In time for the release of the new Disney/Pixar film Turning Red. This article was at GA for some years and the user who brought it there appears to be inactive. We've re-written and revise it, got a peer review, a copyedit and source cleanup. The time has come for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass
Sources are cited for the panda distribution on File:RedPanda distribution.png, but not the source of the underlying topographic map. Is it freely licensed?
Yes, the underlying topo map is freely licensed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BhagyaMani Where does the topo map come from, or did you draw it? Even if it's a free license, it might require attribution or not be compatible with CC-By-SA-4.0, so it's essential to list the sources you used in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the map using the basemap by Wikimedia. BhagyaMani (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other licensing, and image placement, looks ok (t · c) buidhe 19:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sdkb
Resolved comments from {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As background, I have no particular expertise in biology or animal articles on Wikipedia, so I'll be reviewing this from a lay perspective. Looking forward to it! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether there's a need to wikilink million years ago—everyone knows what years are, and multiplying that by a million is a pretty straightforward calculation. The wikilink to the toolforge page very much caught me off guard, but I assume that's our normal way of handling links like that? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were others at the template talk page with the same concern, so I've gone ahead and updated it to remove the overlink. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps wikilink
coniferous forests, as some readers may be unfamiliar with what they are. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
It is threatened by poaching, destruction and fragmentation of habitat due to deforestation. This isn't grammatically correct, since it's a list of only two items (the second being a compound item) separated only by a comma. I'd suggest changing to It is threatened by poaching, as well as destruction and fragmentation of habitat due to deforestation.{{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should [Ee]ndangered be capitalized? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, because it is also capitalised by default in the taxobox. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The taxobox is part of the infobox, and we begin each line in the infobox in sentence case, so I think that's likely why it's capitalized there. But we don't capitalize it at the
MOS:LINK, ask at that talk, or look to examples of other featured animals to get more clarity on this. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I consider it as a formal term when used in the context of Red List classification, like the other terms as well, e.g. Least Concern, Near Threatened that are capitalised in taxoboxes. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some recent discussion on whether to wikilink lesser-known countries that found a consensus that articles about less recognizable countries...can and should be wikilinked if doing so would benefit the reader. Bhutan seems likely to be in that category, and perhaps Nepal as well. This is an editorial discretion thing, so I'm fine with whatever you decide, but just something to consider. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't yet change the sentence in the lead .. by poaching, as well as .. suggested by Sdkb. LittleJerry: if you also think that this is necessary, please amend. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The [Ee]ndangered capitalization question and the holiday italicization question are the two other things I'd still like to see resolved a little more thoroughly, but happy to move on while those are being addressed. (I also may return to the lead at the end for any lead-body integrity stuff.) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
transl}} doesn't have a |lit= parameter for "claw" or "paw", but seems not, and that's outside the scope here (just noting in case anyone's interested in taking it on). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I made this tweak. Deciding when to write out the full term vs. just use "it" is always a tricky balance. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors might object to wikilinking
MOS:OVERLINK, which advises against linking major languages, but IAR I don't have an issue with it, and Nepali language is certainly linkable. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
@BhagyaMani: Per @AryKun below, it appears you did not actually add this. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's inconsistent
MOS:OXFORD merely requires consistency, but as a dedicated Oxford comma partisan, I'm afraid I'll have to instafail this if you decide to leave it out 😛 {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
Also after "less white face". You may wish to go through the article to check for other consistencies. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London should be italicized, right? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Removed as not important. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sichuan should probably be wikilinked. More generally, I'd suggest reviewing the geographic wikilinking decisions throughout the article, as having Northeast India linked but this not is inconsistent no matter where one falls on the overlink-underlink continuum. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The introductory portion of this section cites a lot of people by name, but then the 2020 phylogenetic analysis doesn't give any name(s). Is this deliberate? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the linked people are authorities for scientific names. – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 1982 study examined the dental and cranial similarities and differences between the red panda and the giant panda, other bears and procyonids would lead to the species being placed in its own family Ailuridae. Do you mean 1982 study that examined? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the phylogeny section begins with "The placement of the red panda on the evolutionary tree has been debated." re-emphasised in the lead as "The red panda's place on the evolutionary tree has been debated, but modern genetic evidence places it … " is this an extraordinary fact? ~ cygnis insignis 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When we started to overhaul this page, there was a similar sentence in this section. I suppose, ↑ sentence is a kind of residue of this old version. LittleJerry? – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the question. The red panda's taxonomy was historically debated but DNA evidence has clarified it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics
