I'm not sure a black and white sketch is the best choice for an image in the description section, rather have a close up photo of a head or similar, which isn't present in the article already.
I mean, could it be added to the caption? The the text says melanism may be due to hybridization with dogs, this could be mentioned in the caption.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Many of the images uploaded by
Mariomassone (here and elsewhere) are problematic because they don't have a link to their original sources in their file descriptions. Not much the nominator can do about this, but Mariomassone needs to make it a habit to include the original links, otherwise it is impossible to check for copyright issues.
The ones in the subspecies table and those in the cladogram. But yeah, would be nice if Mariomassone would take this into consideration henceforward (and retroactively).
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
the ones in the cladogram are from the
Biodiversity Heritage Library, and all their images are in the public domain. The ones on the subspecies table are from the book The Clever Coyote which was published in part by the U.S. fish and wildlife service, so I think that means the images are in the public domain, but following that logic means the book itself is in the public domain (which it's not), so I'm not entirely sure about that one. User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, they are mosy likely free, but the issue is that if their licences are to be verified during for example a FAC, there should be links to where each picture is taken from in their file descriptions. Mariomassone is adding a lot of such pictures with no source links to many articles, which will become problematic as the articles are further scrutinised.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Subspecies are generally redirected to the species articles (unless there is enough distinct information about them to warrant separate articles, which there rarely is), and I don't see why we need tiny stubs for
Northern coyote,
Mountain coyote, and
California Valley coyote.
Has nothing to do with deletion. It is simply redirection/merging, mere routine with such subspecies stubs (was recently done on
impala before it went to FAC). If those were long-standing, well-developed articles, there would be an issue, but they are just recently created, one paragraph stubs, with little to no information that is not found in this article, and little chance they will have anything but duplicate info.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, the page says " dull reddish-yellow, brownish-yellow or tawny", so whatever if right here should be explained. Per, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."
[1] "Fulvous" is a very uncommon term.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
"Body length ranges on average from 1 to 1.5 m (3 ft 3 in to 4 ft 11 in)" and "The largest coyote on record... measured 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in)" Seems it wasn't longer than average then, only heavier?
"The coyote was first scientifically described by Thomas Say in September 1819 on the site of Lewis and Clark's Council Bluff" Seems the name was only published in 1823? Should be mentioned.
Info on taxonomic names should always be explained in the taxonomy section first. If you want to refer to it again in the vocalisation section, you can just say something like "Its loudness and range of vocalizations was the asis of its scientific name" or similar.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You should attribute all the claims made under fossil record to their authors (only done in the first paragraph of the section), since they seem to conflict with the DNA evidence to some extend.
C. S. Johnson is also the name of a steel company so I can't find his first name
Based on which recent source? You should supplement those claims with a more recent source. A century is a lot of time to make taxonomic changes, and there are practically no collection of subspecies of any animal that has been stable for that long, so I very much doubt it is the case here.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Hello
FunkMonk and
Dunkleosteus77. It is a pleasure to read your approach and cooperation on this undertaking, I assume it has something to do with reviewing the Coyote article. I am not sure about being referred to as "our resident canid expert" but I do have an interest in Late Pleistocene wolves and DNA research. In my opinion, the recent findings by Professor Vonholdt in July should not alter the taxonomic status of the Coyote at this stage. The wolf-coyote link does not appear to have been "launched to the media" just yet, her focus to the scientific media was on the Red and Eastern wolves being introgressed/hybrid specimens, and I am expecting another paper to help clarify this subject in the not too distant future (Bob Wayne is the lead coordinator on this series). For the Coyote article, when it comes to the Red and Eastern wolves, you might consider a simple link to those two articles rather than covering them here. Regards and keep up the good work! (Yes Dunkleosteus, I have cloned your signature block, please regard it as "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"!) William Harris |
talk10:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your observations. Yes, this is about improving the article for "good article" status, so feel free to point anything you would want to add or change in the article.
