Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tiger/archive3

Tiger[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry and BhagyaMani

I've avoided doing this article for years since there are already felid FAs including lion and jaguar, but the tiger is in a category of its own. Its the most iconic animal of Asia and one which many would consider their favorite animal. Its absence from mammal FAs has left a gaping hole. We've worked on this article for months, preening through each line and cite and rewriting along the way when needed. It has had a peer review. Special thanks to Wolverine XI and UndercoverClassicist.

PS. This article can't make it to the front page in time for International Tiger Day on July 29 this year, but I'll like to save it for next year. LittleJerry (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: (close the peer review) 750 h+ 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

The most majestic creature to walk this earth, in my mind. Will certainly make time for this.

Apologies for the delay. As usual, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a number of tiger-related featured pictures not currently used in the article. Obviously, we don't have to include them, but it would be nice for high-quality articles to include the best-quality media.
- They include: File:Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) female 3 crop.jpg, File:Panthera tigris tigris Tidoba 20150306.jpg, and File:Siberischer tiger de edit02.jpg (all featured on en:wp) and File:Amurtiger-Zoo-Muenster.jpg, File:White Tiger in Touroparc.jpg, File:Standing white tiger.jpg, File:Tiger Zoo Vienna.jpg, and File:Close-up view of the head of a white tiger, yawning with the tongue out.jpg (all featured on Commons).

Etymology & taxonomy

"In the 1st century" probably best to specify either AD or BC
"originates" I think this should be past tense, as you're talking about the Latin word?
"between the early 19th and early 21st centuries; namely the" not sure this is the right use of a semicolon
The repetition of "namely" seems unnecessary.
" calling for recognition of P. t. tigris comprising the Asian mainland tiger populations and P. t. sondaica comprising the populations of the Sunda Islands" isn't this just repeating the end of the previous paragraph? I would cut it.
"the two-subspecies proposal of the comprehensive 2015 study" could be shortened to "the 2015 two-subspecies proposal"
"and recognised the tiger populations in continental Asia as P. t. tigris, and those in the Sunda Islands as P. t. sondaica" more repetition, could be shortened to "recognising only P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica.
"These results were corroborated in 2021 and 2023." while acknowledging WP:CRYSTALBALL, can we say anything about the possible future developments of the classification?
"the classification used by the Cat Classification Task Force in 2017" did the CCTF use or recognise this classification?
I assume that the † in the Population column of the tables means "extinct"? A key to that effect would be helpful.
"from Turkey to around the Caspian Sea" slightly vague; how far southeast or northwest was its range?
I believed that the Siberian tiger was thought to be the largest subspecies. If this is correct, might be worth mentioning?
" all living tigers have a common ancestor 108,000 to 72,000 years ago" think the tense is off

AirshipJungleman29, fixed all. The Siberian and Bengal are both the largest as stated below. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.

Jens[edit]

Will try to have a closer look soon, but it seems the subspecies table needs work (below some nitpicks just on the table that immediately struck me, but I guess there are more, so it would be great if you could re-read it to clean it up):

The table contains information that should better be discussed elsewhere (e.g., "Linnaeus's scientific description of the tiger was based on descriptions by earlier naturalists such as Conrad Gessner and Ulisse Aldrovandi" – that clearly should rather be the second sentence of "Taxonomy", just after Linnaeus description is mentioned, no?).

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal tiger skins in the collection of the Natural History Museum, London were described as bright orange-red with shorter fur and more spaced out stripes than northern-living tigers like the Siberian tiger – why has the Natural History museum to be mentioned here (unnecessary detail?), and isn't there a recent source for this quite obvious feature (you cite a paper from 1939 for this)?

