Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cougar

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 18:03, 4 June 2007.

---

Cougar

Here is the second largest cat of the Americas, its page modeled after the largest. It was a something of a mess when I started on it and the expansion and reorganization have been massive. Everybody's favourite question is "when will it show up in the East?" but I have tried to deemphasize this, per due weight. Unfortunately, Can/US coverage remains over-represented. I could find very little summative info for Central and South America. Refs are primarily research abstracts and .gov pages, along with a few conservation mags and groups. "In culture" is deliberately short—no random lists, please. Thanks all, Marskell 13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One special note: there has been some debate amongst fauna editors over the capitalization. (For: an animal name is a proper noun; Against: very few sources do it.) Not to sidetrack this nomination, but a one sentence opinion from people would be appreciated. I'm still willing to be talked in to upper case. Marskell 13:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — There is no mention made of a cougar's excellent tree-climbing (and tree-hopping) ability: both while hunting and when it needs to escape dogs. — RJH (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You may have missed it: "The cougar is also adept at climbing and can even swim (although it is not strongly associated with water); its climbing ability allows the cougar to evade canine competitors." - is that acceptable? Carcharoth 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I could have sworn that a text search on "climb" didn't find anything relevant. :-) An old trapping book happened to mention that they also hunt from ambush by leaping from trees. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think we have this covered as well: "... the cougar is typically an ambush predator. It stalks through brush and trees, across ledges, or other covered spots, before delivering a powerful leap onto the back of prey and a suffocating neck bite." Marskell 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • If I read that without knowing any better, I wouldn't have a clue that a cougars pounce on prey from tree branches. No matter. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Some initial comments

• I've read the lead section, and, without looking at the rest of the article (which may contain the requested information), I have the following comments:
  • "Due to historical persecution and continuing human development of cougar habitat, populations have dropped in many parts of its historical range, including almost all of eastern North America. Recent conservation efforts have allowed numbers to improve in some areas." - I know this is the lead section, but a few dates here would be nice - which parts of history are you referring to by "historical", and when exactly is "recently" (think of people reading the article in 5 or 10 years time). A "nineteenth century" or "twentieth century" sentence, plus a "early twenty-first century" sentence might help summarise the recent history.
  • How would you feel about putting "(cat)" after Felidae? That would bridge the switch from Felidae in one sentence to cat in the next.
  • Still in the lead section, the 'territorial' paragraph fits better if merged with the first part of the 'range' paragraph, and the 'persecution and conservation' part of the 'range' paragraph would be better as the concluding paragraph. ie. Move "Due to historical persecution and continuing human development of cougar habitat, populations have dropped in many parts of its historical range, including almost all of eastern North America. Recent conservation efforts have allowed numbers to improve in some areas." to the end of the lead section, and move the paragraph breaks as needed.
  • Can you say anything in the lead about the evolution and fossil record of this animal? There is a bit in the taxonomy section, and a one or two sentence summary of that in the lead would be nice.
  • In a similar vein, a brief mention of the mythological aspects in the lead would be nice. I agree that the culture mentions can be left out of the lead.
  • The 'See also' link to Pumapard is a loose end that could be tidied up by covering hybrids in this article and linking from within the text. Then you can lose the 'See also' section completely.
  • There are four subspecies redlinks. Is it best to create stubs for these or leave them as red-links for someone to do properly?
  • Have you tried looking for free pics of cougar young? Would Image:Mountain lion kittens.jpg be acceptable? Also, mythological representations of cougars should be easy to find free pics of. I'll have a look myself, but if I don't find anything, someone should keep looking, though the mythology and culture section needs expanding as it currently feels like a bit of an afterthought.
• Haven't had time to check the references, but they look good, and the article overall looks good. Carcharoth 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have refactored the intro significantly, so you may need to read again. I'd been scratching my head about what, after defining the species, should come first. I've decided range is most important, followed by the size comparisons in the lead paragraph. I added "European colonization of the Americas" to date declining numbers, though that can probably sharpened, and expanded the mention generally. I'll date it better in the body first. I've given a nod to mythology, as well as its many names. Your pic suggestion (thx!) has been inserted.

