This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Woolly rhinoceros article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on
extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
A rhinoceros doesn't have hooves. I'd change it but I don't know what part of the rhinoceros was missing: its toenails, toes, or feet? pen-15
Yes, they have hooves, they're ungulates.
211.72.108.19 12:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Rhinos are in the same order as horses and more closely related to them than sheep or cattle. Although not all ungulates have hooves, many, including rhinos, do.
CFLeon 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Mannatien
One of the sentences in the text reads: "The Woolly Rhino also had thick fur & a thick fat coating like that of a mannatien to keep it warm from the cold conditions it endured." I have been completely unable to find what a mannatien is. I left it in the text for further searches and replacement with some similar term. The meaning of the sentence is quite clear: fat and fur for insulating purposes. I cannot think of a living terrestrial animal that presents this kind of configuration, but there are sea otters with fat for insulation. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
86.125.103.181 (
talk) 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC).reply
It may have been a reference to the
manatee or sea cow, which is a sea mammal, quite fat indeed. [unsigned]
Physiology
I think the physiology section is not very clear.
This plant-eater was about 3.7 m (11 feet) long. It had two
horns on its snout, the
anterior one larger than the one between its eyes about 1 m (3 feet) long;
Do we mean the anterior horn was that long, or the one between its eyes?
It had thick, long
fur, small ears, short, thick legs, and a stocky body.Cave paintings suggest a wide dark band between the front and hind legs, but it is not universal and identification of rhinoceros as woolly rhinoceros is uncertain. The woolly rhinoceros used its horns to sweep snow away from vegetation so it could eat in the winter.
Oh c'mon we're not kids here. We know rhinoceroses today use horns for fighting and to attract mates.
Mac Davis (
talk) 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Just because the modern types are limited to that, doesn't mean that the ancient forms didn't find others uses for their horns. Evolution is about Adaptation.
CFLeon (
talk) 22:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Coelodonta
The genus Coelodonta should not redirect to this page as it currently contains three different species of which C. antiquitatis is the most commonly known. Coelodonta nihowanensis from China and Coelodonta tologoijensis from the Transbaikalia region should have pages created and the genus page used to link the three species together.--
Kevmin (
talk) 05:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Same is true for
Hydrodamalis (gigas and cuestae), and other genera too probably. And there's a similar problem with
Homop sapiens. Since other sub-species than Homo sapiens sapiens are known and have articles, Homo sapiens should not redirect to modern human.
FunkMonk (
talk) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Just for the record, the page for the genus Coelodonta is done, although it's still a stub. Also we need info about C. nihowanensis.--
Rextron (
talk) 23:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Other cold-adapted species, such as reindeer, muskox and wisent, survived this period of climatic change and many others like it, supporting the 'overkill' hypothesis for the woolly rhino.
I don't see how this can be 'rationale'. Someone can proof that wholly rinos was extensively hunted and that primitives liked more it to the relatively inoffensive deer or muskox?
Given how the extant rhinos are not extacly neither 'easy kill' (unless you have a good rifle) nor a 'good meat' to eat, this is still a very controvertial and unproof statement. Cheers. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
159.20.209.65 (
talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Disappearing during the Holocene?
Hi, according to
this article of 2014 on the fauna of Urals (in Europe) during the Holocene, it evokes the survival of woolly rhinoceros (and even irish elk and bison steppe). But
this other article in 2012 does not validate the persistence of the species during the Holocene. Who to believe? --
Ellicrum (
talk) 14:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
An article focused on the species is probably more credible than an article that just mentions the species in passing.
WolfmanSF (
talk) 17:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I was actually kinda looking to write this one but I guess you beat me to it. Overall, I think the main issues are some paragraphs are unreferenced, wordiness, and to a lesser degree vagueness or seemingly incomplete thoughts User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Dunkleosteus77: Yea, all of them. I added most of the notes for the description. I decided to remove the parts about evolution that didn't have explanation.
