Wikipedia:Peer review/Cheetah/archive1

Cheetah

I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article on a topic with a very broad scope that I plan to nominate for FAC. Apart from a general check by uninvolved editors for issues with prose, images and formatting (I have put this up for a GOCE copyedit), there is one major issue for which I could do with more input. The article length was a concern yesterday (this revision [1]) (discussion here) but we cut it down by nearly 30K. But the readable prose size was ~11K when the issue was raised, similar to FAs like Wolf and lesser than those like Passenger pigeon, so I wondered if all the deletion was a bad idea in terms of reducing the comprehensiveness, especially as a lot of the stuff was not in other articles. So besides some much needed trimming, I re-added some portion and now the article is at 9K words though the size is 150K nearly. I wish to do away with any issues regarding the size and coverage before FAC, so please guide me on that.

Thanks, Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 03:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

I don't really agree with a lot of removed text, like "It has been extirpated from most of its historical range in Asia, save for a population of less than 100 individuals in central Iran" and the fastest recorded time from the lead. Strange how you removed nationality and occupation before mentioning people as this is standard practice. I don't understand why the discussion on Indian cheetahs was cut out. I suppose the text removed from the subspecies box is justified. The major differences between the giant cheetah and the modern cheetah should be re-added and definitely the discussion on A. aicha. The year Adams proposed the subgenera should be included for context (though the tightening of the text in this area is otherwise justified). Marker's point about immunity is definitely important (and a general concern for species with a population bottleneck). It's notable to say they stop growing at 4 to 6 years old (but note that "till" ≠ "until"). "...the tail of an individual will typically resemble its siblings' to a greater extent than that of its mother or any other individual" this sounds important. You shouldn't have cut out sexual dimorphism and convergent evolution. I would re-add deciduous dentition. I think the condensed explanation of visual streak is more confusing; I suggest "Cheetahs have a high concentration of nerve cells arranged in a band in the centre of the eyes (a visual streak), the most efficient/densest? among felids". M and S cones seems notable to me. Thermoregulation by perspiration should be mentioned. "Cheetahs can copulate three to five times per day" is not the same as "meet and copulate a few more times three to five everyday". "In 1968, George Schaller published the first study of cheetahs in the wild" this looks important. You should re-add the SSP. Definitely re-add the companion dog part, cheetahs are very often paired with a companion dog in zoos.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I feel the same way, especially about the mention of highest speed and the citations since it is an important but a controversial point, but since the issue had been raised I got confused about their notability myself and sought more opinions. I will wait and see what more people think about this before I make any changes though. The right meaning I would want here is "meet and copulate a few more times three to five everyday". One more thing, I guess I should change "human beings" to "humans" throughout the article.right? Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 17:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

yeah, "human beings" is sort of strange to see   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Will do. How is the rest of the prose? cheers, Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 18:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning Chauvet Cave in the Taming section makes it sound like domestication occurred 30,000 years ago   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I was not sure where else to put it. Or should the section be renamed to something like history? I changed big cat to large cat as the term is only for Panthera members, but thanks for your edits :) Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 19:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I think a general history section would be better than the current organization. Also I'm having trouble understand "the theory of Egyptian origin has held stronger and possible timelines for the cheetah's domestication have been proposed on its basis"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To quote the source, "The theory of Egyptian origin of the hunting leopard has proved very resilient and has led some to reconstruct the path of hunting leopard diffusion on that basis". I understand that people have connected Egypt as the first place of taming and predicted from historical evidence how the tamed cheetah spread elsewhere. "Hunting leopard" was often used for tamed cheetahs used for hunting (it was in the article earlier). Also I think domestication is not the right word as someone who edited in the lead pointed out, so I think it's better to change it to taming everywhere. Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 20:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the world record become it was not important for the lead paragraphs, especially since it was recorded once in captivity. The lead should contain general information and typical running speeds are what's important. LittleJerry (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That much detail I agree was unnecessary, but it should at the very least be mentioned the max recorded speed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I see your point but the issue is most of these typical speeds in the given range can not be relied upon as much as the 98 kmh recording which was done with at least much more clarity plus in recent times. Especially the 112 kmh recording which lies in this range is quoted often but challenged too.. so just mentioning a range may lead a reader into believing that the 112 kmh value they may know from earlier is accurate.. so basically it is ambiguous. So I believe it deserves a mention though I left it a bit too wordy as I couldn't think of a better way to write it. And if that remains in the lead, we should keep at least one citation as this is a controversial point, there have been long discussions on the talk page about this. Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 00:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You could say "with various maximum speed recordings of <range>"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