Ho hum, I disagree with much of the rest:

"(cat)" after Felidae. I've debated whether to make the first sentence less formal, but decided against it. It's a mammal of the Felidae family—that's a basic scientific description on a biological topic. I can dab Felidae as "cat family," but we should give our readers credit. It's abundantly clear the cougar is a cat.

Redlinks. I don't like token filling-in of redlinks. I wonder, in this case, what would really be said in a sub-article. Unless there's much info, they should be probably be redirected to this page.

Can you say anything in the lead about the evolution and fossil record of this animal. Yes, we could, but once done a paragraph needs to be devoted to it. I think this over-specific. If you want one sentence, I can try to insert it somewhere.

Thanks for the comments. I hope the change to the intro is an improvement. Marskell 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The changes to the intro have improved it. Thanks. Though I tend to think (per WP:LEAD) that the initial section should be a self-contained summary of the article, rather than just an introduction, hence I'd lump in a sentence on breeding habits as well as the evolution/fossil stuff (I'd suggest "It is thought that the common ancestor of the cougar and related cats migrated to the Americas between 8 and 8.5 million years ago", just to give an idea of the timescale. Having said that, I'm used to looking at leads for longer articles. With mid-sized articles, shorter leads are better, so I won't belabour that point.
• There are still a few date inconsistencies. Sometimes you fail to put the date of a claim or survey in the article text, and leave the reader to find it in the reference. For example:

"The cougar's total breeding population is estimated at less than 50,000 by the IUCN, with a declining trend.[2] U.S. state-level statistics are often more optimistic, suggesting cougar populations have rebounded from their nadir. In Oregon, a healthy population of 5,000 was reported in 2006, exceeding a target of 3,000.[27] California has actively sought to protect the cat and a similar number of cougars has been suggested, between 4,000 and 6,000.[28]"

For the first and last sentences, I had to look down to the references to see that the IUCN list being referred to is the 2006 list, while the California statistic dates from 2004. For the middle sentence, you give the date in the article text as well as the reference.

• "there is on-going debate" - this sort of thing really needs a date. You can't rely on yourself or others keeping the article up-to-date. As of 2007, or a similar phrasing, is designed for this sort of thing.
• I've put some other stuff on the talk page (cultural references, I'm afraid...). I try and copyedit the article later tonight as well, as there are a few tweaks that might be better done "in the field" rather than explained on this page. Carcharoth 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Carch, I've added "although it is most closely related to smaller felines" to give a nod to taxonomy. Marskell 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment—based on the lead, there are a few lingering issues with the prose. Examples from the lead:
  • "Its primary food is deer, particularly in its northern range," "northern range"?
  • "it has been known to attack humans, but rarely." Perhaps..."it attacks humans only rarely" or something similar?
  • "Particularly, the cougar was extirpated in almost all of eastern North America as human settlement increased." Recommend replacing "almost all" with "most". The next sentence should clarify "cougar" numbers.
  • The "on-going" in "on-going debate" can be removed without changing the meaning. Same with "different" in the next sentence.
• Mostly subjective. — Deckiller 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In reading, I think "northern range" is acceptable to denote the "northern part of its range;" however, I have changed to make it clear. Leaving "almost all" as that is the correct emphasis. I have removed improving numbers in next as I don't want to suggest that for the species in general. It now reads "Particularly, the cougar was extirpated in almost all of eastern North America as human settlement increased, although there is debate over possible recolonization." Second and fourth were changed per suggestions. Marskell 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support it could stand a copy-edit (Its primary food is deer, particularly in its northern range, but it will hunt species as small as insects and rodents, as well as large ungulates) and a few details need clarification (Cougars are smallest close to the equator, and populations increase in size as they approach the poles: the cat's size or the population size?; ...learned, individual behaviour was observed, as some cougars rarely killed bighorn sheep, while others relied heavily on the species: what learning is going on here?), but overall it is a good read and seems comprehensive. Uppercase (though I'll always argue for keeping the status quo in an established article). Yomangani^talk 00:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked both. The second shows that prey recognition is learned. Marskell 04:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

• Comment nearly there but I think the FA criteria of prose is an important one and have a couple of queries:

Subheading Physical characteristics - physical is redundant (what other types are there?), and characteristics too vague. I'd use description

The higher end of the cougar length range equals that of the jaguar... sounds ungainly. Should be a straightforward rephrase.