Thylacinus cynocephalus (
talk) 19:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
When you resolved one of my comments below you should tell me because I'm not watching the page User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
If I make a comment and you did something to the article to resolve it, could you respond to my comment telling me you resolved it? Right now it feels like you've gone inactive User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Thylacinus cynocephalus: I don't think you understand what I'm saying (mainly because you're not doing it). So I make a bullet point about what you need to do. Once you have done that, tell me you did it by directly responding to every comment, or at the very least, put a bullet point saying you've responded to all the above. As far as I can tell, you've stopped responding and I'm about ready to fail it for inactivity User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Access date are only used for websites and magazines, not journal articles (even if you included an online link) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
You need a Taxonomy section talking about who first described the woolly rhinoceros, what the scientific name translates to, and basic research history User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 17:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
There are a lot of sentences on behavior which are way too definitive. Behavior is always speculative User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
A general drive-by comment, the lead section is way too short, it should summarise the article, not it's just a few sentences. THe article certainly needs expansion if it is going to FAC some day, there is a lot of info left out.
FunkMonk (
talk) 03:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I haven't even started checking for completeness yet. The article still probably needs expansion to even get to GA User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 15:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Stay away from websites, news agencies, blogs, and magazines as much as you can, and odds are they're actually referencing a scientific journal article which you should cite instead User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)reply
When using a reference in a foreign language, use the parameters |title=, |trans-title= (for the English translation of the title), and |language='User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)reply
ref 2 needs page numbers, and I'm certain you can find a more recent source User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Find a better source than the International Rhino Foundation (preferably whoever they're citing) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The Extinction section is almost completely devoid of sources, and makes a lot of questionable claims User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 16:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Replace news sources and museum websites with whatever journal publication they're citing. For example, the BBC will be citing a journal article, so cite the journal article instead of the BBC User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 15:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
A lot of the references are incorrectly formatted, and some books are missing page numbers User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 15:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Evolution
The first paragraph of doesn't really talk about evolution, and the first sentence is kind of unnecessarily complicated with terms like "derived" which isn't really used to say any important phylogenetic information which is really the only context it should be used in. What you could say is something more direct like "The wooly rhinoceros is the most derived of its genus" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I think the 2nd paragraph needs a little bit more explanation. Were the ancestors tropical or adapted to the alpine climates of the Himalayas? Were the Himalayas alpine yet? How does its evolution in humid areas speak to its absence in the Miocene?
The parts about Stephanorhinus could probably be condensed into a single sentence so it's easier to catch onto your train of thought. Something like "A 1.77 million year old Stephanorhinus hemitoechus rhino mummy may represent the ancestral stock/whatever you were getting at to Coelodonta". Also, I'm not really understanding how Stephanorhinus was identified as the ancestral stock because they seemed to have lived contemporaneously User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Why does it say the ancestors of the wooly rhino evolved 2 mya but the taxobox gives a fossil range from 3.6 mya? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The third par doesn't have a source, and it could be heavily condensed. Something like, "The wooly rhino is thought to descend from either the Eurasian C. tologoijensis or the Tibetan C. thibetana. It evolved at the end of the Early Pleistocene nearly 300 kya, and spread into northern and western Europe." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
"The members of Coelodonta turned out to be more adapted to a variety of conditions compared to elasmotheres" How is this related to evolution? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"A 1.77 million year old Stephanorhinus hemitoechus rhino mummy may also represent the ancestral stock to Coelodonta" contradicts "a 3.6-million-year-old woolly rhinoceros fossil" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"A 1.77 million year old Stephanorhinus hemitoechus rhino mummy may also represent a sister group to Coelodonta" you didn't word this right. Why is only Stephanorhinus hemitoechus the sister group? What about other Stephanorhinus? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 16:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The closest extinct relative to the woolly rhinoceros is Elasmotherium, which appeared on the evolutionary arena before the genus Coelodonta" no it didn't if the wooly rhinoceros came about 3.6 mya, and there doesn't seem to be consensus on Elasmotherium's affinities User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The closest extinct relative to the woolly rhinoceros is Elasmotherium. These two lines were divided in the first half of the Miocene." This is only 1 viewpoint of rhino evolution. There're other hypotheses. Go find them User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 15:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Description
"Two horns on the skull were..." you should probably go with "The two horns..." to avoid implying there were more User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It's still there "The hump also contained a fat reserve to aid survival through the desolate winters of the mammoth steppe" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 06:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Use {{
cvt}} when using units so they can be displayed in metric and imperial units, like 24 cm (9.4 in) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
"with an estimated weight of around 1,800–2,700 kg (4,000–6,000 lb)[6] or 2,000 kg (4,400 lb)" so is 2,000 kg the
point estimate or are there competing values or is that average size and 1,800–2,700 are extrema? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"An adult woolly rhinoceros was typically around 3 to 3.8 metres" contradicts "The woolly rhinoceros could grow to be 2 m" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
How big was the second horn? 61 cm seems really specific. Are you referencing a specific specimen? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
You may wanna revisit how you've organized all the information. It doesn't flow very well and there's a lot of repetition and wordiness User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I undid this because it discusses the history of fossil findings, which doesn't add much to the description.