With the requested copyedit of the article coming up in around 2 weeks and no claims that the content removed was exactly irrelevant, in fact one of us has noted that we might be losing out on some important points that way, I was thinking of adding back material and making the necessary edits as proposed by Dunkleosteus77. I see no harm in it, especially as the size issue does not seem to me an issue at all as it should actually be the readable prose size, which I am sure matches other long FAs. Not every article has similar coverage, especially with this one I, as a significant contributor, know that we have several excellent sources to expand it with important details so how is that a problem? I still invite opinions here and at FAC about this and other issues in the article, but I really would like to see the prose copyedited just in case we do add it at last. I will wait a few days before I do this. Thanks, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 16:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't think you should disregard article size. Raccoon has over 300 sources and yet is only a little over 115,000 K. The things Dunkleosteus suggests being moved back are probably not going to matter much to an average reviewer. For example, in regards to "In 1968, George Schaller published the first study of cheetahs in the wild" I doubt any reviewer will care that there is no information on when cheetahs were first studied. Few (if any) FA mammal species articles discuss pioneers in field studies. I personally think that's only important in regards to well known figures like Jane Goodall. The same could be said for the added back information on conservation in India. Instead of asking about removed material, ask if the article is comprehensive as it is. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean the article already has the requisite information and adding these back will add more to the size and less to the coverage? Then it is good to know that we do not have to worry about lack of coverage, definitely more difficult than adding back material that was there. But we really need to decide whether we take this to FAC with or without the removed items.. I am unsure about it as I am facing this situation for the first time. Raccoon seems to have a lot of refs concentrated after lines, while here it is mostly one or sometimes two for each type of fact, may be that is a big difference. Personally I don't think the article size will increase much now in words even after addition. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 20:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like 140k is an arbitrary number to stop at. You should stop adding when the article is complete (of course, that isn't to say to overdo it; the entire discussion on Indian cheetahs in Taxonomy is fine cut down to just "The cheetah was often called the 'hunting leopard' because it was tamed and used as a hunting companion")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally think articles on single species (aside from humans and maybe domestic animals) should be no more than 150,000 K. I think this could get there by trimming the distribution section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

LittleJerry, I'm sorry I'm repeating this time and again but please, please look at the total prose size instead of the total article size with HTML and all. You can clearly see lots of long citations in the article, many of which contribute more than 1KB each to the total HTML size. Whereas if you cut Distribution you will lose numerous details and gain little in reducing it to 150KB which, anyway, is not what you're looking for. That is the background, what people look at is the 56 KB prose. By this logic not just Cheetah but Passenger pigeon and Wolf will also need to be cut down as they are way over 56KB readable text. I'm sure the re-additions suggested above will hardly bring the total word count to the 10K+ seen in these articles. So the best way to bring it down to 150K will be to delete lots of citations, which again looks completely unnecessary to me. Given all these reasons, I strongly disagree with any further cuts. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 22:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheetah has 9316 words, whereas Wolf has 10901 words, and Lion 8225   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• "but the cheetah's exceptional acceleration gives it a greater probability of succeeding in the chase" greater than what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Greater than its prey. Should this be rephrased? Sainsf (t · c) 07:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Aren't most hunts unsuccessful?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That's right, hadn't thought about it.. but I recall that the source says just what I wanted to imply here. FunkMonk raised some more issues with this part of the sentence, so we decided it is better to cut it out. Now the article just says "the cheetah additionally has an exceptional acceleration". Sainsf (t · c) 17:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• I'll start reviewing this when I've gotten a bit further with the Neanderthal FAC. And once I'm done reviewing here, I should be ready to support at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks again :) Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 16:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ungulates is duplinked in the intro.

• Fixed.

• Shouldn't Conservation measures be under Interaction with humans?

• I have tried to follow other cat FAs like Lion and Tiger to design this, they don't seem to be doing that. Probably to avoid too long sections?

Hmm, long sections are not problem, though. Well, I guess it's no big deal, but I think it would be more logical. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think the taxonomy section could be a bit better structured. For example, I'm not sure why the etymology should come first, or whether it should even be its own section? For example, when you mention the naming of the species and genus, shouldn't that be where you give the etymology of the scientific name? And you then mention an invalid species under taxonomy, Felis lanea, but then you mention another invalid species all the way under genetics, Acinonyx rex. Shouldn't these logically be under the same section, as they are both aberrant species that received their own species names? Perhaps both under taxonomy, or in a subsection about invalid species or some such?

• Good idea. Almost all cat FAs I have seen have an etymology section, and maybe putting 3 to 4 lines exclusively about it into taxonomy is slightly distracting and lengthy? Like I mention below, we can surely go for an invalid species section, but we have very little on the woolly cheetah but we have three paras about King cheetah, which is more important and well-known, and there is no information on it elsewhere on the wiki. How should we go about this? Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 01:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a problem if such a section had more text about one of the proposed species. We can only write what's known, and we shouldn't cut down info about one subject just because others have less info about them (similar to why this article doesn't necessarily have to be shorter!). FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right, but I thought of this carefully again, and wondered would it be better to do this now or wait for more comments at FAC? Because the discussion on the genetics of this cat is unlike that of most others, and I feel it warrants an independent section than a paragraph under Threats (which I noticed btw doesn't discuss this as a threat very well, going to add a line or two on it there from the discussion in Captivity section). Plus the king cheetah is described here more for its aberrant look than as an aberrant species, and taxonomy won't be a great place to discuss its features. This is going to be a big change to the article structure too. Sainsf (t⋆c) 05:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's that big of a change, though, as the text would still remain the same, just distributed differently. But not too important. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Acinonyx rex be listed under synonyms? Or was it not formally named?

• It is already there in the list, you mean the infobox list right?

