Talk:Leopard/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ucucha 04:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have volunteered to do this review. I will add more comments later, but here are some I picked up in a quick check:

• You're giving undue weight to melanism; perhaps move much of the current section to the "Melanistic leopards" section of Black panther.
• Move conservation status into "Leopards and humans" section?

Ucucha 04:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Innotata

• one comment: The description section is simply far too short, with most of it taken up by the comparatively trivial melanism section. A major expansion is necessary to meet the completeness criteria. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. There are also some dead links and links to dab pages. I will put this article on hold for a week for those issues to be addressed. Ucucha 01:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking more closely, this seems to be nowhere near as good as it should be in terms of completeness and referencing (some paragraphs lack any inline citations). There seem to be further problems: for instance, why does the etymology section have the sentence "Felis pardus was one of the species described in Linnaeus's 18th century work, Systema Naturae" with no further explanation? Isn't this taxonomy? I think this should just be given a "fail" opinion. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is good to provide citations even for obvious statements, in the text body.

• Just a nitpick, but why is the same part of MSW3 cited separately for the name "leopard" and the specific status?

• The section on reproduction is extremely short. This set of sentences seems unnecessary: "The fur of the young tends to be longer and thicker than that of adults. Their pelage is also more gray in color with less defined spots." Pelage just means fur pattern; can this be reduced to one sentence? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been finding and pointing out the problems with this article easily, so I think I'll work on this article myself to solve them. I think Ucucha's review and something more in the description section will be enough to bring this article to GA grade, but I'll try to bring it to FA quality. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Range map contradiction

The two range maps contradict one another. The bottom one indicates that the leopard no longer exists in large parts of Asia. The upper one shows leopards living in a large swath from the Pacific to the Atlantic, across all of Africa and in a wide band across all of southern Asia. Both maps cannot be correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the upper one is intended to give the historical range. I don't really see why two range maps are even needed, though; the upper one does not give additional information that is not in the second map. Ucucha 02:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the lower one gives both the present and the historical range. The upper one doesn't indicate it's a historic range map in a caption in the article, potentially misleading readers. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and why show the historic range in the infobox? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another apparent contradiction: The text states: "Leopards have been known to humans since prehistory and have featured in the art, mythology and folklore of many countries where they have historically occurred, such as ancient Greece, Persia and Rome, as well as some where they have not existed for several millennia, such as England." However, the range map doesn't show historic leopard activity anywhere in Europe: not in Greece, Persia, Rome, or England. It might be a good idea to explain on the range map (and the caption) this apparent contradiction. If the range map is only good for "recent" historic ranges, it should say something to that effect. A date would be good; ie, "historic, circa 1884" or something. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the 1884 was an example number. I see it's been added to the article. But whoever created the map would know the correct year. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought you said it was 1884. I'll add a clarify tag or something. —innotata 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The user who seems to have created the map has stopped editing. —innotata 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• checking in Wikimedia Commons, all the maps show "historical" distribution. —innotata 01:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to concerns raised

Problems that have been fixed

• The ambiguous range map was removed and replaced with the more descriptive one.
• Disambiguation links and dead links have been removed.
• The information about pseudo-melanism has been substantially reduced.
• Needless sentence about Linnaeus' Systema Naturae has been removed.

Response to other issues raise

• I had considered moving conservation info to the "Leopards and humans" section; however, I felt it best to leave it under "Distribution and habitat" since conservation issues are region-specific.
• Could you be more specific about what is lacking in the descriptive section? While the "Variant coloration" subsection takes up the majority of the main section's text, I feel the leopard's coat color is the most integral aspect of the physical characteristics of a leopard.
• Could you be more specific about what statements in the text are lacking necessary citations? (Please mark them with "citation needed" in the article.)

