Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bonn–Oberkassel dog/archive1

Bonn–Oberkassel dog

Featured article candidates/Bonn–Oberkassel dog/archive1

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bonn–Oberkassel dog is one of the oldest known examples of a domestic dog that modern archaeology is pretty sure about. We've found more late Paleolithic dogs since it was discovered in the 1910s, but what's most important about this little pup is the evidence of early veterinary care, and how ancient humans cared for this creature, seemingly out of compassion alone. I hope you enjoy reading, and I hope I can make any changes needed to bring this article to the best state it can be. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Ob9.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

Will review. Feel free to refuse my comments with proper justification. I assume that this article is written in British English? 750 h+ 12:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead

while the other bones from the dog were placed into the ==> "while the dog's other bones were put into the"
40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height and weighed add a comma before "and"
Osteoarthritis, alongside signs of enamel defects, missing teeth, and gum disease indicate add a comma before "disease"
it may have been due to effects of its illness ==> "it may have been due to the effects of its illness"

background

populations of gray wolves ==> "populations of grey wolves"
A number of prehistoric dog burials are known ==> "(Several/numerous) prehistoric dog burials are known"
A large number of Magdalenian dog ==> "Many Magdalenian dog"

discovery and research history

On 18 February, 1914, workmen at remove the comma after "February"
A number of other animal ==> "Several other animal"
grouping a number of other bone ==> "grouping other bone"
in 1993 specified this age to slightly later than originally thought ==> "in 1993 specified this age as slightly later than originally thought"
and grouped a number of other ==> "and grouped several other"
created a catalog of the ==> "created a catalogue of the"
Finds of domestic dogs prior to this are ==> "Finds of domestic dogs before this are"

physical description

identifiable bone fragments are known from the ==> "identifiable bone fragments known are from the"
closes at an age of 7 months i'd remove "an age of" since the reader would probably know that you're talking about age

health

a behavior potentially ==> "a behaviour potentially"
prior to the end of the Iron Age ==> "before the end of the Iron Age"
falling down without control. remove "down"
from the vomit and diarrhea caused by ==> "from the vomit and diarrhoea caused by"
if it was killed in order to bury it alongside ==> "if it was killed to bury it alongside"

second dog

differed in color from the other teeth ==> "differed in colour from the other teeth"

Whilst reviewing I was a bit confused as to whether we were using British or American English, as it is a German dog. Feel free to refuse the British English suggestions if the latter's the case. Fine work overall. 750 h+ 13:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Made changes and added explicit english variant tag. Thank you for your review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support 750 h+ 16:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

