Talk:Ocelot/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77[edit]

Glad to see you as well! Thanks for such a detailed review, I clearly need to recall a lot of points I overlooked after a long break :D I believe I have addressed everything, please take a look. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the times, creatures which can breed throughout the year are monogamous to some degree. Is that the case here?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any reliable sources stating that.
  • In the lead, "native to the southwestern United States, Mexico, Central and South America" seems a bit redundant with "Their range extends from the southwestern United States to northern Argentina"
Removed the part from the 3rd para.
  • "Though marked as Least Concern by the IUCN" is "marked" really the right terminology? That sounds like "marked for death" or in this case "marked for living long and prospering"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. "Classified" is the general term.
Going by the Wiki article it is spoken by the Nahua people of Mexico and El Salvador. Nothing except the name of the language in the source. Should I add anything here?
I guess not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be part of the article's legacy. Omitted the part.
  • "Eventually zoologist Joel Asaph Allen among others placed the ocelot in the genus Leopardus (described by Gray in 1842)" I'm sure you have a year for this, and to which Gray are you referring to?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Mammal Species of the World entry states a few authors (and the respective years) who included ocelot in Leopardus (20th century onward). Allen did it in his 1919 paper, then there were a few others whose details I could not find, and the authors of the Mammalian Species article (1997) were also mentioned. I went with mentioning just one author as an example.
Do you know who first included ocelot in Leopardus?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who did it first. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was Gray when he made the genus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in this work? Seems both L. griseus and L. picteus actually refer to the ocelot (enlisted as synonyms for L. pardalis in Mammalian Species), would it be fine to just use this source to say Gray was the first to put it in the genus? Like does the source suffice? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • In the synonyms list, I think it may be better to wikilink everyone's name every time it's written rather than just the first mention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure about this one. I see the convenience but a few names are repeated often, which do we link and which not?
You link all of them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. I was worried about repetitive links but it is fine. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.
"Morphological" would probably be more appropriate for a study involving skeletal as well as outer physical features.
  • "recognized three groups (Texas, Central America and South America excluding eastern Brazil)" wouldn't eastern Brazil be a 4th group then?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The CatSG source says "Microsatellite differentiation identified three groups; Texas, Central America and South America (excluding eastern Brazil)". I chose to keep the wording intact.
The source says subspecies are L. p. albescens from the Tex-Mex border, L. p. pardis from Central America, and there aren't many genetic differences among the proposed South American subspecies (namely aequatorialis, pseudopardalis, melanura, and steinbachi), and South American ocelots could be classified as L. p. pseudopardalis, but the southern South American form could be L. p. mitis. I think the "Bolivian populations are smaller" is when they were referring to steinbachi, and they said there was bias because the steinbachi skulls were smaller   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the mention of eastern Brazil in the original paper, probably it was not assessed or something? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting the source. Its main point is that it recognizes 3 to 5 ocelot subspecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see your point. We just say they recognized 3-5 subspecies, though I am confused about the regions they assign them to. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of that last sentence in the 1st par of Subspecies, you could say, "In 2013, a study of craniometric variation and microsatellite diversity in ocelots throughout the range recognized three subspecies: L. p. albescens from the Texas–Mexico border, L. p. pardis from Central America and L. p. pseudopardalis from South America, though L. p. mitis may describe ocelots from the southern half of its South American range." I don't know where I got the 5th one from actually   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reread ref 21 to see if by "groups" you meant "subspecies", and what species name did the 2010 study give to the population it split from ocelots?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 21 says "groups". I can not find the species name in the main text as it is in Portuguese. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It says it doesn't recognizes any subspecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took the inference from CatSG and cited the original source.. if the inference is wrong we shall have to remove it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
The source didn't actually say Bolivian ocelots ("L. p. steinbachi") are smaller, it said that the Bolivian ocelots used in the study were generally smaller than the other ocelots which would introduce bias and skew results a bit   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I actually feel it is better omitted due to its irrelevance. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Was 2019 really when people figured out ocelots have unique color patterns? We already use spot ID for other spotted cat species, like leopards, cheetahs, and jaguars   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the knowledge about unique spot pattern in ocelots is not new, but the research into using the pattern for unique identification of ocelots appears to be new. I can not find more info on this (is it already in use, is it the first paper to propose a method to do it?) Could you suggest how we should mention this here, unless it is irrelevant and should be removed?
You could just say something like "Each ocelot has a unique color pattern which can be used to identify specific individuals"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not consistent with your units, you switch from both metric to imperial and imperial to metric
Fixed.
  • "other environmental parameters are not significant in determining its occurrence" so do you mean only water availability determines occurrence? What does "other" mean?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I try to say factors other than those aforementioned are not so important. Reworded.
  • I think the first paragraph of Habitat could be reorganized and condensed a bit. There seems to be 2 factors determining distribution: things that change prey availability, and avoiding competition/humans. It should be clear there's just these 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged.
Part of the legacy, I see it's not so relevant. Removed.
  • "prey on small terrestrial mammals, such as armadillos, opossums and rabbits, rodents, small birds, fish, insects and reptiles"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
  • Small grammar lesson: "Ocelots are carnivores, and primarily active during twilight and at night" because you used "and", you now have 2 independent clauses, so it should be "Ocelots are carnivores, and are primarily active during twilight and at night". If you remove "and", you now have an independent and a dependent clause, so you can say "Ocelots are carnivores, primarily active during twilight and at night"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted.
Added.
I am not sure how exactly we can merge them. Could use some suggestions here.
Heading Interactions with humans, subheadings Poaching, Habitat loss, Spotted fur trade, In art/In heraldry/etc., etc. and I don't really get why Lily Pons is mentioned. Were ocelots not very popular exotic pets back when that was a popular thing?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged. I could not find reliable sources for their popularity as pets, just two well-supported examples. I wish I could just call them famous exotic pets. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime in the 1970s, unable to find the exact year.
According to this NYT article from 1972, the US didn't specifically impose a ban on spotted cat fur, but added spotted cats to the Endangered Species List so that Congress could control and inhibit trade. this book has a lot of good info on the spotted fur trade
Thanks. I have expanded upon this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not exactly specify it, probably refers to low immunity of such individuals. Anyway, removed.
  • "According to the IUCN, ocelot hunting has been banned in" I don't think we need to specifically call out the IUCN on this point. Laws are public domain, these are not postulations of a study, these are facts   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Couldn't find any with reliable sources.
I'm finding two books from 1904 (this and this) saying "According to the well-known myth, Tezcatlipoca, when cast down from heaven by Quetzalcoatl, 'fell into the water where he transformed himself into an ocelot' and arose to kill certain giants"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to access these... but I found the same thing here. I will add this quote with this source, and you may add your 2 sources since you can access them. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Checked for more errors. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appears to be some problem with the {{cite iucn}} template in many articles including this one, no idea how to fix it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
check to see if the doi you put in is the most current doi and not an older one (an older doi will still redirect you to the same page but will present the ref error)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it, it's the same as the present DOI. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay seems it is fixed now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would be a good way to add it in the text with examples from the facts mentioned? I mention sexual dimorphism if at all the species shows it, so I'm gonna do it for the first time. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere in Characteristics, you can just say something along the lines of "ocelots do not display sexual dimorphism" and maybe gloss it. It could be a stand-alone sentence or maybe tacked onto the end of the first paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, will add it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ocelot/GA1&oldid=931718821"