FunkMonk (
talk)
14:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I have amended the cladogram to include Koepfli 2015. It is much neater, however it highlights the "Canis dilemma" - the Dhole and the African Wild Dog are from different species, however based on mDNA they are closer to the coyote than are the two African jackals that are members of genus Canis. (Our issue at present is that mDNA tells us one thing and nDNA another.)
I would suggest giving the Red and Eastern wolves less profile here; these have their own articles and the subject of what they are, or should be classified as, remains unresolved at present. (If the Red wolf is a case of ancient introgression and what we are seeing is evolutionary adaption to a changed environment, there is an argument that it should be classified as a different species. Having recently read some past Great Lakes wolf research, the researchers give just a hint that its ancestral Gray wolf was a smaller, specialized ecomorph that had adapted to predating on white-tailed deer in the Great Lakes region - its unique signature has not been found in gray wolf populations today, but it lives on in some Eastern wolves. Due to human impact and loss of mates, this smaller, unique gray wolf later crossed with Coyotes and then backcrossed with larger grays - what is hiding there underneath the fur should probably not be easily dismissed as "just another wolf hybrid".) Regards, William Harris |
talk21:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Looks good! One thing that puzzled me in the sentence "In 2016, a whole-genome DNA study suggested, based on the assumptions made", the part after the comma seems a bit redundant? "Suggestions" and "assumptions" seem interchangeable here?
The study suggested, or we could change that to proposed. The assumptions were made on 3 variables within the study. Please feel free to alter my wording for a better flow on any of this - I tend to be abrupt in my treatment of these matters. Regards, William
"but generally retain the coyote's adult sable coat color, dark neonatal coat color, bushy tail with an active supracaudal gland, and white facial mask." If these features are distinct for coyotes, why are they not mentioned under description? Also, some of the uncommon terms need explanations.
"Hybrid play behavior includes the coyote "hip-slam" Likewise, why is this not mentioned in the behaviour section, if it is somehow a distinguishing feature?
I think the hybridization section is way too detailed and is given undue weight compared to the other sections that are specifically about this animal only (it is almost the longest section). I'd say cut it by at least half. It goes way off topic, we already have the
coydog,
Coywolf and
eastern coyote articled for this stuff.
"Like wolves, coyotes use a den (usually the deserted holes of other species) when gestating and rearing young" Some of this info is repeated form the prior section?
The text immediately under "Relationships with humans" and "In folklore and mythology" both deal with folklore, and some of the info is even repeated entirely, so why are they separate?
Seems you also removed some text that wasn't repeated (the "cowardly" part), which should probably be reinstated, because it is also mentioned in the intro.
FunkMonk (
talk)
08:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
It seems to me from reading the article that most, if not all, of these hybrid populations have come into existence relatively recently, due to human actions? Or are some hybrid populations older than that?
You don't mention if there have been any fatalities resulting from attacks? I think I remember a hiker being killed by coyotes a few years back, at least? Oh, seems she even has an article:
Taylor Mitchell
"According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service USDA report, "All sheep and lamb inventory in the United States on July 1, 2005, totaled 7.80 million head, 2% above July 1, 2004. Breeding sheep inventory at 4.66 million head on July 1, 2005 was 2% above July 1, 2004."[135]" This very long, complicated quote doesn't seem particularly relevant here. You can state the exact number or just leave it out.
"Coyote predation can usually be distinguished from dog or coydog predation because coyotes partially consume their victims." In contrast to what? Dogs or coydogs eat everything?
"Coyote kills can be distinguished from wolf kills by less damage to the underlying tissues in the former." This sentence seems it would be long next to the one quoted above. Now they're at each end of a paragraph.
"It is listed as "least concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), due to its wide distribution and abundance throughout North America" Likewise.
There is no physical description in the intro. Even when much less important aspects (like folklore) are repeated word for word from the article body.
added sentence on physical description and reduced third paragraph on folklore. Some sections are given more weight in the lead than others simply because of their size (and the Description section is the shortest section in the article) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk20:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)reply
There is too much specific detail in the intro, as above, repeated word for word form the article body.