Oh yes, I overlooked it because I thought the list was chronological, but I see you list it per genus. Not sure if there are any guidelines on this, maybe we should ask? Because I see some also list them alphabetically, maybe it would be nice to create guidelines for this and species lists in infoboxes... FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Even I am unaware of any guideline about this, and this hasn't been a problem in my previous FACs. Sainsf (t⋆c) 05:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Peter coxhead and Plantdrew, who often comment on such issues, have an idea? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to follow the source. When I write about plants, using e.g. Plants of the World Online, I keep the synonyms in the alphabetic order it uses. Since the dates aren't given for botanical authorities, alphabetic order is the only one that can easily be checked. On the other hand, when I extract synonyms from the list of taxonomic references in the World Spider Catalog, I tend to keep them in the order it uses, which is by date. Since dates are given for zoological authorities, date order can also be checked. For zoological names, both alphabetic and date order are defensible.

Also of interest to me is the question of whether the synonym list should be hidden by default. I understand that hiding text causes accessibility problems for people using screen readers, and so is deprecated. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we maybe start a TOL discussion about this at some point? As for collapsed lists, Peter coxhead, in articles like red rail, where this was first suggested to me during a GA review, the synonym list is so long that it ends up looking strange. Others arbitrarily leave out some synonyms to make the lists shorter, but then I'd rather have a list complete and hidden than truncated. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• It might also seem like the genetics section info could be split between evolution and threat sections? Some is about disease, some is about population. So it would seem it could be distributed instead of lumped together.

• This can also be done, I put it that way because most cheetah accounts present it like that. Should I move the King cheetah part to a new subsection (before/after Subspecies?) in Taxonomy and the genetic bottleneck to Threats (may have to split that one into Genetic invariability and Other threats)?

I think such a split would make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion on this in the taxonomy split point above. Sainsf (t⋆c) 05:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• It seems a bit odd that there are only two image sin the cladogram. I think either more should be added, or there should be none.

• Initially it had no pics, these two were added later by someone. I am not sure I can find illustrations similar in appearance to the two already there (at least there are none for Jaguarundi), so should we remove the illustrations or replace them all with real pics (something I did on the GA reviewer's suggestion in Meerkat)?

Photos could be nice, as long as it's consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Scanned Commons again and found this [2] for jaguarundi. The cropping is a bit weird, can this be used? About the other lineages, which are mostly represented by genera, how does one choose a pic to represent each of them? Should pics be just for species to cut out ambiguity? Sainsf (t⋆c) 06:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Just whichever look good at that size I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay so jaguarundi has a pic now, but it is tough to find illustrations for the genera. If they also need pics then I will need some time to find good ones for all. Sainsf (t · c) 05:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• "his was described as a new species (Felis lanea) by Philip Sclater" Give date.

• Done

• "The cheetah was often called the "hunting leopard" because it was tamed and used as a hunting companion" If you keep a seperate etymology section, alternate common names should be there, no?

• Oops, that bit somehow stayed there after all the trimming and rearrangement. I have moved it to Etymology and clarified the cheetah-leopard naming confusion.

• "one of the eight lineages of Felidae" Maybe just extant? There would be many more extinct ones, no?

• Right, fixed.

• Seems Felidae isn't linked?

• Done

• "The oldest Acinonyx fossils, excavated in eastern and southern Africa" Are these identified to species?

• It is, fixed.

• "been classified in Felis, Puma or Acinonyx; two such species, Felis studeri and F. trumani" I don't think you need to spell out Felis at second mention, as none of the other genera start with F.

• Fixed

• "and that the cheetah might have originated in North America instead of Eurasia" By cheetah, do you mean the species or genus? because earlier you state its fossils are only known from Africa.

• Clarified, it is the genus. Oldest fossils are known from Africa for sure, possibly because the theory is false? Or maybe they are undiscovered still.

• "Palaeontologist Daniel Adams thus proposed" Give date. But maybe don't give his name, as you don't name others in that section, even when studies are mentioned.

• Added date, I took his name as "a subgenus was proposed" would sound vague to many and boring at least to me.

• "differences between Acinonyx and Miracinonyx were more on a generic level" A bit oddly worded, how about "Acinonyx and Miracinonyx differed at the generic level"?

• Done

• "were considered to be closer to the puma than the cheetah despite their close similarities to the latter" Seems odd they would be put in a subgenus of the cheetah rather tan the puma then?

• I see the confusion here. The point is these species were earlier thought to be closely related to pumas despite obvious similarities to cheetahs, and this is the point that Adams noticed and thought of putting these species under Acinonyx. Clarified

• "North American cheetahs possibly migrated to Asia via the Bering Strait, then dispersed southward to Africa through Eurasia at least 100,000 years ago;[39][40][41] some authors have expressed doubt over the occurrence of cheetah-like cats in North America, and instead suppose the modern cheetah to have evolved from Asian populations that eventually spread to Africa." You state the frst sentence almost as fact, and then contradict it in the next. You could reword the first sentence so it looks more like a claim. "It has been suggested that" etc. And again, what do you mean by cheetahs here? The genus or species? The evolution section needs to be very clear on when you mean which, and probably only use the genus name when the cheetah species is not what is meant.

• Fixed. Checked the whole section for genus/species inconsistencies.

• "one 100,000 years ago coinciding with the migration from North America to Asia" Now you again write this as fact, but you just said it was disputed So you have to specify that some have correlated it with such a migration.?