The red panda's coat has a striking colour pattern Is it our place to say what's striking vs. not? Seems a little questionable on neutrality grounds. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to use British English (or some non-American variant), so it might be a good idea to put {{Use British English}} at the top to aid editors or bots in knowing this. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb: what do you think of the sequence of paragraphs in this section? – BhagyaMani (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I care all that much. Putting size first is definitely good, but beyond that I don't see a clear order among coat, thumb, and skull. I might have done size, skull, coat, thumb, trying to put the most important aspects first. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved coat up to first. The size section is really meant to be an "overall body description" section and the skull section is about its adaptations to its bamboo diet. LittleJerry (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving. I like this sequence much better. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat
The image captions seem a little inconsistent, in that some say a red panda whereas others just say red panda. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've got another clear overlink with India. Could you go through the article overall to refine the linking so I don't have to keep pointing out specific instances? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A trickier linking situation: Gongshan Mountains. I can't find any article on them here or (using Google Translate) on zh-WP, but I'd think a mountain range would be notable. Should they be a redlink? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Fengtongzhai and Yele nature reserves seem like the sort of topic that would 100% have articles if they were in a western country; for here, that means redlinks or ILLs. I found Fēngtǒngzhài (Q22329689), which has an article in one language, which is of course...Ukrainian... Not sure about Yele, but if you don't speak Chinese, probably worth asking someone who does. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should the habitat map appear in this section, not just the lead? (Also, it probably needs a reference, as I'm not sure it's enough just to have the reference on Commons, as that's external.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical for animal and mammal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing
WP:IMAGEOR, it does not appear to offer an exemption for a circumstance like this. I'd like to see either a reference to be safe or a pointer to a non-local discussion establishing that range maps don't need references. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see what the application is. The range map is sourced in commons. There's no policy that says it needs to be sourced in the article. If anything it is tedious. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a wider discussion for another time. Does it really have to be in the middle of FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of studies between 1827 and 2020 have been based in captivity. I think you mean based on animals in captivity—the studies themselves are not captive haha. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's some plurality inconsistency—compare singular It typically rests to plural Their lifespan in captivity. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it likes to hang out in trees due to predators at ground level, but I haven't found any discussion of predators yet. Could that be added? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is known about potential predators. I thought we made clear that it hangs around in trees because that's were it finds the majority of its food?– BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it's rather unusual for a small animal like that not to have predators. Could a note about that be added somewhere? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for info on predators multiple times, but found only two mentioned in grey literature without any reference. Several potential ones come to mind, but nobody published anything about a single red panda having been killed by a cat or a raptor. But to state this on the page itself would be WP:OR. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Smithsonian saying leopards and jackals. Could you look further? An animal's predators are a key fact about it, and although I grant that competition isn't as fierce in the mountains as in e.g. a jungle, I still think we need discussion here to meet
WP:FACRIT 1b. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If scientific papers and academic books don't mention predators then it is not that important. I don't see the need to dig up a Smithsonian website. Predators are not always necessary for animal articles. Certainly not as important as diet. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a simple fact sheet lists the predators, I'd be surprised if none of the more academic treatments discuss them. I don't think we need a whole section on predators, but something that eats them and that they've evolved to avoid certainly seems relevant enough for a sentence to me. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really lists them. It states "Red pandas will climb trees and rocks to escape predators, such as leopards and jackals." It seems to be mentioning these offhandedly as potential predators. There doesn't seem to any documentation of red pandas being preyed on. Believe me, BM and I would have put them there if they were mentioned in the literature. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note the absence of an explicit statement on this website that any of the 2 carnivores actually preyed on a red panda. Or that hair, teeth, claws, paws were ever found in their scat. This is an arbitrary selection. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any estimates of average lifespan in the wild? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. To figure this out, somebody would have needed to identify and observe individuals from birth to death. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to use "stem" or "stalk" instead of "culm", or would that be inaccurate? It's jargon, and although it's linked on first mention in the previous section, readers who jump around (which is many/most of them) may be thrown off by it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Culm is the term used in several sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, Culm is a type of stem. LittleJerry (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The red panda is a poor digester of bamboo, which passes through its gut in two to four hours. I'm curious why this would be—aren't most animals adapted to be good digesters of their primary food? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is : shoots are *easier* digestable than ... ?? – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
shoots are better digestible than leaves This sounds a little weird; maybe more digestible instead? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bleating is recorded after scent-marking and sniffing and males may bleat during courtship, particularly before mounting, while twittering is made by mating females. I feel like this could be worded better. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
adopt a bipedal posture "Bipedal" is unlinked jargon. Linking it would help, but I think it'd probably be even better to just use plain language, e.g. "stand up on their hind legs". {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed one of them has to be chosen, but keep in mind that changing to "feces" will require the whole article to be changed to American English, which in its current state is in British English. Wretchskull (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note! Changed this again. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "health" subsection might be more specifically titled "diseases". {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The primary threats to the red panda are destruction and fragmentation of habitat caused by multiple circumstances such as increasing human population, deforestation, illegal collection of non-timber forest products and poaching, disturbances by herders and livestock, lack of law enforcement and funding. We need to decide which level we're listing on. Having both poaching and "lack of law enforcement and funding" doesn't make sense, as presumably the poaching is just a consequence of the lack of law enforcement. I'd suggest removing that last item, as it's not particularly clear. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that lack of funding is not a threat : removed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about lack of law enforcement? And increasing human population. Neither of those things directly lead to red panda deaths in the way that e.g. poaching does. Instead, lack of law enforcement presumably leads to poaching, and increasing population presumably leads to habitat destruction. We shouldn't be mixing direct causes and root causes together in the same sentence. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3,597.9 km2 (1,389.2 sq mi) of red panda habitat were logged between the mid 1970s and late 1990s. I highly doubt they were able to measure that precisely. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
since roads to the border with China were built starting in the early 2000s, red panda skins and live animals are traded and smuggled across the border. Tense mismatch between "since" and "are". {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Describing the uses of the fur in Chinese culture in the "threats" section rather than the "cultural significance" section is a highly loaded choice, and one I don't think we can justify as neutral. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The cut lumber stock in Sichuan alone reached 2,661,000 m3 (94,000,000 cu ft) in 1958–1960 This is an extremely old statistic. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems important for historical perspective. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more recent numbers to add too, then? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was during the peak of deforestation in China (Great Leap Forward). BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I checked again, but did not find more recent figures about deforestation in Chinese red panda range. Figures on deforestation after 2000 have no whatsoever connection to red panda habitats. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; sounds alright. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation
The International Red Panda Studbook is the only italicized link in this section that makes clear sense to me. Can you justify the others under
MOS:ITALIC, or do they need correction? (I made a query on this same question in the lead.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
studbook, how about In 1978, a breed registry, the International Red Panda Studbook, was set up, followed...? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