I thank each of the editors who have taken the time to review the article, and for giving me time to make corrections. Please let me know if there is anything else needed, and if so, then a few more days to make those corrections. Thank you. --Tea with toast (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these fixes. I will be doing a more in-depth review within a few days. I encourage Innotata and Firsfron to also raise any further issues they see where this article does not meet the GA criteria. Ucucha 22:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll start tagging unsourced statements, but they should be easy to find. I think a mention of Linnaeus's description would be good, if put in context. The description should be much more detailed: it doesn't mention, for instance, what fur patterns leopards have on their bellies. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I don't think this article is very complete: each section seems to have something missing. I'll add more detailed comments above, later. I think a bit of work could bring this article to GA grade, but it is not near FA quality. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "from Korea to South Africa" - doesn't it occur in Siberia too?

Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out.

• " Its numbers are greater than those of other Panthera species, all of which face more acute conservation concerns." - do we really need this in the lead?

I feel this is interesting and useful info, and may speak to the adaptability of this cats. What is wrong with the sentence?

I do agree it is important, but is it important enough for the lead?

I have moved it to the "Ecology" section. --Tea with toast (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Are all those details on the word "panther" relevant to this article?

It seems to an appropriate length in line with Cougar#Naming and etimology and Jaguar#Etimology, both of which are featured articles.

The problem is that the detail is on a word that is not even this article's name. I'll get back to this section.

• Cladograms would probably be helpful for the different topologies among the big cats.

Being that none of the other big cat featured articles have cladograms, I don't feel it is a necessity. However, such diagrams could be useful in the Panthera article.

• What is the relationship between the two fossil ages (2–3.8 Ma and 2–3.5 Ma)?

The two periods overlap. The distinguishment likely exists because 2 independent sources are cited. I don't quite understand why this is a proplem.

The article is not coherent; that is a problem.

• "Physical characteristics" section is still insufficient, with only two paragraphs actually describing the species and four on a color variation. Compare Lion#Physical characteristics.

The section has been expanded, and includes User:innotata's suggestion. Is it now sufficient?

Yes, I think it is sufficient as well, though I think it'd be good to extend it before FAC. —innotata 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• In "Diet and hunting", second sentence should also mention them eating insects, as the first sentence says they do. The section in general needs better organization: there are several distinct sentences on prey preference.

Section has been reorganized and expanded.

The first problem I noted is still there, though.

Problem corrected. --Tea with toast (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Similar problems at other instances; for example, lead and body text on nocturnality are at odds with each other.

Could you be more specific? I don't understand the conflict.

Sorry, nocturnality is mentioned under "Biology and behavior" and "Distribution and habitat", and the second says the first is wrong.

I think the concern you have arises from an issue noted in the second paragraph of Distribution and habitat: "The animal has primarily been studied in open savannah habitats, which may have biased common descriptions". Indeed, much of the sources for this wikipedia article are "common descriptions".

But I do not find any direct conflict about nocturnality in the text. Again quoting from Distribution and habitat, the next sentence: "It is generally considered nocturnal...", matches the text found in Biology and behavior: "The leopard is primarily a nocturnal creature, but may also hunt during the daytime...", and in Diet and hunting: "...though they may hunt during the day, especially when they have the advantage of being hidden by dense brush..." (i.e. in the rain forests mentioned in "Distribution and habitat"). As is stated through out the article, leopards are very versatile, adaptable and opportunistic! (Which is why I've come to greatly admire them!). Note also that it is the sub-Saharan leopards that are mostly nocturnal, and it is this population of leopards that make up the majority of the species; thus, the majority of the species is mostly nocturnal. In any case, I tweaked the sentence in Diet and hunting so that hopefully it is more clear.--Tea with toast (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is the sub-Saharan leopards in rainforest which are diurnal and crepuscular according to "Distribution and habitat". In any case, you're not writing a coherent article when you mention the same fact in three different places in the body of the article with different emphasis. Whether or not the leopard is nocturnal should be discussed only once in the body, and I think preferably under "Behavior". Ucucha 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason the nocturnality is mentioned in separate places is because it's activity is depended on both it's habitat (savannah vs rainforest) and the type of prey it hunts. But since you are confused (and other readers may be too), I have moved the issue of nocturnality to the "Biology and behavior" section. --Tea with toast (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "One of these was purchased" - I presume this was one that did in fact survive infancy?