• Fixed

• The third paragraph under Phylogeny and evolution deals with species that are not even cheetahs, so I think it goes a bit too much into detail about them, especially since they do have their own page for this detailed info. I think it could be condensed to just say these species were once thought to be cheetahs, but are now thought to have just evolved conveniently.

• Trimmed, let me know what you think of it. Basically I have kept the details of how Miracinonyx is associated with Acinonyx, and the later research.

• I think the Characteristics section and those below it are a bit confusing in scope. First you have physical description under Characteristics, then you have more physical description under anatomy, and the titles offer no clue as why there are two separate sections with the same scope, which is psychical description, and on what basis the info is distributed among the two. It would appear anatomy is mainly about skeletal anatomy, or internal anatomy? In which case this should be specified. And then you go into speed, which would appear to be behaviour. Maybe this could be more logically named grouped?

• The Anatomy section could be called "Skeletal anatomy" but it also discusses some inner organs and eyes. I included Speed in Ecology earlier, but it felt odd there as it hardly discusses much related to ecology except a bit about hunting style, the rest is just numbers and mechanics of the motion with relevant connection to the Anatomy section. The Characteristics section could be renamed "Appearance and anatomy" as in Giraffe, but then I don't know how to name the Anatomy section and Speed can't be included. I am not aware of other examples (FAs with anatomy sections) we could follow here. Sainsf (t · c) 03:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, speed is behaviour, though, so it doesn't really matter if it doesn't fall under ecology, as the section is called behaviour and ecology, and is therefore more inclusive. As for characteristics, I'd just call the section "description", as in the lion FA, and the anatomy section "internal anatomy". 21:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

Speed is discussed in the context of physiology. I'd call the section "description and physiology". LittleJerry (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should go with LittleJerry's suggestion. The discussion indeed has to do more with physiology. Sainsf (t · c) 04:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems illogical to me, since I'd also place physiology under description, and since it also overlaps a lot with locomotion and hunting of course. Speed and locomotion is discussed under behaviour in FAs such as European hare, Bobcat, Wolf, and Giant eland, so it certainly has a precedence, but of course also discussed under description in some of LittleJerry's articles. Anyhow, as long as the info is there in the article, it should be ok. But the Characteristics and Anatomy sections really need better names to set them apart. Right now, you would have no idea of their content by just reading the titles, as the two terms cover the exact same (characteristics are anatomy, and pretty much vice versa). If you keep the characteristics name, you need to call anatomy internal anatomy or such. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right, there are two ways of arranging this with examples of both. In giant eland and several GAs I have significantly contributed to, the reason I put such facts in Ecology is that this is where sources usually mention them in their accounts, just a line or two though. I deviated from this in Cheetah mostly because here the focus is way more on physiological details. Anyway I have renamed the anatomy section as you suggested, meanwhile we can continue thinking of a better name for the whole section. Sainsf (t · c) 07:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's ok now, the important thing is there ws a distinction. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• "knew the animal as nsuifisi" Non English words should be in italics?
• " -between a leopard and a hyena" Link those animals?
• "suggested it could be a cross between a leopard and a cheetah" You link cross at second instead of first mention.

• The above 3 points - this part was added recently by someone else so needed revision, done. Leopard should have been linked earlier in Taxonomy, fixed that

• "Pocock described these individuals as a new species" When?

• Added

• " Its slender, canine form" Canine-like? And link canine.

• Right, fixed

• "Saharan cheetahs show particularly canine facial features" Like what? Also, canine-like would probably be better, as they aren't canines.

• Rephrased

• "compared to other big cats" But earlier you imply it's not a big cat? Like "and contrasts sharply with the robust build of the big cats". Later you also say "Sharply contrasting with the big cats in its morphology".

• Fixed

• You repeat all this info later in the same section where it is stated in more detail, wonder if it should be consolidated and only mentioned once? "spotted cat characterised by a small rounded head, a short snout, black tear-like facial streaks".

• I try to do a one-line summary of features like this in most articles to give the reader a general idea of how the animal looks if they just give a quick glance to the section. If you think we should do away with the repetition (which I feel is not too big an issue, it is just one line) then we can just keep "The cheetah is a lightly built, spotted cat" at the start without losing any information.

• "The cheetah can be easily confused with the leopard" Not sure "easily" is necessary or correct, what does the source say? Their builds are extremely different, I'd rather say they were superficially similar.

• Right, the source says "similar" so I shouldn't have said "easily confused", though I am sure I have read "confused" in some sources but I forgot to add them here. Changed to "superficially similar"

• I wonder if the video under Speed and acceleration should be left aligned, because the animal in the thumbnail faces towards the right. Also, you can choose a more interesting thumbnail with the thumb time parameter, as I used in the vido here for example:[3]

• Great, I never knew such a parameter exists. I have changed the alignment and tried to make the thumbnail interesting, now you see the cheetah pouncing on the bait. There are thumbnails showing the cheetah just running but I did not want it to look identical to the pic in the previous section. I am open to removing the pic and keeping that thumbnail in the video if you say.

