Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Woolly mammoth/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Woolly mammoth

Woolly mammoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Woolly mammoth/archive1

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it now covers all aspects of this species, it has been copy edited, and is a core subject under palaeontology and extinction. Lister 2007 is extensively used, because it is the best synthesis of mammoth research. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from John

I see instances of both UK and US English spellings in the article. That's an automatic fail for me, on prose. Before I go to the trouble of making further comments, should it be in UK English? --John (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, should be UK, the US versions must be remnants from the few old parts that are left from before I expanded it, I'll go through it now and fix what I find. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the things I could find[2] (mainly "ized" to "ised"), is that what you had in mind? Some of it was from other articles that I had merged in here without double checking, seems to have missed the copy editor as well. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I was mainly concerned with "analyze" which is very rare in British English; the other -ize spellings would have been fine. There are a couple of other wordings that I think are infelicitous. I will either just edit them and bring it here to review, or point-by-point it here, depending on how much time I have tomorrow. It's a really nice article and I tend towards supporting, mainly on prose and structure. --John (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to sorting anything out. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here goes.

• Lead paragraph
  • "known to Europeans in the 1600s": 1600s or 17th century? MoS allows either these days, but I prefer the latter

I prefer it too, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "wool varied through black and brown to blond or ginger." "Through" in this use is an Americanism. British English would use "from".

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • frost bite -> frostbite

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "An isolated population" -> "Isolated populations" (as we are talking about two separate populations)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Saint Paul Island (Alaska); fix link

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "It has been proposed the species could be recreated through cloning or artificial insemination, but this method is as yet infeasible due to the degraded state of the remaining genetic material." Couple of problems here; first, artificial insemination sounds pretty off-the-wall; I don't have the reference you use to support this but as the article points out, frozen sperm only stays viable for decades, and that's under lab conditions. There seems no likelihood that millennia-old frozen sperm could work. Why mention it at all in the lead? The second problem is grammatical; if we have to have it in the lead, we'd need to say "these methods" as there are two different ones. I'd also like to see the ethical problems with recreating the mammoth mentioned in the lead, but maybe that's just me.

These two methods are often mentioned in the (popular) literature, and it appears Japanese researchers would rather try insemination than actual cloning. But yeah, maybe too much for the lead. Fixed the other issues. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "until roughly 4,000 years ago" doesn't need "roughly"; no-one will assume we mean exactly that long ago. --John (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More to come. --John (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing things up so far. It looks like it will be tonight or even tomorrow night before I can finish this. Sorry. --John (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I have other stuff to do today as well. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I am sorry for the delay in finishing this review. --John (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Taxonomy
  • "remains of modern elephants that had been brought to Europe during the Roman Empire, for example the war elephants of Hannibal the Great and Pyrrhus of Epirus, or animals that had simply wandered north" Roman Empire -> Roman Republic (I think), and lose the simply. It wouldn't have been that simple for an elephant to "wander" across the Mediterranean, even though they are renowned as great swimmers.
  • "While he discussed the question of whether or not the remains were from elephants, he drew no conclusions" -> "He discussed the question of whether or not the remains were from elephants, but drew no conclusions"
  • "Most significantly, he argued this species had gone extinct and no longer existed, a concept that was not widely accepted at the time.[6]" Lose "Most significantly", unless it can directly be drawn from the reference, to which I do not have access.

Fixed all of the above. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Etymology
  • "Following Cuvier's identification, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach gave the woolly mammoth its scientific name in 1799, Elephas primigenius, ..." -> "gave the woolly mammoth its scientific name, Elephas primigenius, in 1799 ..." More logical flow
  • "It was not until 1828 that Joshua Brookes recognised the species was distinct enough to warrant a new genus" -> "In 1828 Joshua Brookes recognised the species was distinct enough to warrant a new genus"
  • "during the early 1600s" -> "during the early 17th century"
  • "Thomas Jefferson, who famously had a keen interest in palaeontology, is partially responsible for transforming the word mammoth from a noun describing the prehistoric elephant to an adjective describing anything of surprisingly large size." -> Lose "famously". I was not aware that he was famous for that, and nor will most readers be.

