare in foothills and low mountains, and avoid waterless deserts and snow areas.

Is there an important distinction between being rare in a habitat and avoiding a habitat? If there isn't an important distinction, we can use only "are rare in". If the distinction is important to make (and are less rare in waterless deserts and snow areas), perhaps we could add "generally" before "avoid": "...and generally avoid waterless deserts and snow areas") (in an attempt to indicate that they are less rare there).

Thanks both for your suggestions and edits. This is the sentence from the lead. The distinction is important because they can be found in foothills and low mountains, but rarely so. They avoid deserts, but snow when they can. However, I have just done further research and found that although they avoid the deserts of Central Asia, they can live in the Sind desert of India and are thought to be dry-habitat tolerance. I have made the changes.

In item 7, I'm not sure. If the "basic social unit" could be just a breeding pair, then the word "any" suggests that the basic social unit could be either a breeding pair and young offspring or just a breeding pair. But that might be splitting hairs, since most breeding pairs would have young offspring, so I guess the IP is right to remove "any". Regarding whether to remove or retain "young", William Harris would have to say whether the basic social unit could include older offspring.

It can be a pair (intending to breed), or a pair with its young offspring. We could simplify it to "a bonded pair and any young offspring"?

I'm sorry, William Harris, I didn't see this until today. I prefer "breeding pair", as you had it. I think "bonded pair" is less comprehensible for the average reader. Also, I would leave in the word "any". – Corinne (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In item 8, I prefer to leave it as it is. I think "with the ability to" suggests and points to a somewhat unusual ability, while "able to" is blander. Also, with the "able to" wording, you have the suffix "-able" (in "adaptable") followed closely by the word "able". In item 9, I have to ask William Harris whether all the animals before "and the raccoon in the Caucasus" are competitors only in the Caucasus or are competitors in diverse places around the world. If the former, then I think "the" should be removed. If the latter, then the word "the", after "and", suggests that the the raccoon only in the Caucasus is a competitor. It seems that the steppe wildcat is a competitor only in Central Asia. To make it clearer that the raccoon is a competitor only in the Caucasus, and the other animals listed before it are competitors around the world, we could re-word the sentence: "and, in the Caucasus, the raccoon, and, in Central Asia, the steppe wildcat".

Your final sentence above is the correct one, Corinne.

Regarding item 10, I suppose the IP is right about the phrase "current presence". Of the three suggested alternatives, I prefer 10.1 because it is the most concise of the three. The only problem might be the vagueness of "in recent times". Of course, this will probably be explained later in the article, but if you wanted to be more precise here, you could be a little more specific: "In the last fifty years...", "In the last two centuries...", etc. (whatever it is). Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our contributor has found a logic error in the lead. Perhaps a more accurate revision: "The jackal is expanding beyond its native southeast Europe into the Baltic states and Central Europe, occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent." Readers can then go to the text for further information on this expansion.

William Harris • (talk) • 01:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, the amendments have been made. William Harris • (talk) • 10:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments

I've read through the whole article again and would like to say I like it. However, I do think it's a FAIL. I say this after reflecting on how end users such as my son (English-Thai; Bangkok; aged 13) and mother (English; in her seventies) would view it. You have, for example:

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) passes along the maternal line and can date back thousands of years. Thus, phylogenetic analysis of mDNA sequences within a species provides a history of maternal lineages that can be represented as a phylogenetic tree. Like it or not, this means zilch to the average reader, and is a huge turn off.

Jackals in southwestern Tajikistan can carry up to 16 species of parasitic cestodes (flatworm), roundworms, and acanthocephalans (thorny-headed worms), these being: Sparganum mansoni, Diphyllobothrium mansonoides, Taenia hydatigena, T. pisiformis, Taenia ovis, Hydatigera taeniaeformis, Dipylidium caninum, Mesocestoides lineatus, Ancylostoma caninum, Uncinaria stenocephala, Dioctophyma renale, Toxocara canis, Toxascaris leonina, Dracunculus medinensis, Filariata and Macracanthorhynchus catulinum. Oh, please. Whatever happened to footnotes.