The Nepal government ratified I think we want Nepali government here, since it would sound odd if it were e.g. The France government ratified rather than French government. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cubs that were born later were sent to other zoos so that about 250 red pandas had been exhibited in zoos by 1969. Needs rephrasing for grammar; I'd suggest Cubs that were born later were sent to other zoos; by 1969, about 250 red pandas had been exhibited in zoos.{{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the protected areas, we should either just give the numbers or we should list them out; we shouldn't mix the formats by listing those out in other countries but not in China. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, protected areas form the core of nature conservation, so would be missing if we now omitted such details, in particular in view of so many details in all the other sections. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check whether the Chinese authors provided their names. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about just giving the number of parks for each country? LittleJerry (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wei et al. (2021) did not provide their full names, hence it is complicated to figure them out. E.g. they list "Qomolangma" in Tibet, but unclear is whether they refer to this huge Qomolangma National Nature Preserve or Qomolangma Feng National Nature Reserve : I did not find anything about records in either one. Nor did I find records in most of the others listed by Wei et al. (2021). Re Sichuan : acc. to Dong et al. (2021), Giant Panda National Park was established in 2017 + encompasses several nature reserves where it has been recorded. Therefore, I propose to list ONLY those with published records in the table. That way we can keep the table but without having to redlink some 30+ reserves. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've revised the conservation table to list ONLY those with published records, but it's not clear to me what "published records" means, and there is nothing in the article itself saying that it's only a partial list. It seems like a rather hard thing to establish—how do you know there aren't "published records" in Chinese that list out the reserves? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified that is just a partial list. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sdkb : a published record is evidence that the red panda indeed occurs in a particular site, published in an article or book. Wei et al. (1999) listed counties and areas such as mountain ranges east of .., northwest of .., but NOT a protected area or nature reserve. Nor does their list of references include a publication in Chinese about records in a protected area. And the book chapter by Wei et al. (2021) is largely based on earlier articles by Wei and colleagues. – BhagyaMani (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to LittleJerry: we should then also clarify that the list is complete for PAs in Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan and India. But : I'm very confident that also the ones in China are all in. – BhagyaMani (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section feels a little like it's just listing out individual conservation programs rather than giving a broader overview. Without subject-area knowledge, it's hard for me to tell whether the listed examples were carefully curated or are just a mix with geographic or other biases, but I'd encourage other reviewers to scrutinize. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another
studbook. Oh, and later in that sentence, too. Both of these links are valuable, but we should rephrase so that they can be kept without this issue. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
Why is the 2015 Japan sentence after the 2019 Europe sentence and 2016 Padmaja sentence? If this section is chronological, stick to it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal people in Arunachal Pradesh Is it several groups or just one? If just one, same concern as above. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
an Indian artist Any reason not to name them? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Hardwicke commissioned several Indian artists to paint animals, but their names are not known. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; maybe write an unknown Indian artist, then? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1820 painting is presumably in the public domain; it (or another cultural depiction of the red panda) should be included as a visual for this section. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find this watercolour painting in Commons. Likely that not all the paintings of Hardwicke's large collection of some 4500 paintings were made available. This painting is not part of the small selection published by John Edward Gray in 2 volumes in 1830–1835. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hardwicke's article, The collection was bequeathed to the British Museum in 1835 which was later partly moved to the Natural History Museum. So reach out to the museums if you have to, but it should be possible to obtain. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit much for a Wikipedian to have to track down an image not available on the web or commons. The best I got was a reproduced copy in the sourced article. I don't know if we can use remade copies of PD works. LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! Lowther explicitly stated that the painting has not been published, hence is not license-free. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Work from 1820 is in the public domain, no matter if it's been published before or not. See the Hirtle chart. The good news: sourcing from a reproduced copy from the article is fine, so long as it's of sufficient quality—a PD work is still a PD work, even if it appears (unmodified) in a licensed work. It's a similar situation to commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true for a large number of art pieces. But not for all : some drawings by Hemprich & Ehrenberg from the 1830s are worth so much money that collectors did not make them public. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added drawing, but it is more fitting for the taxonomy section. There are hardly any available red panda art in commons that count as "culture" but are more for education/science. LittleJerry (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider the firefox logo relevant here, and not e.g. the 19th century painting that used to be in the section *Taxonomy*? – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I explained above. The 19th century painting is scientific/education. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per
MOS:EGG concern, so I'll defer to your preference; this is a recurring issue that I wish the community would discuss further). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