Fixed all of above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Evolution
  • "...around the Tethys Sea area." -> "...around the Tethys Sea."
  • Lose "aforementioned" please.
  • "Columbian mammoth, M. columbi, also evolved from a population of M. trogontherii that had entered North America" Lose "also"
  • "only experienced a limited loss of genetic variation" -> "only experienced a slight loss of genetic variation" or maybe "minor". The antonym of "limited " is "unlimited", not "large" or "significant"

Fixed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More to come. --John (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking good, thanks for the edits. I will finish this tonight or tomorrow. More likely the latter. My friend who I haven't seen for months just arrived and I don't want to be anti-social. --John (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. All above issues have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the interests of efficiency, I made the rest of the edits myself. Please check and let me know if you approve of this or not. I would like to take one further look later today and then I will support. --John (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I followed while you edited, so I've checked them already, looks good, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Further round of copy-edits here. Two other users made edits as well in that diff. --John (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, but why was the following info removed? "Up to 25% of the tusk was within the sockets". FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That was User:WereSpielChequers. We have "About a quarter of the length was inside the sockets." already so we don't need "Up to 25% of the tusk was within the sockets ..." as well. It was a good catch I thought. --John (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see... Good catch indeed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Sourcing and completeness look good as well, though I haven't examined them in detail. --John (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Another question frm me. Is "Yuka" the same as "the Yukagir mammoth"? If so we need to expain that, prefereably the first time we mention it. --John (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Yukagir is an adult male, Yuka is a juvenile. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Maybe worth a wee note to clarify; if I could be confused, so could others. Also, why are there quote marks around the names? What are we quoting? --John (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Age now specified at first mention of both. As for quotes, it's because they're merely informal nicknames. Should they be removed? FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to flag up through punctuation that these nicknames are informal ones. Scare quotes has "Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense [...] They imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused." --John (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there another way to show that they're informal in a less obnoxious way? FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am really not sure, and I am humbled because I consider myself an MoS expert. I wonder if we could reduce the number of instances, as it is the repetition and the punctuation together which are slightly triggering my distaste here. Let me think some more; I wouldn't oppose over this anyway but if there's a way of making it better we should do so. --John (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

How about italics? Or 'this'? If none of it works, I'll just remove the quote marks. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jimfbleak

Support Comments from Jim Just nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• eastern/ East Eurasia — capitalisation seems arbitrary

Lower case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Genetic studies, frostbite, molars nuclear genome sequence, DNA , morphologies, lactic acid — link at first occurence

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• 6 tonnes (6,000 kg). — both are metric

Removed kg. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Its ears and tail — "wool" was the last subject mentioned

"The" instead of "its"? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• but this is yet infeasible — missing word?

Added "method". FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are a few overlinks, behemoth, Alaska, both extant elephants, Pleistocene, Taimyr

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Check "itself" isn't redundant in each occurrence

Removed all but one. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• a moment in time — not exactly a moment...

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• A 2010 study confirmed these relationships, — another sentence separated from its original subject

Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Varying colours in mammals are usually a form of camouflage linked to survival — so you can't see the mammoths because of their colour...?

Removed, wasn't exactly relevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Each major line represents a year, whereas weekly — "and" rather than "whereas"

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• its weight 15 times — I think you mean 15-fold

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Prior to this, Neanderthals had coexisted with mammoths during the Middle Paleolithic and up to that time — ???

To Upper Palaeolithic. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• 35 and 11.500 years — 35,000 is more plausible

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Formatting error in last ref?

Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Responded to all issues, not sure if they are fixed satisfactorily. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I mad two minor edits. I note you have also sorted out the AE/BE confusion, so I'm happy to support now, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for edits! FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from GermanJoe

Image check - mostly all OK, sources and authors provided. Some images need checking (all points Done):

• File:MammothVsMastodon.jpg - has no evidence, that the photoshopped elements are copyright-free. Actually the original uploader on English Wiki removed one such image from another related article due to copyright concerns.

In those cases, the photo elements are so highly modified and their original context unrecognisable that I think "de minimis"[3] would apply. But I can ask over at Commons if you think not. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A minor element of a copyrighted work would still be copyrighted (dunno, if there's a lower limit), but it's better to raise this question at Commons. A completely modelled mammoth or mastodon is not "minor" imo. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask on Commons. As for the technique, its basically just photo collage, but the resulting "models" are original, only the fur texture is taken from images of animals. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thread: [4] FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK based on the current arguments, i'd give it a day and we can close that. GermanJoe (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Status changed, all images OK per Commons discussion on usage of trivial elements. GermanJoe (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Ice_age_fauna_of_northern_Spain_-_Mauricio_Antón.jpg - the first slideshow link is dead (but not absolutely necessary). Link could be removed, if you don't find a replacement.