Thylacinus cynocephalus (
talk) 00:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"to survive in the desolate mammoth steppe" did you mean "desolate winters"? The mammoth steppe is known for having been a thriving ecosystem User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
You use a lot of big words unnecessarily like "extant" instead of "living" or "modern day"; "deciduous teeth" instead of "baby teeth" or "milk teeth"; "dental arch" instead of just not putting it in there at all; and "inginual region" instead of "groin". Also, are you sure it had nipples in the groin? It's not sourced either User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The skull measured between 70 to 90 centimetres (28 to 35 in) and was very elongated" did you mean "elongated for a rhino"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Instead of giving an actual dental formula, just say "it had 3 premolars and 3 molars in both jaws" and leave it there User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The teeth of the woolly rhinoceros had thickened enamel and an open internal cavity" it had hollow teeth? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Unique to the woolly rhinoceros was the adhesion of the forward rounded nasal bone with the premaxilla" I'm pretty sure all rhinos have round noses so you don't need that part, so you can say it as "Unique to this rhino, the nasal bones were fused to the premaxillae" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Like all rhinoceroses, it used its horns for defensive purposes and to attract mates" this sounds too definitive for an inference User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
No. You can condense the entire first paragraph into 1 or 2 or 3 sentences with a lot less words. "The front horn reached a considerable size. Its length reached a meter or more" these 2 statements are redundant. Why do you mention the Kolyma specimen? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 17:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The back horn was shorter, no more than half a meter (1.64 ft), at about 15 centimetres (5.9 in) long" is this the absolute biggest and smallest lengths or the absolute biggest recorded and the average size? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 17:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The rhino's long fur coat was reddish-brown and sometimes had a yellowish tint" how do we know this with such certainty? Are we using cave paintings or mummies? The same goes for everything else in that paragraph User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Their thick undercoat lay under" the plural of rhinoceros is rhinoceroses User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
If this is about reference 24? If so, that's part of the title.
Thylacinus cynocephalus (
talk) 16:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"measured up to 60 centimetres (24 in) long and to 10 centimetres" you don't use the bolded "to" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"This adaptation evolved as a result of the heavy pressure on the horn and face when the rhinoceros grazed underneath the thick snow" we don't know that for certain User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"It had no incisors, which in rhinoceroses are usually only in the milk teeth and rudimentarily formed" or you could say "Like other rhinos, adults did not have incisors" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Done.
"The second premolar was shaped in an especially gracile manner" I feel like the source just said this more or less verbatim and you more or less copy/pasted it in. If you don't understand something, then odds are the general reader won't understand, so what you need to do is understand it, and rewrite so it's easier to understand User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The preserved wear indicates that they were used for combat, probably including intraspecific combat as recorded in cave paintings, as well as for moving snow to uncover vegetation during winter" The preserved wear cannot tell you what they were used for, it can only tell you that they were used for something. So, you can say "Woolly rhinos may have used their horns for..." but can't say this. Also this info belongs in Paleobiology User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Done.