I'm not sure a black and white sketch is the best choice for an image in the description section, rather have a close up photo of a head or similar, which isn't present in the article already.
I mean, could it be added to the caption? The the text says melanism may be due to hybridization with dogs, this could be mentioned in the caption.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Many of the images uploaded by
Mariomassone (here and elsewhere) are problematic because they don't have a link to their original sources in their file descriptions. Not much the nominator can do about this, but Mariomassone needs to make it a habit to include the original links, otherwise it is impossible to check for copyright issues.
The ones in the subspecies table and those in the cladogram. But yeah, would be nice if Mariomassone would take this into consideration henceforward (and retroactively).
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
the ones in the cladogram are from the
Biodiversity Heritage Library, and all their images are in the public domain. The ones on the subspecies table are from the book The Clever Coyote which was published in part by the U.S. fish and wildlife service, so I think that means the images are in the public domain, but following that logic means the book itself is in the public domain (which it's not), so I'm not entirely sure about that one. User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, they are mosy likely free, but the issue is that if their licences are to be verified during for example a FAC, there should be links to where each picture is taken from in their file descriptions. Mariomassone is adding a lot of such pictures with no source links to many articles, which will become problematic as the articles are further scrutinised.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Subspecies are generally redirected to the species articles (unless there is enough distinct information about them to warrant separate articles, which there rarely is), and I don't see why we need tiny stubs for
Northern coyote,
Mountain coyote, and
California Valley coyote.
Has nothing to do with deletion. It is simply redirection/merging, mere routine with such subspecies stubs (was recently done on
impala before it went to FAC). If those were long-standing, well-developed articles, there would be an issue, but they are just recently created, one paragraph stubs, with little to no information that is not found in this article, and little chance they will have anything but duplicate info.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, the page says " dull reddish-yellow, brownish-yellow or tawny", so whatever if right here should be explained. Per, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."
[1] "Fulvous" is a very uncommon term.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
"Body length ranges on average from 1 to 1.5 m (3 ft 3 in to 4 ft 11 in)" and "The largest coyote on record... measured 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in)" Seems it wasn't longer than average then, only heavier?
"The coyote was first scientifically described by Thomas Say in September 1819 on the site of Lewis and Clark's Council Bluff" Seems the name was only published in 1823? Should be mentioned.
Info on taxonomic names should always be explained in the taxonomy section first. If you want to refer to it again in the vocalisation section, you can just say something like "Its loudness and range of vocalizations was the asis of its scientific name" or similar.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You should attribute all the claims made under fossil record to their authors (only done in the first paragraph of the section), since they seem to conflict with the DNA evidence to some extend.
C. S. Johnson is also the name of a steel company so I can't find his first name
Based on which recent source? You should supplement those claims with a more recent source. A century is a lot of time to make taxonomic changes, and there are practically no collection of subspecies of any animal that has been stable for that long, so I very much doubt it is the case here.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Hello
FunkMonk and
Dunkleosteus77. It is a pleasure to read your approach and cooperation on this undertaking, I assume it has something to do with reviewing the Coyote article. I am not sure about being referred to as "our resident canid expert" but I do have an interest in Late Pleistocene wolves and DNA research. In my opinion, the recent findings by Professor Vonholdt in July should not alter the taxonomic status of the Coyote at this stage. The wolf-coyote link does not appear to have been "launched to the media" just yet, her focus to the scientific media was on the Red and Eastern wolves being introgressed/hybrid specimens, and I am expecting another paper to help clarify this subject in the not too distant future (Bob Wayne is the lead coordinator on this series). For the Coyote article, when it comes to the Red and Eastern wolves, you might consider a simple link to those two articles rather than covering them here. Regards and keep up the good work! (Yes Dunkleosteus, I have cloned your signature block, please regard it as "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"!) William Harris |
talk10:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your observations. Yes, this is about improving the article for "good article" status, so feel free to point anything you would want to add or change in the article.