It didn't show up for me the first time, but did the second time. Could you try again and see what happens?FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops - it helps to disable AdBlock ... My bad.GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Woolly_mammoths.jpg - needs license tags.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• All "Charles R. Knight" images - are the noted dates date of creation or publication? Can you clarify, where those images were first published (needed for PD-1923 and PD-US)? (Done) GermanJoe (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

They're museum murals which were made public these dates, I have the dates from a book about Charles R. Knight. should I add citations for the dates? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggest to insert something like "published in YYYY, see {bibliographical info}" to the date fields of all Knight images. I'd AGF, that the dates are correct, but it's best to have this info immediately available for future questions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add info to the description boxes on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Darkwarriorblake

• Comments: I found the article a very interesting read, long but comprehensive, but none of the web based sources are archived, making them all a time bomb, and many if not all of the publisher/work are unlinked. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The DOIs, PMIDs and JSTORs are all links. Clicking on them leads to either articles or paywalls with abstracts. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake It's not normal to archive real-life, as opposed to web-only sources, because they can't disappear. It's usual only to have a url link to a publication if it has free full text, otherwise it's misleading and a bit spammy to link to a paywall, especially as the doi or equivalent does that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as the sources are robust. Support Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Axl

The first two paragraphs in the lead section mention "eastern Eurasia". Is this the same as "Asia"? Or "Asia and eastern Europe"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the same as the eastern part of the Eurasian continent, as in Europe and Asia together. Is it too vague? FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "Eurasia" is less familiar than "Europe" and "Asia". I am hoping to simplify the phrase. If "Asia" could be used instead of "eastern Eurasia", that would be ideal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaced where it made sense to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution", paragraph 2: "African elephants diverged from an earlier common ancestor 6.6–8.8 Mya." This appears to be the first instance of the word "Mya", yet the phrase "million years ago" was used four times earlier in the subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution", paragraph 3: " At the same time, the crowns of the teeth became longer and the skulls become taller from top to bottom and shorter from back to front over time to accommodate this." Why should a skull that is shorter from back to front be better at accommodating longer teeth? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It was to compensate for the increased weight of the skull, I've added this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The syntax seems a little clumsy; I shall think about this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, was a bit hard to cram in. Any suggestion is appreciated. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How about two sentences: "The crowns of the teeth lengthened and the skulls became taller from top to bottom to accommodate this. At the same time, the skulls became shorter from front to back to minimise the weight." Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need "from top to bottom " and "from front to back"? I wish there was a more elegant way to express this. --John (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There are technical terms that most readers wouldn't understand. I'll think of something. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. --John (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually "from top to bottom" isn't really needed, because that is what "taller" means. I think that we still need "from front to back" (or an equivalent phrase) because "shorter" does not normally mean that. The closest regular word that I can think of is "shallower", but that doesn't really fit, and would still need the qualifier. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work. --John (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I removed "from top to bottom". I'll look how the source phrases the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Lister 2007 does say exactly "shorter from front to back". FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't think of a better phrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the subsection "Wool" is poorly named. I believe that "wool" refers to the fur of domesticated animals that is used to make clothing for humans. As such, the woolly mammoth does not have wool. (Indeed the name "woolly mammoth" is a misnomer.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, nice OR, but wrong. My Chambers starts "The fleece of sheep, goats, yaks etc", then goes on to describe it as a modified type of hair, and only then gets on to subsidiary meanings such as use as fabric or to describe curly human hair. On your logic, ancestral species of sheep and goats that became extinct before man didn't have wool either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that it is OR for me to say that woolly mammoths didn't have wool. I don't actually have a reference that says that. It is based on my reading of definitions of "wool". (If it was called the "hairy mammoth", no-one would claim that it has wool.) However I'm not asking for that statement to be added to the article. Rather, I am hoping that descriptions of "wool" are changed to "fur" or "hair". The issue of whether the ancestors of modern sheep had wool is beyond the remit of most dictionaries and isn't something that I would argue about. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about this, maybe some more opinions could be nice? FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