The red panda is the namesake of the Firefox browser, and it has been used as the namesake of companies and music bands. This should be rephrased, as Firefox is a company, whereas this holds it in a separate category. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-823753-3.00002-8, which seems like an excellent source, but it doesn't appear fully mined, as even just in the abstract, things like do not seem to constitute a substantial part of the culture or folklore of their range states and particularly popular on the social media seem highly relevant but are not included. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
WP:INTEXT comment for the first two sentences of this section? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see why thats needed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest it since the sentences are close enough to opinion/speculation that it'll help readers to know where the opinion/speculation is coming from. But I don't feel super strongly on this, so I'll leave it up to you. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see why that is needed. Nor do I see that these 2 sentences are needed because of the speculation. – BhagyaMani (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re the image in this section : I still liked the one of the old Chinese hunting scene much better than this logo, as showing the logo has a whiff of advertisement. The animal in the logo really looks more like a fox than a red panda because of its pointed nose. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference re the watercolour painting commissioned by Hardwicke is not relevant in the section on *Taxonomy*. Hardwicke did not even use it in conjunction with his taxonomic description of the "Wha", but his article only shows drawings of red panda paws. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where
scientific drawings is somewhat lost nowadays since we have photography, but back in 1820 it was very distinct from non-scientific art. The artist wasn't making it as a contribution to culture: it was a technical document to help scientists understand the animal. Given that, it's not as appropriate for the cultural significance section, as it has never been widely exhibited in culture. The Firefox logo, on the other hand, is probably the single most prominent depiction of a red panda ever created, so it's a great fit. I don't think it's really advertising, as we're not being paid by Mozilla or anything—we're just acknowledging that brands are a part of the world. In other words, it's neutral rather than anti-corporate. That said, we do have other options from commons:Category:Ailurus fulgens in art and its subcategory, and as mentioned above we could do a gallery. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The section on *Taxonomy* is about the classification of a taxon, i.e. who described the taxon when and the geographical location where the described specimen/s were originally found. I think it ok to keep the image of the painting in this section, but the info about its artist is not relevant in the context of taxonomy. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps a hot take, but I have to question the presence of {{
external links guideline recommends against including Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Looking at Wikispecies' rather pitiful entry on the red panda, I'm not seeing anything of value there that we don't also have here. (Or am I missing something?) For neutrality reasons, we shouldn't give preference to other sites just because they're WMF-affiliated, as past precedent with {{Wikinews}} has affirmed. So is there really any reason to include it? Note that even if it's removed here, it'll still be present in the left sidebar under "in other projects". {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It is a fairly standard wikispecies entry, afaik, I don't see it as comparable to linking wikinews ~ cygnis insignis 10:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I realize it's been used elsewhere, but that's
other stuff; is there any justification under the external links guideline for including it? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not presenting an argument either way, it was a response to the description as a "rather pitiful entry". ~ cygnis insignis 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be addressed? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think external link guidelines applies to linking to other wikiprojects. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What benefit is there for readers, then, to have the box linking to the Wikispecies entry? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining things now are "studbook" above and you two figuring out how you want to present the protected areas table in a way that's equitable between countries and accurate about its scope. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BM's changes to the current chart. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns. Although I lack enough expertise with the subject to make a formal support, all of my concerns above have been sufficiently addressed. Thanks for bearing with me through this—I know that there were some tricky things that came up, but I think the article is measurably stronger for having worked through them. Once other editors have gotten a chance to offer their comments and do things like a source check, I look forward to seeing this get its gold star! Thanks both LittleJerry and BhagyaMani for your hard work! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb, you don't need expertise to make a give a final conclusion. You've given a detailed review that lasted weeks and we are getting closer to a month since this was nominated. I think you should give a formal conclusion. LittleJerry (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure—support on prose, style issues, and comprehensive from a lay perspective. Congrats again on your hard work on this! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb, would you mind putting your comments in a Resolved comments template? They're taking up a large amount of space and necessitate a lot of scrolling to reach the bottom. AryKun (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AryKun
Will do soon. AryKun (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from AryKun (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"his paper was published only six years later" → "his paper was only published six years after Cuvier's"
Revised and added ta ref to this article. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"For a long time" → Kind of ambiguous, any exact-ish dates?