"One early discovery came in 1771 in the Vilyuy River" By "early discovery" did you mean "the first discovery"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"This discovery made a significant contribution to the knowledge of the woolly rhinoceros" we don't need this sentence User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"One had its entire body preserved aside from horns and fur" Did the other mummies only preserve the foot or something? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
What exactly is the point of the 2nd paragraph? Why do you zero in on the English Channel specifically? Why do you mention the mammoth and Elasmotherium here? The 3rd paragraph could easily be condensed User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 01:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"a 3.6-million-year-old woolly rhinoceros fossil" contradicts "It evolved at the end of the Early Pleistocene nearly 300 kya" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 01:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Typically in articles about extinct creatures, there's a section entitled "Paleobiology" which talks about the animals' behavior and diet and predators, and "Paleoecology" which talks about the environment the animal lived in and other animals it lived with User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 01:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"widest range of all rhinoceros species" → "widest range of any rhinoceros species" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Scientific studies on the woolly rhinoceros began in the late 18th century" contradicts "in 1663 near
Quedlinburg, it was studied by scientist
Otto von Guericke". Also, is this talking about
Unicorn Cave? I haven't researched it but I found
this image on Commons which says he made a hoax using the remains of the rhinoceros, a mammoth, and a narwhal User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Removed inconsistency, but not sure about the statement itself regarding it being a hoax.
Thylacinus cynocephalus (
talk) 20:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm sure you can find and cite Guericke's report rather than citing Scientific American blog network User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)reply
That's probably because you're talking about
Unicorn Cave and looking for a newspaper article from the 17th century. Use a different source than a blog User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Some scientists maintained the belief that the horns were the claws of giant birds, and were even classified under the name Gryphus antiquitatis" why do you say "Some scientists" when you're only citing Waldheim? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The specific name antiquitatis, from latin antiquus ("old") was given in the 1930s" contradicts "(
Blumenbach, 1807)", and it seems antiquitatis was given when it was described as a griffin User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Like its modern relatives, bull woolly rhinos were territorial and defended themselves from competitors, particularly during the rutting season" you don't know that for certain User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"It avoided mountain ranges, due to heavy snow and steep terrain that the animal could not easily cross" you don't know that's the reason User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 16:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The source says, "they must have been stopped by the numerous glaciated mountain ridges of Alaska".
WolfmanSF (
talk) 21:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Final remarks
This review is on its away to reaching the 2nd month mark, and we've made very little headway. The article is still not very up to GA standards. Even with all the small grammar and style comments above, this article doesn't cover all relevant aspects of the woolly rhino. You should definitely include more sources and use only academic journal and book sources, and while you're expanding, make sure to avoid page filler and unnecessary wording and padding. Good luck User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Woolly rhinoceros article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on
extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
A rhinoceros doesn't have hooves. I'd change it but I don't know what part of the rhinoceros was missing: its toenails, toes, or feet? pen-15
Yes, they have hooves, they're ungulates.
211.72.108.19 12:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Rhinos are in the same order as horses and more closely related to them than sheep or cattle. Although not all ungulates have hooves, many, including rhinos, do.
CFLeon 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Mannatien
One of the sentences in the text reads: "The Woolly Rhino also had thick fur & a thick fat coating like that of a mannatien to keep it warm from the cold conditions it endured." I have been completely unable to find what a mannatien is. I left it in the text for further searches and replacement with some similar term. The meaning of the sentence is quite clear: fat and fur for insulating purposes. I cannot think of a living terrestrial animal that presents this kind of configuration, but there are sea otters with fat for insulation. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
86.125.103.181 (
talk) 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC).reply
It may have been a reference to the
manatee or sea cow, which is a sea mammal, quite fat indeed. [unsigned]
Physiology
I think the physiology section is not very clear.
This plant-eater was about 3.7 m (11 feet) long. It had two
horns on its snout, the
anterior one larger than the one between its eyes about 1 m (3 feet) long;
Do we mean the anterior horn was that long, or the one between its eyes?
It had thick, long
fur, small ears, short, thick legs, and a stocky body.Cave paintings suggest a wide dark band between the front and hind legs, but it is not universal and identification of rhinoceros as woolly rhinoceros is uncertain. The woolly rhinoceros used its horns to sweep snow away from vegetation so it could eat in the winter.
Oh c'mon we're not kids here. We know rhinoceroses today use horns for fighting and to attract mates.
Mac Davis (
talk) 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Just because the modern types are limited to that, doesn't mean that the ancient forms didn't find others uses for their horns. Evolution is about Adaptation.