I've been wondering if this one would come up here for a while. Greatly enjoyed reading -- comments below which are, as ever, suggestions rather than demands. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to get the dog's rough date into the first paragraph, if not the first sentence: I know we give "Late Palaeolithic", but most readers won't know what that means beyond "a really long time ago".
The Bonn–Oberkassel dog (German: Hund von Bonn–Oberkassel) is a Late Paleolithic dog: I think we would say was, wouldn't we? In the same way as "Christopher Wren was an architect who is buried in St Paul's Cathedral"?
put into the university's Geological Collections: I think we should decap here, unless that name was used in a very formal sense (for the British Museum, for example, we would talk about its Roman collection, or the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities)
32 identifiable bone fragments have been attributed to the dog: MOS:FIGURES discourages starting a sentence with a number in figures.
It was around 7.5 months old at death, 40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height, and weighed 13–18 kg (29–40 lb), suggesting a slender build similar to the Indian wolf or some modern sighthounds.: again, I would be tempted to promote this to the first paragraph, as this is pretty fundamental information as to what readers are picturing to be the subject of the article. The current final sentence of the first paragraph could then be "demoted" to the second, as that information becomes useful and interesting once we know what this animal is that we're talking about.
40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height: this isn't quite idiomatic: you've done it much better in the body with tall at the shoulder.
the Bonn–Oberkassel dog suffered from a canine distemper infection as a puppy: for humans, admittedly, but most medical style guides (including the MoS) discourage "suffered from (WP:SUFFER). Could do "survived", and rework the next sentence slightly?
It might be a nice touch to do a double-image in the lead, with the second image being a modern dog(s) of similar build (e.g. an Indian wolf and a sighthound?).
Expansive human care: "Expansive" means "over a wide area"; I think we mean "extensive" ("very thorough").
suggests significant compassion towards the dog: or, more cynically, that the dog was very useful?
A dog molar belonging to a separate, older dog: I would cut the first dog: it would be surprising for the dog to have owned some other animal's molar. "Second" might be a more natural word here than "separate"?
I would link "domestication" on the word "domesticated".
place the origin of dogs to a population of East Asian wolves c. 39,000 BP.: you place something in or with something, not to it.
Numerous prehistoric dog burials are known, spanning from ritualistic and symbolic burial to simple corpse disposal out of hygienic concern: I think we need to be a bit careful about motives in this article; we often speculate about religious, compassionate, hygenic or so on motivations, but the honest truth is that we have no idea what far-ancient people were thinking when they carried out death practices. In particular, I'd need a lot of convincing that we can trace a meaningful distinction between "we should bury that dead thing because it's dirty" and "we should bury that dead thing to avoid religious pollution/the anger of the spirits that comes from being around dead things", or indeed that people in the Paleolithic would have drawn one themselves.
There are quite a lot of "many", "some" and similar words in the Background section. Can we give a ballpark for these numbers?
"rechter Unterkiefer vom Wolf": when quoting in italics, we don't use quote marks, but what's the rationale for the German here at all?
While the Oberkassel skeletons themselves were put into storage in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, animal remains from the site were split into two groups: I would cut themselves and put human before Oberkassel, as the dog's remains are, strictly, a skeleton.
In the late 1970s, a student studying the Oberkassel site rediscovered the separated material within the university collections: can we name-check them?
Use a lang template for words like Landesmuseum, with |italic=no, so that screen readers handle them correctly.
A 1982 study: similarly, can we name and, ideally, cite it? In general, when we refer to a specific work of scholarship directly, it's good to be able to cite it and, if possible, direct interested readers towards it.
dating to 15,000–13,500 BP: this needs a circa.
Finds of domestic dogs before this are tentative and disputed: in the Background section, we gave 17,000 BP as the terminus ante quem for dogs being "well-established" in the Magdalenian.
This made the dog the earliest known example of a domesticated animal.: do we mean the Oberkassel dog specifically, or the dog in general? Would clarify. Might be nice to add a footnote to say what the next couple are?
I would link premaxilla and coronoid process in the footnote; we have generally done similar in the body text.
dates the dog to c. 14,000 BP (c. 12,000 BCE), with estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction: firstly, I would give the BP/BCE equivalence the first time we use BP, and then not again. Secondly, are you sure about "estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction"? That's more precision than I'd expect in an estimate that far back: it's more usual to write something like "15,000 BP ± 200 years", which means that the tools involved are only precise enough to give a reading that's accurate to within about 200 years either way, not that someone thinks it's 15,000 BP, someone things 15,100, and so on.
The cranial growth plate of the lumbar vertebra is closed: can we explain, without unduly bothering the reader with details, what it means for a growth plate to be open or closed?
The dog's remaining canine tooth showed heavy abrasion and enamel loss, resembling cage biter syndrome. However, since wrought metal only emerged in the Chalcolithic, this wear was likely due to compulsive stone chewing: I think we could make this a bit tighter and say something like "The dog's remaining canine tooth showed heavy abrasion and enamel loss, probably caused by compulsive stone chewing". The Chalcolithic is a long way away from the Paleolithic, so any talk of cages is just going to confuse people.
Osteoarthritis is extremely rare in dog remains before the end of the Iron Age; one of the only other known cases is a buried dog from the Anderson site in Tennessee, c. 7000 BP: slightly devil's advocate, but how many specimens are we working with here (OK, I know there's quite a lot from the Bronze Age, but how many really comparable examples have we got?), and how many of them were old enough to get what is usually a disease of old age? How visible is it on a skeleton, anyway (I notice we're diagnosing it by a proxy here, which isn't perfect -- just ask Donald Trump).
Most typical causes of elbow osteoarthritis in modern young dogs are unlikely to have created the bone spurs seen in the Bonn–Oberkassel dog: similarly, I would explain this by outlining what these causes typically are.
in a study of 544 wild dogs and wolves, not one had the horizontal enamel damage typical of the disease in puppies: I don't know whether it needs to be said that all of those animals died (or were killed) in adulthood?
Caring for the dog would have had no practical purpose for humans, as the prolonged disease required significant effort and likely prevented training.: again, I want to believe this but have to be a little cynical: the humans may well have considered it possible that the dog would recover, and therefore become or remain valuable. Compassion isn't the only possible motivation here.
It is unknown whether the dog died from its past illness or other natural causes, or if it was killed to bury it alongside the two humans.: do any of the studies note signs (or absence thereof) of cut marks on the bones? I'm particularly interested in the possibility of butchery here.
One estimation, extrapolated from the diameter of a left diaphyseal humeral fragment, estimated the height at shoulder level as 46.8 cm: this isn't really extrapolated in a strict sense (you can't extrapolate from a single data point, or from apples to oranges): based on? Suggest linking the technical terms and converting the cm value.
When Dogs and People were Buried Together: Were is a verb, so capitalise.
The Oldest Case Yet Reported of Osteoarthritis in a Dog: an Archaeological and Radiological Evaluation: in title case, capitalise the first word after a colon or similar. Likewise for Morrey 2006.
Can we use |trans-journal= for the two German-language journals?
Some journals have ISSNs, others don't: advise consistency.