I actually think that thumbnail goes very well with the running photo above, since it shows the legs in the opposite extreme position in the "run cycle". And I've actually been to that Danish animal park where the running photo was taken as a kid, but sadly I don't think they had cheetahs back then... Edit: Oh, I was at another Danish animal park actally, how can they have so many animal parks with exotic species in such a cold country, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I like the thumbnail now :D Sainsf (t · c) 11:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• What are the differences between the subspecies?

• Okay, I expected this question. Sadly this is not covered well anywhere. I used this source [4] a few years back to add some details but when I revised this for FAC last month I found it was inconsistent with details from a few other sources which I don't remember exactly, will have to dig. It is on page 385 of the book but it is not freely accessible anymore on Google Books (I found no other source to read it). You can see an older revision with the details (say this [5]) but I don't really think we should include these. Sainsf (t · c) 11:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Anything you could tease out would be great, yeah, who knows, maybe they are mainly distinguished by their genes these days... FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right. I did some more research and got this article [6] that says a lot about the confusion regarding the sizes of cheetahs in different areas, and the only confirmed variation is in the tiny genetic differences between them, making it a very uniform species. I will rephrase the line stating size differences in the 1st para of Characteristics once the copyedit is done (it is underway). Sainsf (t · c) 06:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, ping me when the copy edit is done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: The copyedit is over, and I have revised the part about the subspecies. Sainsf (t · c) 14:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The limbs of the cheetah are longer than what is typical for its size" For other cats its size?
• "making the lower legs are less likely to rotate." Remove are?
• "This reduces the risk losing balance during runs" Risk of?

• Fixed all the above points

• "The cheetah resembles the smaller cats in cranial features and in having a long and flexible spine, as opposed to the stiff and short one in other large felids.[4] These differences from other large cats may be a result of the earlier truncation of the development of the middle phalanx bone in cheetahs." How are cranial features and a flexible spine a result of short digit bones?

• There seems to have been some error in the interpretation of the study results and the placement of that sentence. It refers to the canine-like nature of the digits, fixed.

• "The cheetah appears to have evolved convergently with canids in morphology as well as behaviour; it has canine features such as a relatively long snout, long legs, a deep chest, tough paw pads and blunt, semi-retractable claws." Canine like? Also, these aren't really internal features, and since you already mention it is canne like in the section above without explanation, wouldn't it make sense to move thiS sentence there?

• I am not sure which part of the previous section you refer to.. the "canine-like form" line? I see that these are clearly not internal features, but I let it stay in Anatomy as there are 2 or 3 lines discussing this, now including the middle phalanx bone point. Thought it would look a bit out of place in the previous section, but I get your point.

I mean "its slender, canine-like form", you never explain what's canine-like about it until the next section. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, how do you suggest we should arrange the material? These are the 2 lines we need to move: "The cheetah appears to have evolved convergently... blunt, semi-retractable claws" and "The cheetah has often been likened to the greyhound,... attain higher maximum speeds" but I am not sure how to place them in the previous section. Sainsf (t · c) 12:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving the sentence "The cheetah appears to have evolved convergently with canids in morphology as well as behaviour; it has canine-like features such as a relatively long snout, long legs, a deep chest, tough paw pads and blunt, semi-retractable claws." to characteristics, either in the end of the first or last paragraph of that section. Now the "canine-like features" are mentioned three times before they are actually defined, so it's best to get them defined early, instead of leaving the readers wondering until they reach the Internal anatomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf (t · c) 18:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• "The sharp, narrow cheek teeth help in tearing flesh; these are larger than those of leopards and lions" aren't these more specifically called carnassials?
• "suggesting the cheetah can take more quantity of food" Consume a larger amount of?
• "Unlike other cats, the cheetah's canines have no gap behind them when the jaws close as the top and bottom cheek teeth show extensive overlap" Comma after close?
• "recording a recorded maximum speed" Isn't the second "recorded" redundant?
• "showing the movement of Sarah" Maybe give more context int eh caption? For example "the cheetah Sarah", and add it is the fastest recorded cheetah?
• "by simply chasing the prey at high speeds" Chasing prey, or chasing its prey?
• "as it closes in to it" In on it?
• "by the pronghorn 88.5 km/h (55.0 mph)[97] and the springbok 88 km/h (55 mph)" Maybe add "at" before measurements?

• Made the changes suggested in all the points above, well-spotted

• "but the cheetah's exceptional acceleration gives it a greater probability of succeeding in the chase" Greater probability than what? The two other rival animals mentioned are herbivores.

• I mean the cheetah can catch up with such fast prey and succeed in capturing them. Can you suggest a better way of rephrasing this? I have changed it to "cheetah's exceptional acceleration enables it to catch up with them in the chase" for now. Sainsf (t · c) 18:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

But it doesn't live alongside pronghorns? I guess you refer only to the springboks, but then it should be clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, I think it is better to remove the part about the chase. I have just mentioned the acceleration in cheetahs that is unlike what is seen in the other two animals. Sainsf (t · c) 12:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• "than do solitary males or their smaller groups" What does "their" refer to?

• Solitary male groups, removed the mention of groups as it is confusing and redundant (as noted earlier solitary males may stay alone or group in small numbers).

• "but the males in coalitions are notably healthier and have better chances of survival than their solitary counterparts" Why? I assume because they are stronger together?