I removed this sentence, as knowledge about the red panda's behaviour is anyway not relevant in this section. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"(sensu stricto)" Sensu stricto should be italicized, and perhaps consider using a less technical phrase.
Revised + removed the int link – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"lineage of the modern panda" → Presumably you mean red panda, but just panda is usually used to refer to the giant panda.
Revised + removed the int link – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"distributed from" → You don't give a range, but rather a list of regions it inhabits, so "distributed from" is incorrect here AryKun (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this, but in Subspecies and species, you use Siang River, although it is much more commonly called the Brahmaputra.
We use Siang River in accordance with the ref'ed source, and we know that that the link redirects to Brahmaputra. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The London Zoo acquired two red pandas in 1869 and 1876 that were caught in Darjeeling" → "The London Zoo acquired two red pandas that were caught in Darjeeling in 1869 and 1876" would be better
.. but not correct. The source does not explicitly state WHEN they were caught, but only that they were acquired in those years. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"first red panda cubs" → "first captive-born red panda cubs"
Revised, but without duplicating the word 'born'. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the San Diego Zoo imported four red pandas via India that had been caught in Nepal" → "the San Diego Zoo imported four red pandas that had been caught in Nepal via India"
"watercolour painting by an unknown Indian artist" → Any date or date range for when the painting was made?
It was commissioned in about 1820, see caption in section *Taxonomy*, but exact date is not given. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I question the relevance of the Youtube statistic; it not only needs a time reference as it is prone to changing, 3,000 out of around 800 million seems like an insignificant number. Honestly, pretty much anything is likely to have a couple thousand YT videos with its name if it's even remotely well-known. AryKun (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What do you think of changing the figure > a few thousand ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can just add it. But don't link to ResearchGate. LittleJerry (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Cuvier, G. (1829). "Le Panda éclatant". Le règne animal distribué d'après son organisation. Vol. Tome 1. Chez Déterville, Paris. p. 138." needs to note its in French.
"Flynn, J. J.; Finarelli, J. A.; Zehr, S.; Hsu, J. & Nedbal, M. A. (2005). "Molecular phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships". Systematic Biology. 54 (2): 317–337." - this page gives a doi - should list to be consistent with other entries.
If doi access is free, a url is not needed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The DOI should be listed, that's what is being asked for. As of right now, there is no doi. But most other journal articles list it, so to be consistent, you should list it. Refs for FAs should be consistently formatted across the type of ref. (And I've never seen a "if doi access is free an url is not needed") Ealdgyth (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Double check that all the journals without doi's are lacking them in the actual publication. Since you are linking to research gate rather than to the journal websites, I shouldn't have to be expected to double check those...Note that
WP:RSP
on it's entry for ResearchGate (where it is deemed to be "self-published") it states "ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate)." We should link to the offical journal publication in the title of the article (using the url parameter) and then put in
These journals do not use doi: Current Science, Small Carnivore Conservation, The Himalayan Naturalist, Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, Journal of the Bhutan Ecological Society and Zoological Studies. – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the links to researchgate. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - this site's comparison to our article is not useful because - the top of the actual outside site says "This is the interpretation of the species as published in English Wikipedia - Species Pages". The other things flagged appear to be short statements that would be very difficult to phrase in other ways.
Another thing about ResearchGate links is that in almost all cases, the published versions of papers that are not open access are the copyright of the journal and the author does not have the right to publish them separately. Since free access versions available online are technically copyright violations, they must not be linked per
WP:COPYLINK. (I almost never link preprint repositories for this reason...) (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I replaced the links to researchgate link with links to pdfs from the publishers' websites. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could the etymology of the Chinese species/subspecies' name styani be included in the etymology section?