CFLeon (
talk) 22:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Coelodonta
The genus Coelodonta should not redirect to this page as it currently contains three different species of which C. antiquitatis is the most commonly known. Coelodonta nihowanensis from China and Coelodonta tologoijensis from the Transbaikalia region should have pages created and the genus page used to link the three species together.--
Kevmin (
talk) 05:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Same is true for
Hydrodamalis (gigas and cuestae), and other genera too probably. And there's a similar problem with
Homop sapiens. Since other sub-species than Homo sapiens sapiens are known and have articles, Homo sapiens should not redirect to modern human.
FunkMonk (
talk) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Just for the record, the page for the genus Coelodonta is done, although it's still a stub. Also we need info about C. nihowanensis.--
Rextron (
talk) 23:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Other cold-adapted species, such as reindeer, muskox and wisent, survived this period of climatic change and many others like it, supporting the 'overkill' hypothesis for the woolly rhino.
I don't see how this can be 'rationale'. Someone can proof that wholly rinos was extensively hunted and that primitives liked more it to the relatively inoffensive deer or muskox?
Given how the extant rhinos are not extacly neither 'easy kill' (unless you have a good rifle) nor a 'good meat' to eat, this is still a very controvertial and unproof statement. Cheers. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
159.20.209.65 (
talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Disappearing during the Holocene?
Hi, according to
this article of 2014 on the fauna of Urals (in Europe) during the Holocene, it evokes the survival of woolly rhinoceros (and even irish elk and bison steppe). But
this other article in 2012 does not validate the persistence of the species during the Holocene. Who to believe? --
Ellicrum (
talk) 14:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
An article focused on the species is probably more credible than an article that just mentions the species in passing.
WolfmanSF (
talk) 17:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I was actually kinda looking to write this one but I guess you beat me to it. Overall, I think the main issues are some paragraphs are unreferenced, wordiness, and to a lesser degree vagueness or seemingly incomplete thoughts User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Dunkleosteus77: Yea, all of them. I added most of the notes for the description. I decided to remove the parts about evolution that didn't have explanation.
Thylacinus cynocephalus (
talk) 19:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
When you resolved one of my comments below you should tell me because I'm not watching the page User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
If I make a comment and you did something to the article to resolve it, could you respond to my comment telling me you resolved it? Right now it feels like you've gone inactive User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Thylacinus cynocephalus: I don't think you understand what I'm saying (mainly because you're not doing it). So I make a bullet point about what you need to do. Once you have done that, tell me you did it by directly responding to every comment, or at the very least, put a bullet point saying you've responded to all the above. As far as I can tell, you've stopped responding and I'm about ready to fail it for inactivity User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Access date are only used for websites and magazines, not journal articles (even if you included an online link) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
You need a Taxonomy section talking about who first described the woolly rhinoceros, what the scientific name translates to, and basic research history User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 17:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
There are a lot of sentences on behavior which are way too definitive. Behavior is always speculative User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
A general drive-by comment, the lead section is way too short, it should summarise the article, not it's just a few sentences. THe article certainly needs expansion if it is going to FAC some day, there is a lot of info left out.
FunkMonk (
talk) 03:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I haven't even started checking for completeness yet. The article still probably needs expansion to even get to GA User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 15:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Stay away from websites, news agencies, blogs, and magazines as much as you can, and odds are they're actually referencing a scientific journal article which you should cite instead User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)reply
When using a reference in a foreign language, use the parameters |title=, |trans-title= (for the English translation of the title), and |language='User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)reply
ref 2 needs page numbers, and I'm certain you can find a more recent source User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Find a better source than the International Rhino Foundation (preferably whoever they're citing) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The Extinction section is almost completely devoid of sources, and makes a lot of questionable claims User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 16:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Replace news sources and museum websites with whatever journal publication they're citing. For example, the BBC will be citing a journal article, so cite the journal article instead of the BBC User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 15:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
A lot of the references are incorrectly formatted, and some books are missing page numbers User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 15:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Evolution
The first paragraph of doesn't really talk about evolution, and the first sentence is kind of unnecessarily complicated with terms like "derived" which isn't really used to say any important phylogenetic information which is really the only context it should be used in. What you could say is something more direct like "The wooly rhinoceros is the most derived of its genus" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I think the 2nd paragraph needs a little bit more explanation. Were the ancestors tropical or adapted to the alpine climates of the Himalayas? Were the Himalayas alpine yet? How does its evolution in humid areas speak to its absence in the Miocene?