Yes, I have now clarified the sentence.

• Nothing on leopard–other Panthera hybrids?

I will expand that section to mention other Panthera hybrids

• Category Symbols of Dionysus - not in article.

Category has been removed. --Tea with toast (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

More to follow. Ucucha 20:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Going on by section:

Etymology

Cites two sources: the Online Etymology Dictionary (not a reliable source, as far as I know) and a Sanskrit dictionary that is linked to a website that is gone. This dictionary is now available at http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/. This dictionary confirms that the Sanskrit words mentioned there are correctly defined, but not that they are related to the etymology of leopard or panther. Thus, most of this section lacks sources; it should have them for this article to become a GA.

I've replaced the citations to the Online Etymology Dictionary with citations to a dictionary by Eric Partridge, but two statements need citations. —innotata 18:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, innotata, for your assistance. However, I do not see how the Online Etymology Dictionary is an inappropriate source. It is used in the Cougar, Jaguar, and Lion articles, all of which are FA. If the Chicago Tribune and Ohio University find it to be a legitimate source, I don't see why it is not a good enough source for wikipedia. If source can be use, it can support the παν(pan)+θηρ(ther) folk etymology statement, which will hopefully allow this issue to be resolved. --Tea with toast (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable the online dictionaries you cite are; but the statements that it is a reliable source on its Wikipedia page seem dubious. Just because newspapers call it a "good" source it may or may not be a reliable source. If it is reliable, I think a citation should be added for the folk etymology only (if you want to keep that bit). —innotata 18:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy and evolution

Should probably cite doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.01.036.

Being that I do not have access to the full article, I will refrain from doing so. I think the issue you have with certain elements of the "Taxonomy" section may arise because the inital authors of the section (I am not one of them) may have relied only on abstracts. --Tea with toast (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I can send it to you if you e-mail me. Ucucha 19:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• "DNA evidence shows that the lion, tiger, leopard, jaguar, snow leopard, and clouded leopard shared a common ancestor nearly 11 million years ago (Ma)—the basal divergence amongst the Felidae family" - in fact, the cited paper places this divergence at 6.37 Ma.

The article does state that the members of the Felidae family shared a common ancestor 11 Ma, so the statement is not false, and that is the only information that can be concluded from the abstract alone (and the vast majority of readers will not have access to the full Science article, like you and I do.) The paper does say the the Panthera genus emerged 6.37 Ma (fossil constraint 3.8 Ma), but I think the reason the article simplifies the sentence about the initial divergence is because of the controversial issue of the clouded leopard and the snow leopard not being included in the Panthera genus. I also do not have access to the 1987 Turner article, so I do not know what conclusions are being drawn from that. --Tea with toast (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. The article strongly implies that the last common ancestor of the lion, tiger, leopard, jaguar, snow leopard, and clouded leopard lived 11 mya, the source says 6.37 mya. Ucucha 19:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you find the changes I made to be acceptable. --Tea with toast (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Ucucha 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Fossil evidence of leopard ancestors has been found from 2 to 3.5 Ma. These Pleistocene specimens resemble primitive jaguars." - severely oversimplifies what the source says. The 3.5 Ma remains, from Laetoli, are not said to resemble jaguars, and the 2 Ma remains, from the Siwaliks, are said to resemble plain jaguars, not primitive ones, as well as P. gombaszogensis. You also omit other Pleistocene fossils.