The content is good, but the presentation is sub-par. Learn how to use footnotes. Focus on presenting engaging, well-written content for your target audience (my son and mother, for example) and put the boring, academic stuff in footnotes.

Finally, don't use the word "thus." Trust me on this. Bangkok / Nov 21. 49.49.233.169 (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors do not get to decide on an article's Fail or a Pass, they get to decide on Support or Oppose; refer WP:FAC "Supporting and Opposing". As interesting as your personal musings might be, if you oppose then please provide your reasons in terms the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Else, these comments might be moved to the Talk page. William Harris • (talk) • 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the Bangkok IP: your suggestions and criticisms are welcome here as long as they are constructive. Several editors are working hard here to get the article into shape. Your attitude, reflected in such comments as "Like it or not, this means zilch", "Oh, please", "The presentation is sub-par", and "Trust me on this", is not constructive. We are at the end stage of weeks of work, and close to approving an article that reflects the best of Wikipedia. The editors on this page are experienced reviewers of Featured Article candidates, so, in addition to reading the Featured article criteria, you might learn something by studying their comments and the resulting changes. You could also look at some other featured articles in zoology and compare them to Golden jackal. – Corinne (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC) To see a list of featured articles, go to Wikipedia:Featured article. – Corinne (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, it is the sock of an indef-blocked editor. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

I don't know much 'bout biology .. but I can give a few comments on prose:

And fine points these are, thanks.

2 sentences in a row starting with "The oldest golden jackal fossil"

I am not concerned regarding these; they were designed to be in this form to keep the message comparable, simple and clear.

Not closely related to .. -> stylistically I would favour starting saying what it is related to. Or maybe make more of a point that sharing the common name doesn't make it the closest.

Amended.

the Aeroflot hybrids, are these (mostly) golden jackal hybrids? If not then I'm not convinced this sentence should be in the lead

These are all golden jackal hybrids.

ungulates in lead should be linked

Amended.

where wolves are few or non-existent -> feel free to ignore me but I'd favour "where there are no or few wolves."

Much better; amended.

The golden jackal, Canis aureus – "golden dog" in Latin – also known as the common jackal, Asiatic jackal,[1][4] and Eurasian golden jackal, -> you've lost me here with the commas and – ... Would it not be better to deal with the alternative names in a separate sentence? And should these alternative names not be mentioned in the lead? That seems common in FA species articles.

I am not concerned about the use of commas and a dash; these are all elements of English grammar. The WP:COMMONAME is golden jackal. The MOS:ALTNAMEs are, in my opinion, not significantly used widely enough to warrant appearing in the lead nor in their own sentences.

Sorry, let me rephrase this: I think the alternative names should live in a sentence on their own. Now it is unclear if Linneaus made these alternative names in 1758.

Now I understand and you are correct. Amended.

originated from a larger common ancestor -> if this has a name, mention it

The researchers did not propose a name for this ancient jackal ancestor. (Hopefully, one day we may have the DNA technology to get a sequence from the Arno River dog to compare with all three jackals, to then ascertain if it was the ancestor.)

years before present (or YBP)-> do we need this or can we just say years ago, like we have in the next paragraph "in India 37,000 years ago"?

Yes, we use YBP only twice in this article so we can dispense with them. Amended.

During the Last Glacial Maximum, 25,000 to 18,000 years ago --> now I get confused when this period was. Previous paragraph said the end of the period is 20,000K YPB, but here "during" stretches to 18,000 YBP, which isn't necessarily even the end

Amended.

represent two ancient populations from 6,000 years ago -> why ancient here? aren't the Indian ones much older?

The paragraph did commence with "Outside of India", however I have clarified with "ancient European populations from 6,000 years ago."

Just so I understand: any population you say ancient because there has been no interbreeding and this population has been in the same place. These criteria don't apply to other populations, which is why you don't use the word ancient for them?