This is already explained in the *Taxonomy* section that it was named after Frederick William Styan. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond those nitpicks, though, I honestly have nothing.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These weren't really nitpicks : at least 6 people oversaw these typos. Thanks for reading this with the eyes of a hawk !! – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unclear to me from the etymology section what you're saying in regard to the giant panda. Was the name of the red panda applied to the giant panda later, or was it originally used for both? The giant panda article gives a clearer explanation, perhaps it could also be made clearer here.
This page is already linked in the text. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions are separate from the article body, so should have the same links at first occurrences. Same with the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1847, Brian Houghton Hodgson described a red panda from the Himalayas, for which he proposed the name Ailurus ochraceus." You mention this but never follow it up; you should also state if it is considered invalid now, and if it's a synonym, or remove the mention.
More understandable now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The researchers suggested that the two subspecies should be treated as distinct species." Seems it would be helpful to state which subspecies are shown in image captions, where possible.
They aren't labelled and and it will be OR for us to do it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not if they are defined by where they are found, then the location of wild animals would pretty much be confirmation. Anyway, not a big deal now, but I can imagine we'll have to try to identify images to species once they are formally recognised as split. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and placed the species in its own family Ailuridae." But that taxon was named in 1843, so surely it was suspected before? Seems some history is missing here, and I'm sure the giant panda was already proposed to be a bear before the 1980s, and that there were just competing theories until then. Not the article makes it seem as if it wasn't realised until then, when it was only finally confirmed.
The book does not mention Ailuridae being named by Gray in 1843, but that in the early 20th century "Only Pocock separated it into a family of its own, Ailuridae...". LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then something surely must have been overlooked, if Gray is the proper author of that taxon? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The following cladogram is based on the molecular phylogeny of six genes,[18] with the musteloids updated following a multigene analysis.[19]" This cladogram is
WP:TOL
so we can figure out if we need written guidelines for this.
Note that a newer paper[3] has been pointed out at the bottom here that includes both groups in a single cladogram, and would therefore be better to use:[4]FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you should give the date for the cladogram you end up using, because the only one you mention is one from 1995, which the reader would assume is the one you show otherwise.
There is a mix of ise/ize throughout which should be made consistent. There may also be UK/US inconsistencies, but I'll check for that as I read along.
"The puma-sized Simocyon was likely a tree-climber and shares a "false thumb"—an extended wrist bone—with the modern species" Jarring with the present "shares" when the sentences starts in past tense.
"he face is mostly white and has red marks that stretch from the eyes to the corners of the mouth." Seems most of the head and upper face is red, though, which is not mentioned?
The article already mentions that the Chinese red panda has more red on its face. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"whereas the giant panda prefers gentle slopes with taller bamboo but lower densities of stems, logs and stumps. Such niche separation lessens competition between the two bamboo-eating species" This is the only indication that the range of the two pandas overlap, could this be stated more clearly earlier, maybe already the first time the two are discussed together?
"In Wolong National Nature Reserve, leaves of Bashania fangiana were found" You could specify this is also bamboo, as this genus is not mentioned among the bamboo types it feeds on earlier.
"The modern red panda's lineage became adapted for a specialised bamboo diet, having molar-like premolars and more highly crowned cusps." Any theories on why it turned its diet to bamboo?
Not made clear. Bamboo is just widely available apparently. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"At least three wild pandas, two adults and one cub, were preyed on by leopards" This is a bit of an odd, detached statement. More context? Wouldn't it make more sense to just say it has been recorded that leopards preyed on red pandas, instead of this extremely specific example?
There are a bunch of duplinks (not counting those in the cladograms) throughout that can be highlighted with the usual script.[5]
Removed all expect for the cladogram ones and Sichan which should be linked in distribution as well. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - that was all from me, looks nice. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
