Talk:Silver fox (animal)

Ambiguities in the text

"Higher population density leads to a higher incidence of failure in producing pups." Does this refer to lower mating success, suppression of ovulation, lower sperm count, higher spontaneous abortion rates, lower offspring viability, etc? I couldn't access the source to figure out which one.

"The reproductive success with age in silver fox morphs may be attributed to the fact that upon observation, yearlings breed an average of nine days after the adults." It is unclear to me how this translates into a lower reproductive success for younger individuals.

The two parts listed above were the only facts in the paper that I thought needed clarification. Otherwise, great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel.hassler (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Made some edits

I deleted some redundant text and moved around some facts so that the proper information was filed under the correct headings. I also made a subheading for "Breeding" since there was a rather large section on "Competition Capacity". I agree with the person above me that those two facts need to be clarified. I also made some minor grammar edits and added some hyperlinks. Overall, great article! Katheefwah (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Some basic editing and suggestions for further elaboration

For this article, I made some slight alterations to the writing style, correcting several typos, accidental capitalizations, and missing words. I clarified several points, mostly by neatening the language used and adding terms to more aptly convey what was being described. I also added notations where I feel that citation is needed. Finally, I edited the article for form, correcting some misuses of grammar and misuses of writing style.

I would advise that more information be added under the History of Fur Use heading. Elaboration of the provided quote is needed and would strengthen the article. A brief introduction to the use of fur before becoming specific in its different uses would be helpful.

I would also say that the section on the Russian experiments in morphology and demeanor should be added to. There is a large amount of literature on the subject, with the results and analysis of it being extensive and rather remarkable. I did not change this section, but I would also suggest re-ordering the provided information. Also, it should be mentioned how the fox has started to look like a dog, meaning that the facial morphology has begun to change so as to look less threatening to humans than found in wild populations. It should also be mentioned that the Russian experiments have bred for hostility in lines as well. These foxes demonstrate near madness and are extremely violent and aggressive. The experiment shows that natural populations are a balance between these two behavior extremes and that human selection favors whatever behaviors can survive.

All and all, it is good thus far.

--Cobiorower (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)cobiorower

Other suggestions

Hi there, there is another article called "gray fox" (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). I guess it means the same animal, perhaps you could merge them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F3:CF05:4C00:405:7AE:E37C:5D34 (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Just some other suggestions. I'm sure a GA reviewer would also bring these up.

• In the Range section, this sentence is confusing: "According to Sir John Richardson, a greater number than 4-5 silver foxes were rarely taken in any one season in areas where they were present, though trappers would prioritise them above all other furbearers once they were discovered."
• The "In culture" section feels like a bunch of disjointed trivia. It would be best to expand it with more prose.
• I'm a little uncomfortable with the "Breed standards" subsection consisting solely of a blockquote. Is it possible to reduce the dependence on that single quote?

bibliomaniac15 22:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Silver fox (animal)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. It's nice to see students working on articles like this! I'm a little concerned, however, that the comments on the talk page from User:Bibliomaniac15, left on January 5, have not been addressed. Is anyone still interested in working on this article? I'll have my initial thoughts up in a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • What is the reasoning behind having this article and Domesticated silver fox as separate articles? There seems to be a lot of overlap between the two.
   • Why does the article have both a "Description" and a "Breed standards" section? This isn't a breed, for one thing, and for another, the breed standards section is nothing more than a large blockquote.
   • The In culture section feels like a bunch of disjointed, unconnected trivia, some of which (like the fourth point) feels non-notable.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Citation needed tag in Description section.
   • What makes ref #20 (Urban Dictionary) a reliable source?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The points in the prose and references sections above need to be addressed first. I'm going to put the article on hold for a few days to see if anyone responds. If changes are made to address the above points, then I'll go through the article in more detail. Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

   Due to the lack of progress on this article over the past few days, I am failing this article's good article nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional Edits

We are students at Washington University in St. Louis editing the Silver fox (animal) page to try to get it up to a good article status. Here are summaries of our edits:

-I compiled and transferred the "Silver fox domestication" history information onto this page, including resources. Ichooxu (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

-I changed the Breed Standard section to Pelt standards because they were describing the qualities of high quality fur. Then, I paraphrased the block quote into a paragraph. Additionally, I went over the article and edited typos, as well as clarified any unclear sentences. Abuatois (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

- I reworked the culture section to make it less disjointed and more prose-like. I also added more information and references as necessary. Wmhua (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

-I looked at part of the “Initial project” section and the “Current project status” section on the Domesticated silver fox page and condensed/rewrote this information based on the references given and added it to the “Domesticated” section of the Silver fox (animal) page. I did not include any information from the Domesticated silver fox page that did not have any references to back it up, and therefore some of the information was not used. I also deleted the sentence that needed the citation given that I could not find the source of information given and it was not necessarily crucial or relevant to the overall article. The Urban Dictionary reference had been deleted prior to our editing contribution. Lastly, I formally requested for the deletion of the Domesticated silver fox page. Morganclem (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• The article has some problems, since htis is not a distinct taxon, what is the point of having a behaviour section and a taxobox? See black panther for example. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Silver fox (animal)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• This nomination seems premature, it has many unsourced paragraphs, and the lead is too short. Please address these issues before I review further. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Also, since this is not a taxon, it should not have a taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Iainstein (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I am one of the students which has been editing this article to get it to good article status. We based our edits based on the last good article reviewer. I would like to know which paragraphs you believe do not have sources, as to my knowledge, there is at least one citation per paragraph. Do you have any suggestions for improving the lead? As far as the taxobox is concerned, while it is not necessary as this is not a separate taxon, we believe that it still useful information for those that are unfamiliar with the taxonomy of this species of fox. Abuatois (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If a paragraph ends without a citation, it is unsourced. Take a look throughout, there are many such cases. One example could be the first paragraph under "range". Same for "Domestication", etc. It also seems much information here is about ref foxes in general, so it does not belong here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• No work being done here, so I'll have to fail it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Silver fox (animal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315075838/http://www.eau.ee/~vl/materjalid/eng14fur.pdf to http://www.eau.ee/~vl/materjalid/eng14fur.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003100021/http://www.domesticfox.com/ to http://www.domesticfox.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)