Revised. No more recent source than Pocock (1939)'s article with descriptions of skins in this apparently huge collection. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question was rather why this needs to refer to the collection in the first place; isn't this feature valid for the entire population? Other Bengal tiger skins do not show this pattern? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question made me read Kitchener (1999) again who wrote that 14 of the total 51 skins in the London museum collection are from Bengal tigers and cautioned that the variation in colour and striping may be much greater than represented by these 51 skins. While I agree that it is not so important to link to the London museum collection, I think it relevant to mention that all descriptions are based on museum specimens. So I amended text in the 1st paragraph. I also removed statements on number of stripes, as Kitchener (1999) showed that the range of stripes from continental to island tiger specimens overlaps and again emphasized that samples are too small to know whether these are representative of populations. Your thoughts? BhagyaMani (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate that number of stripes – i.e. "fewer" or "more" – is a characteristic of only a few museum specimens, which does not allow to generalise to the entire populations; see Kitchener (1999). – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authors are not properly introduced with full names (e.g., you say "Illiger's description", seemingly assuming that the reader already knows that Illiger described the subspecies).

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it redundant to repeat names of authors in the 2nd column of the table and therefore shortened descriptions. More details are anyway given in the resp. pages on the populations. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better now. There is still one "Temminck" in the description of the Javan Tiger, I don't think we need that there, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illiger's description was not based on a particular specimen, but he only assumed that tigers in the Caspian area differ from those elsewhere. – why "but" rather than "and"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the column be named "Population" instead of "Populations"? The column "image" is singular, too.

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with long hairs and dense coats – should that be "long hair" and "dense fur"?

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check for "hairs" at other places, too. We usually use the singular. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reach as far west as Turkey – "reaching"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It was noted to have"; "It was also said to have"; "The skull is described as"; etc. – Why use such convoluted wording? Any reason why simply "It has", "The skull is", etc. won't work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The type specimen from Sumatra had a dark skin. – I'm confused about this sentence. Only the type specimen had, not the population itself? "Had" means that the type specimen is lost? "Skin" refers to the naked skin under the fur?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has particularly long hairs around the face, a broader and smaller nasal region than other island tigers with many thick stripes. – "It" still refers to the holotype specimen? What exactly is meant with "nasal region" (technical term to be avoided here; better describe where that region is relative to the nose or other landmarks that every reader will understand). In the photograph I do not see "many" thick stripes, only four at the whiskers.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The skull is shorter and broader then the skulls of tigers further south – "than"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and a broad occipital bone – for another population below, you call it "occipital plate", is that referring to the same thing? Also, this should be explained (state where it is). Is this a feature that is visible in a living animal (if so, maybe write "broad back of the skull" or something if possible) or is this only visible when looking at a skeleton?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Panthera tigris sondaica, you give the nominate subspecies and author in the "Population" field, but you don't do the same for the Bengal tiger. Why this inconsistency?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You link Temminck twice in the table, but other authors are only linked once.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the "subspecies" section is a bit confusing and difficult to follow. It could be clearer. It starts with the nine tiger subspecies, but at first does not make clear that this view is already outdated. (Not sure, maybe start with pointing out the current classification, and then dive into the issue with the other proposed subspecies?). More suggestions on the issue in the following comments:
The validity of several tiger subspecies was questioned in 1999. – This is followed by some explanation, but while reading, it first wasn't clear to me that these directly relate to that sentence. Maybe use ":" or directly combine parts of the following sentence with this one to make this clear.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later, you have Therefore, it was proposed to but it was not clear to me that this relates to the 1999 study. Text could be re-arranged for better flow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This two-subspecies view is still disputed by researchers, since the currently recognised six living subspecies can be distinguished genetically. – Now this directly contradicts your previous text: "Disputed by researchers", you mean by "some" researchers? Currently recognised are only two subspecies, not six, right? And of course populations can be distinguished genetically, even single individuals can be, that does not make any sense to me.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its genetic distinctiveness and separation were corroborated in 2021 and 2023. – "Its" refers to what, exactly? I can't follow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Results of a 2018 whole-genome sequencing of 32 samples support the Bengal, Malayan, Indochinese, South China, Siberian and Sumatran tigers being distinct monophyletic tiger clades – Do these researchers propose to recognise the mentioned tigers as distinct subspecies, or what is the conclusion here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 and Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]