The parts about Stephanorhinus could probably be condensed into a single sentence so it's easier to catch onto your train of thought. Something like "A 1.77 million year old Stephanorhinus hemitoechus rhino mummy may represent the ancestral stock/whatever you were getting at to Coelodonta". Also, I'm not really understanding how Stephanorhinus was identified as the ancestral stock because they seemed to have lived contemporaneously User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Why does it say the ancestors of the wooly rhino evolved 2 mya but the taxobox gives a fossil range from 3.6 mya? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The third par doesn't have a source, and it could be heavily condensed. Something like, "The wooly rhino is thought to descend from either the Eurasian C. tologoijensis or the Tibetan C. thibetana. It evolved at the end of the Early Pleistocene nearly 300 kya, and spread into northern and western Europe." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
"The members of Coelodonta turned out to be more adapted to a variety of conditions compared to elasmotheres" How is this related to evolution? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"A 1.77 million year old Stephanorhinus hemitoechus rhino mummy may also represent the ancestral stock to Coelodonta" contradicts "a 3.6-million-year-old woolly rhinoceros fossil" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"A 1.77 million year old Stephanorhinus hemitoechus rhino mummy may also represent a sister group to Coelodonta" you didn't word this right. Why is only Stephanorhinus hemitoechus the sister group? What about other Stephanorhinus? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 16:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The closest extinct relative to the woolly rhinoceros is Elasmotherium, which appeared on the evolutionary arena before the genus Coelodonta" no it didn't if the wooly rhinoceros came about 3.6 mya, and there doesn't seem to be consensus on Elasmotherium's affinities User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The closest extinct relative to the woolly rhinoceros is Elasmotherium. These two lines were divided in the first half of the Miocene." This is only 1 viewpoint of rhino evolution. There're other hypotheses. Go find them User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 15:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Description
"Two horns on the skull were..." you should probably go with "The two horns..." to avoid implying there were more User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It's still there "The hump also contained a fat reserve to aid survival through the desolate winters of the mammoth steppe" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 06:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Use {{
cvt}} when using units so they can be displayed in metric and imperial units, like 24 cm (9.4 in) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
"with an estimated weight of around 1,800–2,700 kg (4,000–6,000 lb)[6] or 2,000 kg (4,400 lb)" so is 2,000 kg the
point estimate or are there competing values or is that average size and 1,800–2,700 are extrema? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"An adult woolly rhinoceros was typically around 3 to 3.8 metres" contradicts "The woolly rhinoceros could grow to be 2 m" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
How big was the second horn? 61 cm seems really specific. Are you referencing a specific specimen? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
You may wanna revisit how you've organized all the information. It doesn't flow very well and there's a lot of repetition and wordiness User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I undid this because it discusses the history of fossil findings, which doesn't add much to the description.
Thylacinus cynocephalus (
talk) 00:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"to survive in the desolate mammoth steppe" did you mean "desolate winters"? The mammoth steppe is known for having been a thriving ecosystem User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
You use a lot of big words unnecessarily like "extant" instead of "living" or "modern day"; "deciduous teeth" instead of "baby teeth" or "milk teeth"; "dental arch" instead of just not putting it in there at all; and "inginual region" instead of "groin". Also, are you sure it had nipples in the groin? It's not sourced either User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The skull measured between 70 to 90 centimetres (28 to 35 in) and was very elongated" did you mean "elongated for a rhino"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Instead of giving an actual dental formula, just say "it had 3 premolars and 3 molars in both jaws" and leave it there User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The teeth of the woolly rhinoceros had thickened enamel and an open internal cavity" it had hollow teeth? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Unique to the woolly rhinoceros was the adhesion of the forward rounded nasal bone with the premaxilla" I'm pretty sure all rhinos have round noses so you don't need that part, so you can say it as "Unique to this rhino, the nasal bones were fused to the premaxillae" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Like all rhinoceroses, it used its horns for defensive purposes and to attract mates" this sounds too definitive for an inference User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
No. You can condense the entire first paragraph into 1 or 2 or 3 sentences with a lot less words. "The front horn reached a considerable size. Its length reached a meter or more" these 2 statements are redundant. Why do you mention the Kolyma specimen? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 17:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The back horn was shorter, no more than half a meter (1.64 ft), at about 15 centimetres (5.9 in) long" is this the absolute biggest and smallest lengths or the absolute biggest recorded and the average size? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 17:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The rhino's long fur coat was reddish-brown and sometimes had a yellowish tint" how do we know this with such certainty? Are we using cave paintings or mummies? The same goes for everything else in that paragraph User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Their thick undercoat lay under" the plural of rhinoceros is rhinoceroses User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
If this is about reference 24? If so, that's part of the title.