• Yes

• "A similar but louder call ('yelp') that can be heard from up to 2 km (1.2 mi) away; this call is typically used by mothers to locate lost cubs, or by cubs to find their mothers and siblings." Is the "that" necessary? Not sure what its purpose is here.

• Removed

• Some of the sound transliterations are in italics, while others are not. Some also have quotation marks, and others not. Could be consistent.

• Fixed.. added quotes

• "Agnostic sounds" What does agnostic mean in this context?

• That's a big typo, it is agonistic. Well-spotted!

• " of the oral area" Why not just mouth?

• Reworded

• "The tear streaks on the face can sharply define expressions at close range." What is meant by expressions here?

• Facial expressions

• "Cheetahs in the Kalahari have been reported feeding on citron melons" This could warrant some discussion of why?

• For their water content, added

• "so that the sharp carnassial teeth" Now carnassial is duplinked after the first mention.

• Fixed

• "taken near a bush or a tree" Under or up the tree?

• Under, fixed

• "the cheetah bites the prey's throat, maintaining the bite for around five minutes, within which the prey stops struggling" So does it die from suffocation or bleeding?

• Suffocation, added

• I'm pretty sure image reviewers will ask that the sources used to create the range map be added to the image description on Commons.

• Pinging Mariomassone, the uploader. The modern range is apparently based on the IUCN map but the source for the historical range is unclear as we discussed here [7]. FierceJake754, who added the historical range to the original, has been inactive for months. Maybe we should switch to just the modern distribution [8] (I mean using the latest information), or use another valid source for the historical range like the first survey of cheetahs in Africa [9] for verifiability at FAC. Sainsf (t · c) 10:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, as mentioned before, when I did the subspecies map, it didn't include the historical range. That was added later by FierceJake754. Mine was originally based on an old IUCN map which I see has been updated. Mariomassone (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, I think we should only use the modern range. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Let us stick to the oldest version of the map, based on the pre-2015 version of the IUCN entry. Should the IUCN page not be mentioned in the file description? And can an old version of a file be used in an article? I have never done it before so I don't know how to. Sainsf (t · c) 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You can either revert the file to the older version, or reupload the old file as its own file. Does that make sense? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood, but there is one issue I forgot about, @Mariomassone: We can go with the map you uploaded originally [10] but can you combine A. j. raineyii with A. . jubatus as you did with the map with the historical range? And could you possibly add the year of the IUCN version you looked at while making it? I think it will be of 2008. Sainsf (t · c) 19:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. Shall I overwrite the file or upload a new one? Mariomassone (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it would be the best to make a new map using the latest IUCN map, if you have the time and inclination to do it. If FierceJake returns he/she can provide the source for the historical range and maybe we can add that to the new map. Sainsf (t · c) 20:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Mariomassone (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mariomassone, the map is excellent! Updated the one in the article. Sainsf (t · c) 19:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Do they ever climb trees? Now you say their ability to climb is lesser, but not that they never do.

• Some sources say they never climb, some say they do but only up to short heights. None of them seems really reliable so I did not discuss this.

• "Although they do not prefer tropical forests and montane regions" and "in the harsh climate of the Sahara, cheetahs prefer high mountains" contradiction?

• Tropical forests is fine but the montane point really looks like a contradiction. Maybe the source meant to say they don't occur in montane areas except in the Sahara, but I have cut it out for clarity.

• "Although they do not prefer tropical forests and montane regions, cheetahs have been reported at elevations as high as 4,000 m (13,000 ft)." You start out mentioning tropical forests, but only mention exceptions to montane regions. SO they are never found in tropical forests?

• Yeah they are rare in tropical forests. I see how the elevation bit doesn't fit in well, so I have split the line.

• "It gradually fell to extinction in Europe, possibly because of competition with the lion." When?

• The source doesn't say when. It could be A. pardinensis or A. intermedius that we are talking about here so we could mention when they went extinct, but I can't find any source clarifying this.
• Okay I am again mixing up the other cheetahs with the one I am talking about here, as does this book and almost every one of the few sources that mention Europe in the historical range (like this one [11].. I am not sure which cheetahs they are referring to). I think it's better to remove the mention of Europe from here.

• "notes that the last three individuals" and "The last confirmed sighting in India" contradiction? The three former mentioned can't be the last if there was one more?

• I think it means the 3 killed were the last cheetahs in India to be found in their habitat. That's why I mentioned it's what Divyabhanusinh has to say. Later there were more reported sightings in India for a few years, many unconfirmed. But the last one was for sure in 1957 which was possibly a free-ranging cheetah.

• "the numbers were declining because of a decline in prey" A bit clunky with the double decline.

• Fixed

• "Until the 1970s... By 1987, the first major research project to outline cheetah conservation strategies was underway.[145] The De Wildt Cheetah and Wildlife Centre was set up in 1971 in South Africa to provide care for wild cheetahs regularly trapped or injured by Namibian farmers. The Cheetah Conservation Fund, founded in 1990 in Namibia" Perhaps list these efforts chronologically? Now you jump from the 1970s to 1987, back to 1971, and then to 1990.

• Right, fixed

• "A cheetah in the St. Louis Zoo2" If the point is to highlight it is captive, wouldn't it be better to use a photo that makes this more apparent? With a handler, or where the cage is more apparent. The current image looks like it could have been taken anywhere. Maybe a historical zoo photo wiuld be nice.