That is correct; these appear to be the oldest lineage in Europe, undisturbed for 6,000 years. I have just added a bit more detail to that section. It would be nice to simply state that the population in SE Europe emanated from Greece and Dalmatia, but some further work is required before we are able to say that. (Else, I would have had it in there! The direction of a proposed future study appears to be focused on what DNA can be extracted from the fossil samples). William Harris • (talk) • 09:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans originated from those expanding from Southeast Europe -> this made me stop, since Balkans are part of Southeast Europe.

It should have read "Baltic" - a splendid pickup of my error. Amended.

the Baltic states -> poor states. Everybody else is spelled out but they are lumped together

I have now spelled these out under Distribution.

if this jackal -> this suggests that it is one and the same animal. Is that the intention?

I have divided this into two sentences to help make it clearer.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I look forward to them. William Harris • (talk) • 11:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing ..

their current litter of pups and older siblings -> I didn't expect the siblings of the breeding pair to be part of the unit. Or do you mean their older children?

Given that it is rare for a litter to be had so late in the season that its members are still around in the next Spring, I think we can remove the siblings altogether.

I don't think it is necessary to include the 1941 description of the sound it makes. I certainly don't like it.

I took a look online and there is footage available of golden jackals howling. It did not sound like the description, which may be subjective. I have removed it.

Leopards once hunted jackals, but today the tiger is extinct -> this juxtaposition doesn't work for me

Amended.

similar diets, with the jackal being three times bigger than the red fox -> not sure what the size comparison has to to do with what they eat. Am I missing something?

Amended.

open to anyone that -> anyone who

Amended.

In Europe, there are an estimated 70,000 golden jackals -> was already said 4 or 5 paragraphs earlier

Amended.

In Tajikistan, jackals carry at least 12 tick species -> I read that as each and every jackal there has at least 12 ticks. But is that what you meant?

Overly generalised, now amended.

In Israel, some jackals carry -> repetition of carry

Edwininlondon (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amended, thanks. William Harris • (talk) • 11:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks; you have applied a fine-toothed comb to the article. William Harris • (talk) • 20:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

Whatever the merits of the IP comments above, I do not consider them actionable against the FA criteria. This has been worked on very hard by a lot of editors. I'm happy that everything has been very carefully looked at and will be promoting shortly, there are just a few minor housekeeping points that can be addressed after promotion. There is currently no alt text on this article. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice; however, that is a decision for the main editors. Also, the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Sarastro (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your adjudication on the IP matter Sarastro1. Regarding alt text, most of the pix are well described through their captions, however descriptive alt text will shortly be applied to the range map in the taxobox. Regarding duplicate linking, I have installed the script - thanks - however I will copy-paste below here some text from an earlier conversation above, which lead to the duplicate linking, and seek your opinion as how to progress. William Harris • (talk) • 02:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding links, refer to MOS:DUPLINK - what is your assessment of its application to the article?

It says "a link may be repeated in ... and at the first occurrence after the lead." - User:FunkMonk 06:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It says Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. My request for your assessment was regarding: "Do you believe that would be helpful to the reader?

I would personally find it helpful, so I assume other readers would too. - User:FunkMonk 09:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems this new duplink script has the same problem that suddenly appeared in the old one; the first occurrence of a linked word is also marked as a duplicate for some reason, which makes it hard to figure out what links to remove. It wasn't always like this, it used to only highlight links on second occurrence. Maybe Evad37 has comments on this? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My script (User:Evad37/duplinks-alt) seems to be working, as far as I can tell - the first occurrence of a repeated link is highlighted with a green border, and the repetitions are highlighted with a red border. E.g. in the latest revision [7] the second paragraph of "Evolution" has two links to Transcaucasia (there are also other close-by repeated links elsewhere in the article which should be fixed) - Evad37 [talk] 01:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there ya go. I'm red/green colourblind, so it's very hard for me to discern when the lines are that thin. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.