1) What do the sources say? 2) The fact that the article is entitled "Woolly mammoth" predisposes me to thinking this is the best word to use. --John (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The source uses various words, including fur, hair, coat, and underwool refers to something present on living animals, not something produced by humans. But maybe "coat" would be better as a title, as it covers all sorts of hair, not just the woolly covering? FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. "Coat" seems best to me, and go with the sources when doing the detailed description of the structure of the coat. Very nice point, Axl. --John (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course I would be happy with "coat". Let's wait and see what Jimfbleak thinks. Hopefully we can reach a consensus (even unanimous?) decision. I still hope that all reference to "wool" will be expunged. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The change has been made. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I was hoping to see Jimfbleak's reaction first. I suppose that if he (or another editor) objects, we can reconsider the matter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really taking a stance on that issue, what convinced me was that "wool" doesn't include for example the hair on the tail, which is also discussed in the section, so coat is better, as the scope of the term is wider (includes all sorts of hair). FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On a related issue, wouldn't "tawny" be a better word than "blond"? I have a feeling (no evidence, just a feeling) that "blond" relates mainly to humans. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's wording from the press covering of that paper (which I've replaced with the actual paper as source), but not in the paper itself, so I'll change it to light coloured and dark coloured. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"Light-coloured" might be better than "blond". --John (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Description", subsection "Wool", paragraph 2, I have added wikilinks for "dominance (genetics)" and "recessive trait". However I am unhappy with the use of the term "inactive gene" in the latter part of the paragraph. I wonder if the paragraph would be better with "dominant" and "recessive" throughout, with "fully active" and "partially active" in parentheses at the first instances? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A technical point: alleles can be dominant or recessive, not genes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the wording, is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a minor adjustment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 1: "the haemoglobin of the woolly mammoth was adapted to the cold, with three mutations to improve oxygen delivery around the body and prevent freezing." I was initially sceptical of the last part of the statement so I checked the reference. Can I suggest that this reference might be regarded as more reliable and authoritative than The Independent's article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Both sources are already used for the same paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't realise that that reference was being used for the very next sentence. In which case, why is the original paper being used for one statement, while The Independent's report of that paper is used for another? I suggest that the original paper is a better source than The Independent for this purpose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Before I worked on it, only the news article was used, so when I added the actual paper to source the second sentence, I just let the old source be, as a kind of backup. I can remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would be better without The Independent's article as a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 4: "The most common of these diseases was osteoarthritis, found in 2% of specimens. One specimen from Switzerland had several fused vertebrae as a result of this condition. The "Yukagir Mammoth" had suffered from ankylosing spondylitis in two vertebrae." In humans, it is rare for spinal osteoarthritis to cause ankylosis, but I am prepared to accept the statement about the Swiss specimen. On the other hand, I am sceptical about the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis in the Yukagir Mammoth. How do they make a diagnosis of ank spond from woolly mammoth remains? On the basis of only two affected vertebrae? The statement about the Swiss specimen indicates that the presence of ankylosis alone is insufficient to confirm a diagnosis of ank spond. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really a pathology buff, but I'll give the sources an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, since my knowledge is lacking in that field, here is the relevant part of the 2006 paper describing the Yukagir mammoth:

"The Yukagir Mammoth had backbone/spine problems. Thoracic vertebrae IV and V showed abnormal growth possibly as a result of auto-immune reaction to an inflammation somewhere else in the body. Only the thornshaped extremities of the two subsequent thoracic vertebrae (thoracic vertebrae VI and VII, No. 7885 and No. 7886) have been retrieved; these were naturally cut off just above the neural canal and were strongly deformed, showing some pus channels. The available vertebrae before and after these pathologically-modified specimens were in good condition. Dr. Erwin Kompanje of the Erasmus Medical Center and the Natural History Museum in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, diagnosed a form of Spondylarthropathy (also known as (Ankylosing) Spondylitis or Rheumatoid spondylitis) in the 4th and 5th thoracic vertebrae (fig. 9). Unfortunately, the pelvis bone and the sacrum bone are missing. Generally, this disease shows most clearly in the joint between these two bones. Spondylarthropathy includes a group of inflammatory diseases comprising Reiter’s syndrome, reactive arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and arthritis associated with inflammatory bowel disease. The bony outgrowths found on the vertebrae of affected individuals are called syndesmophytes (Francois et al., 1995). These are slim, bony outgrowths, parallel to the vertebral column, which replace the outer parts of the annulus fibrosus (part of the intervertebral disc) and the shorter and longer perivertebral ligaments, thus leading to an intervertebral bridge by means of complex processes involving ossification. The syndesmophytes can be distinguished from the vertical and chunky osteophytes (bone spurs) in degenerative vertebral disease, and the often bizarre new bone formation associated with primary bacterial infections. These abnormal bony outgrowths on two thoracic vertebrae (IV and V) of the Yukagir Mammoth resemble the syndesmophytes usually found in Spondylarthropathy in man and other mammals (Rothschild, 1994; Kompanje, 1999; Kompanje et al., 2000) A diagnosis of Reactive spondylarthropathy, most probably associated with inflammatory bowel disease seems plausible in this case. These inflammations would have caused pain, especially in the early stages of abnormal bone growth but this was most likely not related to death. The event or condition triggering this growth might have occurred several years earlier. It will be interesting to see if Daniel Fisher finds signs of this event in the growth of the tusk, where a daily history of life is stored as variations in structural and compositional properties." FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. The presence of "pus channels" in thoracic vertebrae VI and VII is a feature of osteomyelitis. The statement "Dr. Erwin Kompanje... diagnosed a form of Spondylarthropathy (also known as (Ankylosing) Spondylitis or Rheumatoid spondylitis) in the 4th and 5th thoracic vertebrae" seems to imply that ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid "spondylitis" are the same disease. (The capitalisation is rather random.) This is certainly not true. Ank spond and rheumatoid arthritis have different clinical features, different autoimmune & HLA associations, and are treated differently. Spinal disease is typical of ank spond, but is rare in rheumatoid disease. It is unclear if the source also implies that "spondyloarthropathy" is the same as ank spond and rheumatoid spondylitis. The source subsequently states "A diagnosis of Reactive spondylarthropathy, most probably associated with inflammatory bowel disease seems plausible in this case." This diagnosis is different again from ank spond and rheumatoid disease.