FunkMonk (
talk)
14:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I have amended the cladogram to include Koepfli 2015. It is much neater, however it highlights the "Canis dilemma" - the Dhole and the African Wild Dog are from different species, however based on mDNA they are closer to the coyote than are the two African jackals that are members of genus Canis. (Our issue at present is that mDNA tells us one thing and nDNA another.)
I would suggest giving the Red and Eastern wolves less profile here; these have their own articles and the subject of what they are, or should be classified as, remains unresolved at present. (If the Red wolf is a case of ancient introgression and what we are seeing is evolutionary adaption to a changed environment, there is an argument that it should be classified as a different species. Having recently read some past Great Lakes wolf research, the researchers give just a hint that its ancestral Gray wolf was a smaller, specialized ecomorph that had adapted to predating on white-tailed deer in the Great Lakes region - its unique signature has not been found in gray wolf populations today, but it lives on in some Eastern wolves. Due to human impact and loss of mates, this smaller, unique gray wolf later crossed with Coyotes and then backcrossed with larger grays - what is hiding there underneath the fur should probably not be easily dismissed as "just another wolf hybrid".) Regards, William Harris |
talk21:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Looks good! One thing that puzzled me in the sentence "In 2016, a whole-genome DNA study suggested, based on the assumptions made", the part after the comma seems a bit redundant? "Suggestions" and "assumptions" seem interchangeable here?
The study suggested, or we could change that to proposed. The assumptions were made on 3 variables within the study. Please feel free to alter my wording for a better flow on any of this - I tend to be abrupt in my treatment of these matters. Regards, William
"but generally retain the coyote's adult sable coat color, dark neonatal coat color, bushy tail with an active supracaudal gland, and white facial mask." If these features are distinct for coyotes, why are they not mentioned under description? Also, some of the uncommon terms need explanations.
"Hybrid play behavior includes the coyote "hip-slam" Likewise, why is this not mentioned in the behaviour section, if it is somehow a distinguishing feature?
I think the hybridization section is way too detailed and is given undue weight compared to the other sections that are specifically about this animal only (it is almost the longest section). I'd say cut it by at least half. It goes way off topic, we already have the
coydog,
Coywolf and
eastern coyote articled for this stuff.
"Like wolves, coyotes use a den (usually the deserted holes of other species) when gestating and rearing young" Some of this info is repeated form the prior section?
The text immediately under "Relationships with humans" and "In folklore and mythology" both deal with folklore, and some of the info is even repeated entirely, so why are they separate?
Seems you also removed some text that wasn't repeated (the "cowardly" part), which should probably be reinstated, because it is also mentioned in the intro.
FunkMonk (
talk)
08:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
It seems to me from reading the article that most, if not all, of these hybrid populations have come into existence relatively recently, due to human actions? Or are some hybrid populations older than that?
You don't mention if there have been any fatalities resulting from attacks? I think I remember a hiker being killed by coyotes a few years back, at least? Oh, seems she even has an article:
Taylor Mitchell
"According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service USDA report, "All sheep and lamb inventory in the United States on July 1, 2005, totaled 7.80 million head, 2% above July 1, 2004. Breeding sheep inventory at 4.66 million head on July 1, 2005 was 2% above July 1, 2004."[135]" This very long, complicated quote doesn't seem particularly relevant here. You can state the exact number or just leave it out.
"Coyote predation can usually be distinguished from dog or coydog predation because coyotes partially consume their victims." In contrast to what? Dogs or coydogs eat everything?
"Coyote kills can be distinguished from wolf kills by less damage to the underlying tissues in the former." This sentence seems it would be long next to the one quoted above. Now they're at each end of a paragraph.
"It is listed as "least concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), due to its wide distribution and abundance throughout North America" Likewise.
There is no physical description in the intro. Even when much less important aspects (like folklore) are repeated word for word from the article body.
added sentence on physical description and reduced third paragraph on folklore. Some sections are given more weight in the lead than others simply because of their size (and the Description section is the shortest section in the article) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk20:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)reply
There is too much specific detail in the intro, as above, repeated word for word form the article body.