Thylacinus cynocephalus (
talk) 16:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"measured up to 60 centimetres (24 in) long and to 10 centimetres" you don't use the bolded "to" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"This adaptation evolved as a result of the heavy pressure on the horn and face when the rhinoceros grazed underneath the thick snow" we don't know that for certain User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"It had no incisors, which in rhinoceroses are usually only in the milk teeth and rudimentarily formed" or you could say "Like other rhinos, adults did not have incisors" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Done.
"The second premolar was shaped in an especially gracile manner" I feel like the source just said this more or less verbatim and you more or less copy/pasted it in. If you don't understand something, then odds are the general reader won't understand, so what you need to do is understand it, and rewrite so it's easier to understand User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The preserved wear indicates that they were used for combat, probably including intraspecific combat as recorded in cave paintings, as well as for moving snow to uncover vegetation during winter" The preserved wear cannot tell you what they were used for, it can only tell you that they were used for something. So, you can say "Woolly rhinos may have used their horns for..." but can't say this. Also this info belongs in Paleobiology User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Done.
"One early discovery came in 1771 in the Vilyuy River" By "early discovery" did you mean "the first discovery"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"This discovery made a significant contribution to the knowledge of the woolly rhinoceros" we don't need this sentence User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"One had its entire body preserved aside from horns and fur" Did the other mummies only preserve the foot or something? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
What exactly is the point of the 2nd paragraph? Why do you zero in on the English Channel specifically? Why do you mention the mammoth and Elasmotherium here? The 3rd paragraph could easily be condensed User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 01:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"a 3.6-million-year-old woolly rhinoceros fossil" contradicts "It evolved at the end of the Early Pleistocene nearly 300 kya" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 01:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Typically in articles about extinct creatures, there's a section entitled "Paleobiology" which talks about the animals' behavior and diet and predators, and "Paleoecology" which talks about the environment the animal lived in and other animals it lived with User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 01:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"widest range of all rhinoceros species" → "widest range of any rhinoceros species" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Scientific studies on the woolly rhinoceros began in the late 18th century" contradicts "in 1663 near
Quedlinburg, it was studied by scientist
Otto von Guericke". Also, is this talking about
Unicorn Cave? I haven't researched it but I found
this image on Commons which says he made a hoax using the remains of the rhinoceros, a mammoth, and a narwhal User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Removed inconsistency, but not sure about the statement itself regarding it being a hoax.
Thylacinus cynocephalus (
talk) 20:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm sure you can find and cite Guericke's report rather than citing Scientific American blog network User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)reply
That's probably because you're talking about
Unicorn Cave and looking for a newspaper article from the 17th century. Use a different source than a blog User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Some scientists maintained the belief that the horns were the claws of giant birds, and were even classified under the name Gryphus antiquitatis" why do you say "Some scientists" when you're only citing Waldheim? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The specific name antiquitatis, from latin antiquus ("old") was given in the 1930s" contradicts "(
Blumenbach, 1807)", and it seems antiquitatis was given when it was described as a griffin User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Like its modern relatives, bull woolly rhinos were territorial and defended themselves from competitors, particularly during the rutting season" you don't know that for certain User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"It avoided mountain ranges, due to heavy snow and steep terrain that the animal could not easily cross" you don't know that's the reason User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 16:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The source says, "they must have been stopped by the numerous glaciated mountain ridges of Alaska".
WolfmanSF (
talk) 21:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Final remarks
This review is on its away to reaching the 2nd month mark, and we've made very little headway. The article is still not very up to GA standards. Even with all the small grammar and style comments above, this article doesn't cover all relevant aspects of the woolly rhino. You should definitely include more sources and use only academic journal and book sources, and while you're expanding, make sure to avoid page filler and unnecessary wording and padding. Good luck User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 02:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)