Given that the source lists at least three different diseases for the same clinical features, I don't think that this can be relied upon. We certainly can't pick one as our label. I am happy to accept that spondylitis was present. I suggest that we change the article's latter sentence to "The "Yukagir mammoth" suffered from spondylitis." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, is the change I've made now enough to fix that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Palaeobiology", paragraph 3, "Yukagir mammoth" has a lower case "m" for "mammoth". Paragraph 4 uses a capital "M". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Decapitalised. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "Woolly mammoths sustained themselves on plant food, mainly grass and sedges, which were supplanted with herbaceous plants, flowering plants, shrubs, mosses, and tree matter." Perhaps "supplemented" rather than "supplanted"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 4: "Parasitic flies and protozoans were identified in the gut of the calf "Dima"." Do parasitic flies really live in the gut? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Lister only states "Microscopic studies also revealed parasitic flies and protozoa in Dima's gut." Perhaps their larvae? Not sure what his source is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

After some digging around, I found this paper. I am happy to leave the current statement in the article as it is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "Isotope analysis has showed that woolly mammoths preferred hay-like grass... An isotopic study showed that woolly mammoths fed mainly on C3 plants." This is duplication of information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Merged. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "The "Yukagir mammoth" had ingested plant matter that contained spores of dung fungus, showing that woolly mammoths fertilised the plants of their environment." Does the presence of dung fungus spores really show that woolly mammoths fertilised plants? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The source is ambiguous, I'll change it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 3: "The tusks were also used for obtaining food in other ways, since not all of their range was covered in snow." What other ways? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Elaborated, is it ok? Maybe not so elegant. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the last part of the sentence is relevant. Couldn't the tusks have been used to dig up plants and strip bark in areas that were covered in snow? Perhaps just delete the last part of the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1: "A ten-year-old would have doubled its height and increased its weight 15-fold." What does this mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be since birth, but it's a bit ambiguous. Here's the relevant text taken from Google Books, what do you think?[5] FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree—it looks like it probably means from birth to age 10, but it isn't entirely clear. In any case, I'm not sure how useful this information is. Are people really interested in the weight and height compared to birth? Do people know know much a ten-year-old human child's weight & height are compared to the birth values? Of their own children? Add to this the ambiguity about the statement and I think it should be removed from the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, will do. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1, there is something peculiar about the timing and duration of the sets of teeth. The second set of molars erupted at 12–18 months and lasted for an unspecified length of time. The sixth set were in use from age 30. This leaves a period of about 29 years for the second, third, fourth & fifth sets. Of this, the third set occupied 10 years, leaving 19 years for the second, fourth & fifth sets. Is this right? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much what the source says. I've tweaked the part, but the meaning is the same... The timing for modern elephants is a bit off in relation.[6] Perhaps I should check if other sources agree? FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This slightly less serious book gives a somewhat different estimate: [7] However, it uses an older reference, so I'm not sure if it's more accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have verified that the current text is accurate, so I guess that's okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1: "A woolly mammoth could probably reach the age of 60, like living elephants of the same size." Perhaps "modern elephants" rather than "living elephants"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 2: "This feature indicates that male woolly mammoths also entered "musth", during which bull elephants become very aggressive and violent." "Aggressive and violent" seem to be redundant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Distribution and habitat", paragraph 2 mentions the "Bering land bridge" and "Beringia". I added a wikilink. It would be better to use a single consistent term. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put Beringia in parenthesis the first time, so readers will know the term, ok? FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The term in parentheses should be the one that isn't used in the rest of the text. Neither Beringia nor Bering land bridge are used in the rest of the article, so there isn't really any need to include the alternative name. I recommend using the term "Bering land bridge" in both places, with the first instance wikilinked to "Beringia". Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Distribution and habitat", paragraph 2: "A 2008 genetic study showed that some of the woolly mammoths that entered North America through Beringia from Eurasia migrated back and replaced the former population shortly before the entire species went extinct." This statement is confusing. Which direction was the migration? Which population was replaced? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed,is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "Prior to this, Neanderthals had coexisted with mammoths during the Middle Palaeolithic and up to the Upper Palaeolithic." Does "up to the Upper Palaeolithic" include the Upper Palaeolithic? If so, just say "and the Upper Palaeolithic". If not, delete "and up to the Upper Palaeolithic". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "Evidence for such coexistence was not acknowledged until the 19th century." Perhaps "recognised" rather than "acknowledged"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "William Buckland published his discovery of the Red Lady of Paviland skeleton in 1823, which was found in a cave alongside woolly mammoth bones, but he denied that these were contemporaries." Perhaps "he mistakenly denied"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 2: "Today, more than five hundred depictions of woolly mammoths are known, in media ranging from carvings and cave paintings located in 46 caves in Russia, France and Spain to sculptures and engravings made from different materials." Are "carvings" different from "engravings"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed the sentence, is it clearer? Here, carvings are on 3D objects, engravings are on walls. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The meaning is now clear. However you changed the positions of "carvings" and "engravings", which affects the meaning of the next sentence. Previously, engravings were part of portable art. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a result of me trying to condense the text, engravings are in fact mentioned for both types, so I'll add it both places. Also elaborated a bit, is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm back to the original question—what is the difference between "carvings" and "engravings"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The source says "three dimensional carvings", should I add that? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As that is what the source says, I suppose that would be best. Although I wonder if the original word, "sculptures", might be okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, sculpture would imply that it had been sculpted, when it has been carved from objects... Does the word sculpture include more than that? FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, "sculpture" includes carvings, but if you prefer to say "three-dimensional carvings", that would be okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh, then I'll say sculpture instead, as I wrote initially. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Exploitation", paragraph 2: "Woolly mammoth ivory was used to create art objects and jewels." I'm not comfortable with this use of the word "jewels". I suppose that in the broadest meaning of the word, these objects could be considered jewels. However it doesn't seem to add any extra information. Perhaps delete "and jewels"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Exploitation", paragraph 3 contains several statements of the type "having been ___ed" (some sort of past perfect form?). I wonder if a copy-editor could read through the paragraph and improve the flow? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if I can change it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Extinction", paragraph 2: "Although woolly mammoths survived an even greater loss of habitat at the end of the Saale glaciation 125,000 years ago, it is likely that, at the end of the last Ice Age, humans hunted the remaining populations to extinction." I'm not sure why the word "Although" is used here. Also, what is the relationship between the Saale glaciation and the last Ice Age? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed although, and added a link to Quaternary glaciation (the last Ice Age). The Saale glaciation was a period within the last ice age. Should this be specified? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If you could mention the time of the end of the last ice age, that would be helpful. Also, after reading Wikipedia's article on "Ice age", I don't think that "Ice Age" should be capitalized. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed ice age. Is what I've added about the last ice age what you had in mind? FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still not clear when the end of the last ice age was in relation to the Saale glaciation. If you could add the time of the end of the last age (how many thousands of years ago), that would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The last ice age (Quaternary glaciation) is still in effect. The Saale glaciation is one of many within it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What does this statement mean: "it is likely that humans hunted the remaining populations to extinction, at the end of the last ice age."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be the Last glacial period, I'll replace. Many sources seem to mix up all these terms for ice age periods. It is quite complicated. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Should "Last" have a capital "L"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Extinction", paragraph 2: "Studies of a 11,300–11,000 year old trackway in southwestern Canada...." Should this be "an 11,300–11,000 year old trackway"? (I'm not sure.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good question. The source doesn't use that exact phrase, so can't double check. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have changed this to "an". If anyone objects, I would be happy to discuss further. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In "Frozen specimens", can I suggest that positions of the pictures of the "Adams mammoth" are swapped? The picture drawn prior to excavation seems to be more rudimentary. Also, the statement that the skeleton's tusks are "reversed" confused me at first—I was expecting "reversed" tusks to be pointing downwards. It wasn't until I read the text that I realised that the left–right position is reversed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 1: "Most specimens have partially decayed prior to discovery, due to exposure or to being scavenged by predators." I don't think that is the correct use of the word "decayed", nor the phrase "scavenged by predators". Perhaps change the word "decayed" to "degraded"? Perhaps delete "by predators"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 3: "Its head was exposed, and the flesh had been devoured by predators." Should this be "scavengers" rather than "predators"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 3: "One of its shoulder blades was broken, indicating that it had fallen into a crevasse." There are causes of a broken shoulder blade other than falling into a crevasse. How about "One of its shoulder blades was broken due to falling into a crevasse."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