FM

I somehow missed this when first glancing the nominations page, I guess because of the long placenames, but seems right up my alley. Will have a look soon, probably after UC's issues are resolved so we don't tread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[1]

Various anatomical terms like premaxilla, maxillary, coronoid, etc., should be linked, and perhaps even explained in parenthesis (see recent palaeontology FA articles for example).

Not much that can be done about it, but I wonder if the diagrams tagged as de minimis here[2] aren't really based on some images that are already in the public domain. Perhaps Mariomassone has come across them in their many image searches for canids? William Harris may also be interested, if not entirely inactive. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @FunkMonk: They appear to be based on this. The pose is exactly the same. Mariomassone (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Just a suggestion, but based on the measurements, couldn't someone do a size chart like this one? Mariomassone (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems extremely close to the diagram, well spotted! I think that could be linked as a possibility in the photo's Commons description to avoid copyright claims. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"including the "rechter Unterkiefer vom Wolf", 'the right lower jaw of a wolf'" Why do we need a seemingly random snippet of German text here? I think it would make more sense to include the German nickname for the specimen in the article body if anything.

Do we have any other images of artifacts from the site that could be shown for flavour?

Perhaps a location map of the site?

"While the Oberkassel skeletons themselves" Specify "human", the dog is also a skeleton.

Link the term canine.

Link Domestication of the dog instead of just the general domestication article.

"later supported by separate radiocarbon dating taken by Kiel University" Give year?

Is this supposed to be UK or US English? I see both paleo (US), palaeo (UK), archaeo (UK), catalog (US), color (US) etc., should be consistent.

Link Radiocarbon dating.

Not sure how important this is, but you use Latin plural for vertebrae, but common English plural for scapulas and ulnas (should also be "ae" if you go the same way).

"Modern scholarship dates the dog to c. 14,000 BP (c. 12,000 BCE), with estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction." Why is this under physical description?

"as 46.8 cm" Give conversion as you do for other measurements.

The article body says "comparable to the Indian wolf and some breeds of sighthound" while the adjacent caption has more detail "similar to West Asian wolves (such as the Indian wolf), or some modern sighthounds, such as the Saluki", which could be repeated in the article body, which is where the main unique info should be.

This image[3] has no description template on Commons and only German text; it should have a template and English text as well.

Could probably briefly explain in-text what pica is.

Link University of Bonn in intro.

Any more info about the buried humans and their culture for context?

There's a nice close up of the skull material[4], a bit of a shame not to use it.