I'm sorry, but I don't know about the Laetoli and Siwaliks that you are making reference too. I do not know if it is necessary for this article to go into such depth. I think such information might be better for the Panthera article. --Tea with toast (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The main problem, here and in a few other places, is that the sources don't support the text. Ucucha 19:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this information to prevent confusion. --Tea with toast (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an article that does not mention the fossil record at all covers the main aspects of the topic (GA criterion 3a). The source for this was a good one, but the text in the article misrepresented it. If you wish, I can send you this source. Ucucha 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Canonical works, such as the Mammal Species of the World, continue to list the snow leopard as the only species within its genus, Uncia uncia" - misleading at best, since MSW 3 was published in 2005 and could not have incorporated this 2005 study

The issue of Yu and Zhang (2005) and Johnson et al. (2006) being in conflict with MSW 3 is given because many people rely sources such on MSW 3 and will have no knowledge of the more recent studies. Until MSW 4 (or another heavy weight in the layman's animal-info world) comes out saying what the other articles are saying, I think the paragraph should remain. It again illustrates how much conflict, confusion, and controversy remains about this topic! --Tea with toast (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Continues to list" implies that MSW 3 made a decision to place the snow leopard in a separate genus despite the results of Yu and Zhang and Johnson et al. That is false, because those studies were published after MSW 3 was completed. Ucucha 19:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you find the changes I made to be acceptable. --Tea with toast (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. Ucucha 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's probably better to get rid of the list of former subspecies and include those in the articles on the subspecies

If possible, I would really like to keep that section. I would like to expose in some way other unique populations of leopards --those that live or once lived in places like Sinai and Zanzibar-- even if scientists haven't found enough evidence to label them a separate subspecies. Infact, I'd like to find a place in the article to expand on these possibly extinct populations, but haven't been able to find many reliable sources. In any case, I think it is important to keep this list for historical purposes, and I don't think it hurts to keep it. --Tea with toast (talk)

You're probably better off writing about them in the article on the African subspecies they have been synonymized under. The long list disrupts the flow of the prose and introduces information of doubtful relevance to this article on the entire species. Ucucha 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I split the columns for aesthetics, which hopefully helps alleviate the lack of flow issue. Actually, I like that is serves as a break in the article preventing it from being too text-heavy. I think it's a good break because the preceding sections are about the "history" of the species (etymology and evolution) and the passages after are all about the species as it exists today. Plus, I think the section is relevant as it again illustrates the controversy of taxonomy and the issue that there may not be enough sampling to separate subspecies. --Tea with toast (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ucucha. I think these are off-topic, especially when subspecies articles exist. I don't at all agree with the æsthetics argument; I have no objections to long blocks of text broken only by images and don't see why unimportant information should sit and disrupt the flow of the text. —innotata 18:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope the text I wrote to replace it is acceptable. --Tea with toast (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is very relevant to the article, but if you really like having it I think reviewers will be OK with it. —innotata 01:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I will now fail this GAN. The article has certainly improved since this review began, but it's been going on for some time and it doesn't seem like the problems are going away—indeed, some of the edits introduce additional problems (the citation for the sentence about "panther" referring to jaguars in SAm, cougars in NAm, and leopards elsewhere does not support the sentence; the cited list of defunct subspecies was replaced by uncited text; we now have an entire paragraph on a single local population, cited to a fairly dubious source). Also, the problems with the sources I found in the first two sections give me little confidence that the rest of the article will be much better.

I recommend that before submitting the article to GAN again, you make sure everything that needs a citation is cited to a proper, reliable source, that all the sources support what they are supposed to support (I am happy to help in obtaining those sources), and that you've given some consideration to issues of due weight and general coherence of the article. Ucucha 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and improve the article as well—but mostly the behaviour, and I'll be sure to bring this to GAN again and probably FAC if someone else doesn't. I don't think this should be discouraging—there's not so much that needs to be done, and I'll be doing it also, and Ucucha can help with sources. —innotata 02:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, innotata, for your vote of confidence. And I thank you, Ucucha, for your vigorous review. I appreciate the time you spent helping to find what items could use improvement. Obviously, I am not an expert on this topic and only encountered this article recently, and there are a number of areas, such as taxonomy and evolution, where I have very little experience. I appreciate the help anyone has to offer on improving this article. --Tea with toast (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Other

• Animal Diversity Web (ref. 24) is not a reliable source. Ucucha 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A more appropriate source has been found to replace it. --Tea with toast (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)