According to a different source, there is uncertainty on whether the break was caused by the fall, or if it happened after it had died. Therefore the cautious language. I have reworded it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 6: "In 1997, a Dolgan family named Jarkov discovered a piece of mammoth tusk protruding from the tundra of the Taymyr Peninsula in Siberia, Russia." I don't think that the family name Jarkov is relevant. I'm not convinced that the Dolgan people are relevant either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 7: "By cutting a section through the second premolar and analysing its growth lines, they found that the animal had died at the age of one month." I wasn't aware that mammoths had premolar teeth. The "Dentition" subsection makes no mention of these. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "They called it "Yuka"." This sentence is rather short. Perhaps integrate the information into the first sentence of the paragraph? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "Palaeontologists think it is the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered." Unless there is a controversy where non-palaeontologists dispute the statement, there is no need to state that "palaeontologists think" this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed all of the above. The "frozen specimens" section is the weakest section in my opinion, it is the only one (apart from "cryptozoology") I didn't write from scratch, but where I retained a lot of existing material. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "It is the first frozen mammoth that shows evidence of human predation." The source states "There are some odd things. What we need to do is find out if this was human interference near the time of death or was it something that happened much later?" This statement does not imply human predation, and even scavenging by humans is questionable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, at the time I thought "predation" encompassed a bit more than it does, changed. Also, it was already mentioned under exploitation. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "It is thought to be the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered." Why not "It is the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered."? Also, the best preserved specimen doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. Which one is the best preserved? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed it, was a bit subjective. There are juveniles that are better preserved thanany adults, and the only adult with a near complete head has an incomplete body, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 1: "The first is cloning, which would involve removing the genetic material of the egg cell of a female elephant, and replacing it with nuclei cells from woolly mammoth tissue." "Replacing it with nuclei cells"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the proposed change? I'm not sure I follow. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My question is: what are "nuclei cells"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "cell nuclei", ok? FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The relevance of the nuclei is that they contain genetic material. Also, there is an awkward juxtaposition of a (singular) egg and (plural) nuclei. How about this: "The first is cloning, which would involve removal of the DNA-containing nucleus of the egg cell of a female elephant, and replacement with a nucleus from woolly mammoth tissue." Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will replace. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 1: "The resulting calf would have the genes of the woolly mammoth, although its foetal environment would be different." I am somewhat uncomfortable with the spelling of the word "foetal". I accept that the article uses British English and the word "foetal" is often used in (lay) English. The letter "o" was mistakenly added to "fetus" and this hypercorrection has now become commonplace in British English. However medical and scientific texts still retain the Latin spelling "fetus". This article straddles the boundary of scientific and generic text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll just change it all to fetus/fetal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a potentially controversial change so I would be happy to discuss further if necessary. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem for me personally, so unless someone else chimes in, it's fine now for me. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 2: "After several generations of cross-breeding these hybrids, an almost pure woolly mammoth would be produced." Is that really true? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh, that's the claim at least. Should I make the language more cautious? FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if that's what the source says, I suppose that it's okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 3: "As the woolly mammoth genome has been mapped, a complete strand of DNA may be synthesised in the future, using the DNA of other organisms." Is the DNA of other organisms really required? Perhaps delete that part of the sentence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess someone confused it with Jurassic Park. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Cultural significance", paragraph 1: "The first woolly mammoth ivory from Siberia was brought to London in 1611." Should this be "The first woolly mammoth ivory brought to London was in 1611 from Siberia."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not, because other mammoth remains had been found in Europe before this point. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does the source say? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"The first fossil ivory known to reach western Europe was a tuk purchased from Samoyeds in Siberia and brought to London in 1611." So I can see that it should be clarified this was the firstivory to reach western Europe, but it had been brought elsewhere in Europe before, I'll add that. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (For your information, the original statement had quite a different meaning. Both my suggestion and the current statement are supported by the source.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Cultural significance", paragraph 2: "Local dealers estimate that there are 10 million mammoths still frozen in Siberia, and conservationists have suggested that this could help save the living species of elephants from extinction." Is this through money raised from the sale of mammoth ivory? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, as explained in the next sentence, it is because mammoth ivory could replace elephant ivory in the trade. Does it need elaboration of some sort? FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the current text is fine. I just wondered if the money raised might be significant, Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I recall there's some sort of toll for the collectors, but it is paid to Russian authorities, and doesn't benefit elephants directly. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Cultural significance", subsection "Cryptozoology", paragraph 1: "Gallon added that the fur-trapper had not heard of mammoths, and that he had talked about the "elephants" as forest animals, at a time when they were seen as living on the tundra and snow." In what sense were they "seen as living on the tundra and snow"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed, outdated. FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Cultural significance", subsection "Cryptozoology", paragraph 2: "In the late 19th century, there were persistent rumours about surviving mammoths hiding in Alaska." "Hiding"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from FutureTrillionaire