• Great point. I couldn't find any pic with handlers, but I found these showing people with captive cheetahs [12] [13]. Does something like this work? Or a simple pic of with just the net visible [14]?

• "According to historians such as Heinz Friederichs and Burchard Brentjes, the cheetah was first domesticated in Sumer" What is their evidence?

• "A Sumerian seal dating back to c. 3000 BC, featuring a long-legged leashed animal has fuelled speculation that the cheetah might have been first domesticated in Sumer, but Thomas Allsen argues that the depicted animal might be a large dog instead of a cheetah.[166]" Ok, I see you explain that here, but wouldn't it be best to place this info after where Sumer is first mentioned, it's a bit confusing you now begin with Sumer, then to Egypt, and then back to Sumer.

• (For the 2 points above) It's pictorial evidence mostly, like the seal. I realized the arrangement here should be improved even before I read the next point :D Done.

• "among other things, animals called "panthers"." Why are these thought to have been cheetahs specifically? And what's the connection to the depicted hieroglyph, are they identified as panthers there?

• Seems they are so specific because the "panthers" depicted in the reliefs included 2 distinct types of animals only - a heavily built cat matching in features with leopards and these 2 cats in the image used here that can only be cheetahs. At least doesn't seem as confusing to decode as the Sumerian seal I think. You can read the last few lines of this page if you want [15].

• "Rock carvings depicting cheetahs dating back to 2000–6000 years ago have been found in Twyfelfontein; little else has been discovered in connection to the taming of cheetahs (or other cats) in southern Africa." But why are these carvings connected to taming?

• Unfortunately I have lost access to this source now. As far as I can recall the reason wasn't mentioned, but the paintings possibly depicted hunting with cheetahs.

• "with "hunting leopards" being mentioned in the Cynegetica" Give date?

• Added

• "His son Jahangir wrote in his memoirs, Tuzk-e-Jahangiri, that only one of them gave birth to cubs." Interestingly, I also mentioned Jahangir in the dodo article, as one of the best live depictions of that bird was made of an individual also in his menagerie!

• I have read about Mughal emperors for years. Their splendour is really difficult to imagine.. they literally seemed to have all kinds of luxuries and almost all "exotic" species that could possibly add to their opulence :D

• Blackbuck is duplinked.

• Fixed

• Having watched the horrible documentary Tiger King, I wonder if there are many cheetahs privately owned by such collectors as well?

• Okay, I had never heard of this sort of stuff. Couldn't find anything to include but check this out [16].

• "The cheetahs in the painting were previously considered to be leopards." What led to their reintepretation? Though the teardrop markings should be a giveaway...

• Weird that no source clearly describes this. But it really seems to be the tear streaks.

• "he 1896 painting The Caress, by the 19th-century Belgian symbolist painter Fernand Khnopff, is a representation of the myth of Oedipus and the Sphinx. It portrays a creature with a woman's head and a cheetah's body (often misidentified as a leopard's).[185]" It's a pretty fantastic image[17] (I had it as my Facebook cover once), I wonder if it should be shown?

• Great idea, done

• The taming and culture sections have some overlapping material, while the taming section goes into African and Eastern cultural views, the actual culture section only focuses on Western views. I wonder if this could somehow be consolidated?

• Will have to think about this. It's really tough to separate taming from cultural aspects as the latter is often included in evidence.. and the culture section itself is more of a collection of various points about the depiction of cheetahs in different areas, not just paintings and stuff that are often used as historical evidence.

• You don't mention in the intro that its historical range included Europe?

• Look at the point about Europe above

One comment: Should there be a mention if cheetah spots are camouflage? This [article mentions how the cheetah is usual in that it leaves in open habitats but has markings. LittleJerry (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, I will look at it and get back to you. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 11:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Thank you so much for your detailed review, now I feel assured the article will have no major flaws and a lot of minor issues too will be gone after this. I will address all of these by this weekend. Meanwhile, it would be great if you could comment on the details removed to shorten the article (compare with this revision [18]).. do you think we should re-add any of the deleted stuff for comprehensiveness? Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 11:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In which of the sections was the cut text mainly located? Off the bat, I think anything cut from the taxonomy section could be put back, as it seems a bit thin now. Also probably to the section about speed, since that is what the animal is most known for. The other sections seem pretty balanced to me (I think the conversation and human interaction text seems pretty tight now, which is good, such sections can often be bloated). FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, was busy with my courses last 2 weeks. I might need a week more to deal with the points above. About the cut text, I think we should put the following lines back. These were pointed out by Dunkleosteus77 earlier as important, and I agree with them. Sainsf (t · c) 12:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Cheetah expert Laurie Marker points out that the high level of genetic uniformity would mean that if an infectious disease surfaced in a population, all of them have (or lack) the same level of immunity.
• the weight keeps increasing till the cheetah turns four to six years old
• The arrangement of the terminal stripes of the tail differs among individuals, but the stripe patterns of siblings tend to be similar. In fact, the tail of an individual will typically resemble its siblings' to a greater extent than that of its mother or any other individual.
• A few other points like deciduous dentition, companion dogs to improve breeding rate, thermoregulation by perspiration.
• As you say conservation section could get unnecessarily lengthy so let us not consider re-additions there.