• Comment - I recommend connecting the paragraph that starts with "In 2012, a juvenile was..." and the one that starts with "Another mammoth discovery was..." The content seems to be related, and connecting them would fix the problem of having stubby paragraphs.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, it was actually like this originally, but was changed during copy editing, so a welcome change for me. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Since short citations are already being used (Lister), all citations that cite different pages from the same work should be cited using short citations for consistency. The citations for Sloane's article (currently FN 2 and 3) should be changed to short citations. I haven't checked all the citations, but any that cite different pages from a same source should be changed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Sloan citations are all from different works. And no other source is cited from different pages. In any case, specific page (short) citations are usually only required for books, not scientific papers. My experience from previous FACS, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's still two citations for the Guthrie's 2004 Nature paper (currently FN 23 and 72). These should be combined with a refname.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good catch, I thought the cite doi template would automatically merge, bit I've now done it manually. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the rest of the citations, and didn't find any significant issue, except that the 1929 Tolmachoff article is cited twice, each citation citing different pages. If what FunkMonk says about short citations not needed for journals is true, I suppose this is not a problem. However, FN 104 (2nd Tolmachoff citation) has a huge page range (11-74). I spot-checked the source. It looks like the info is just from page 11. However, I don't see Iran mentioned anywhere in the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll check it out and merge/remove uncited stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, good catch, seems to have been another case where I had not added cite doi all places where it was possible. As for Iran (probably added by an IP), no need to be so specific, so just wrote "Asia". FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice. However, the citation for "Between 1692 and 1806, only four descriptions of frozen mammoths were published in Europe. None of the remains of those five were recovered, and no complete skeleton was recovered during that time" got replaced with page 11 of Tolmachoff's article. The problem is page 11 does not support that statement. I believe the original citation had pages 21-23. I recommend changing the page range of the combined ref from "11" to "11, 21-23".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Made it 11-23. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As far as I can see, this article is well-sourced, well-written and comprehensive. Nice job.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Ettrig

This article seems to be thoroughly reviewed and supported by every reviewer. It should be approved now. One superficial comment though. The intro is very long. I suggest the following exclusions.

The woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) was a species of mammoth, the common name for the extinct elephant genus Mammuthus. The woolly mammoth was one of the last in a line of mammoth species, beginning with Mammuthus subplanifrons in the early Pliocene. M. primigenius diverged from the steppe mammoth, M. trogontherii, about 200,000 years ago in eastern Asia. Genetic studies have shown that its closest extant relative is the Asian elephant.

The appearance and behaviour of this species are among the best studied of any prehistoric animal due to the discovery of frozen carcasses in Siberia and Alaska, as well as skeletons, teeth, stomach contents and dung. Their depiction from life in prehistoric cave paintings has also helped scientists to reconstruct their appearance. Mammoth remains had long been known in Asia before they became known to Europeans in the 17th century. The origin of these remains was long a matter of debate, and often explained as being remains of legendary creatures. The animal was only identified as an extinct species of elephant by Georges Cuvier in 1796.

--Ettrig (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Trimmed, though I think the Cuvier part was an important inclusion there. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 2: Year range needs ndash not hyphen

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 4 gives page not found

Link has been dead for a while. I'll replace if I can find alternate sources. But as far as I understand, dead links are still considered verifiable?[8] FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Archived version of the link from 27 September 2007 is at http://web.archive.org/web/20070927013323/http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/otherFossils/mammuthus.php , if you want to use it (with archiveurl= and archivedate= params). GermanJoe (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 12: page range needs ndash not hyphen (there are others - please check)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 65 requires a pp. not p.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 77: requires a page reference

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 80: requires pp. not p.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 81: requires page reference and should have oclc

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 90: another case of pp.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 94: publisher is BBC News rather than "The BBC"

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 101 should have access date

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 102: Publisher is not The Daily Telegraph newspaper, but the Telegraph online.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 111 needs subscription template

What is that? FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Added one (it's just an info template for site links to mark sites with required subscription). GermanJoe (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 113: How does this qualify as a high-quality, reliable source?

Well, it is hosted by Tacoma Public Library[9], so it isn't unreliable as such, but I see what you mean. Could be nice to know the original publication venue (article is from 1960), but I don't know what it is. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of internet research on Henry C Morgan. He appears to be quite respected as a local historian, and has published a number of books. On that acccount I think we can accept his essay as reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look fine. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Pls address dablink for Lausanne Conference. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Changed, there is no appropriate article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.