Alright, agree with those! FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Hi, I have replied to all the points above. The re-addition bit remains, will finish it up in a day or two. Finally done with this semester! Sainsf (t · c) 15:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Changes look great, and I think it's ready for FAC, once other reviewer concerns are solved of course. In regard to a captivity image, how about this one[19], as it also shows a specimen revealing its teeth, which you don't really have in the other images, as well as the fencing in the bg, so it's like two birds with one stone. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

• In the part on evolution, you are using the terms "Cheetah", "Modern Cheetah", "North American Cheetah", and "Cheetah-like cats". These are very imprecise and I was never sure what was meant (the species? the genus?). What is a "Cheetah-like cat" in the first place?

• The oldest cheetah fossils, excavated in eastern and southern Africa, date to 3.5–3 mya – this appears not to refer to the species but to the genus?
• Extinct North American cheetah-like cats – here, "Cheetah-like cats" refers to species outside of Acinonyx it seems, contrary to the later usage of the term (point below).
• Some suggest that North American cheetahs – what are North American Cheetahs? What is this referring to?
• some authors have expressed doubt over the occurrence of cheetah-like cats in North America – now the term "Cheetah-like cats" does not include convergent forms anymore?

• The cheetah is thought to have experienced two population bottlenecks that greatly decreased the genetic variability in populations; one occurred about 100,000 years ago that has been correlated to migration from North America to Asia – Seems contradicting, as it was mentioned earlier that the modern Cheetah appeared in Africa 1.9 mya.
• in a cheetah breeding facility of Oregon – "in" Oregon?
• Studies differ significantly on morphological variations among the subspecies. – This does not really provide any useful information; I suggest to either elaborate or remove
• Each cheetah has a distinct pattern of spots which can be used to identify unique individuals. – This sentence is maybe longer than it needs to be, but "unique" is clearly redundant, since there are no individuals that are not unique?
• Saharan cheetahs have canine-like slim faces. – what is a Saharan cheetah if not a subspecies? Later in text it is assumed that cheetahs in general have dog like faces.
• The cheetah is superficially similar to the leopard … – This whole paragraph might be a candidate for removal. It feels a bit attached, partly repeats info already mentioned elsewhere, and these very broad comparisons seem unnecessary especially after the very detailed description that precedes this paragraph.
• Internal anatomy – This is only partly about internal anatomy (i.e, organs and such). I suggest to name it "Adaptations for speed", and move the few points that are not related to speed to the general "Characteristics" section.
• and the tibia and fibula are held close together – I don't think they can be actively held closer or less close. Suggest to remove "held".
• The protracted claws increase grip over the ground, while paw pads make the sprint more convenient over tough ground. – This doesn't say much; all cats have claws and pads? What is special about this in the Cheetah?
• The highly reduced clavicle is connected through ligaments to the scapula, whose pendulum-like motion increases the stride length and assists in shock absorption. – Is the clavicle reduced in order to allow the scapula to rotate?
• The extension of the vertebral column can add as much as 76 cm (30 in) to the stride length. – Both flexion and extension during running are needed I think.
• The cheetah resembles the smaller cats in cranial features, and in having a long and flexible spine, as opposed to the stiff and short one in other large felids – As the flexible spine is a speed adaption, comparing with small cats does not make too much sense. Suggest to keep discussing speed adaptations and combine with the information on flexion and extension to increase stride length. Also, "cranial features" is too unspecific and out of place here.
• A study suggested that the limited retraction of the cheetah's claws may result from the earlier truncation of the development of the middle phalanx bone in cheetahs. – Better placed in a dedicated paragraph on the claws (see below).
• the cheetah can consume larger amount of food – "amounts"?
• as the top and bottom cheek teeth – "upper and lower cheek teeth"?
• as the top and bottom cheek teeth show extensive overlap – I don't get this part, and I think it can just be removed.
• The slightly curved claws, shorter as well as straighter than those of other cats, lack a protective sheath and are partly retractable – I would describe the claws much earlier (since the "semi-retractable claws" are referred to frequently before, but only explained too late), and keep everything related to them together in a dedicated paragraph.
• or within the range 41.4–65.88 km/h (25.7–40.9 mph) including error. – too much detail I think, this is more about the methodology of this specific study then about the animal itself.
• As more such individuals were observed it was seen that they had non-retractable claws like the cheetah – I think the claws are semi-rectractable, not non-rectractable.
• semi-retractable, partly retractable – I suggest to stick with the latter (less technical) variant throughout the article for consistency.
• A fact that is missing in this article: Cheetahs are among the rare animals that use a pace gait while walking (together with, e. g., Camels and Giraffs)! – Let me know if you need a good source here, which I have.
• I disagree that this article "too long" in general, the length is totally acceptable. Though I think it can be shortened at some places for other reasons, as pointed out above.
• All in all, a very decent and well-readable article. After addressing these points (and the ones that might follow for the second half of the article) it should have my instant support at FAC. Considering the extensive review from FunkMonk, I think I should wait until everything is addressed before I continue. Please ping me once you are through with these. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review Jens Lallensack! I will be done with my semester in a week after which I can focus on all the comments here. About the camel and giraffe point, it would be great if you could direct me to the source you have. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 09:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)