The length of adult males is typically reported at around.. why not just "Adult males are..."

Powerful forequarters, neck, and jaw serve to grasp and hold large prey. sound notey. I'd stick a "the" in front of it.

Excepting human beings.. umm, "Apart from.." or "Humans aside..." or something.

In lead It is on average the second heaviest cat.. - you could lose the"on average"

secretive - "reclusive" probably a better adjective here.

Conservation efforts have allowed numbers to improve in.. - improve is subjective, "increase" is better.

Anyway, you've done a great job and I'll be happy to support soon. If you disagree with any of the above I am open to debate. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The last six have all been changed per suggestions, thx. I'll try to rephrase second but can't think of anything at the moment. On first, I don't think "Physical" is redundant at all—all sorts of words can go before "characteristics". Marskell 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I still think Description is more succinct and hence conforms more under MOS but it is not a deal-breaker. congraqts cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an extremely well-written article-- worthy of praise. The writing is clear, strong and information-rich. I really enjoyed reading it. Sean7phil 05:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good! Marskell 06:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: When writing about species behavior, it's often preferable to use the present tense instead of the future. This makes the prose more active and engaging for the reader without changing the meaning. For example, "it will hunt species as small as insects and rodents, as well as large ungulates" becomes "it hunts species as small as insects and rodents, as well as large ungulates" and "Female cougars will begin to mate between one-and-a-half and three years of age" becomes "Female cougars begin to mate between one-and-a-half and three years of age" (and maybe change to "enter sexual maturity"? "Begin mating" sounds like they start having coitus and never stop . . .) Perhaps a good copy edit is in order? — Brian (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly the future when used like this, but a kind of perfective grammatical aspect. Or something like that. In any case, I over-use it and have audited most instances out. Marskell 12:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - following the light copyediting, I am supporting this well-written article. It is a pleasure to read and a good introduction to the subject. It would be nice to have more on the Central and South American populations, so that should be an ongoing task for the editors of this article. Carcharoth 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It was night and day: all sorts of American and Canadian info, and an absolute dearth of southern stuff. And, unfortunately, the Spanish and Portugese Wiki pages are just-past-stub, so nothing to raid there. All in good time, I hope. Marskell 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a lot of info at this site which comes up with a search on Venezuela; I didn't check if it's a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Tim, I spent 20 minutes providing examples of problems and then my connection failed, taking my work with it. I think fresh eyes are required to iron out problems in the writing. Some of these are logical issues. One or two people who've worked on the language of animal articles might be willing. Tony 14:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The main picture has some kind of licensing problem and is scheduled to be deleted. I can copyedit the article, however I'm really busy for the next few days so it may take a while. Kla'quot 08:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Clay, I took care of your fact request. Thank you for the ce run through. Dammit, if that picture goes—I think it's gorgeous. Marskell 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'm still in the midst of copyediting and will drop a note here when I think it's done. Perhaps someone could contact the copyright holder of the photo and ask if they are willing to license it under Creative Commons or GFDL? People are often very willing to free-license a photo if someone asks nicely. Cheers, Kla'quot 04:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is very good. I'm still working on the copyedit though, and I think the Taxonomy section needs quite a bit of cleanup to make it more understandable to a layperson. I'll take a shot at it using our friends Jaguar and Common Raven as models. Unfortunately, I believe the licensing problem with the main picture is also a showstopper for FA status. Can someone take an action item to either secure a free license for it, or upload a free replacement? Kla'quot 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also regarding pictures, the article could use more pictures of cougars and cougar tracks. There are some very good free-licensed photos here: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=mountain+lion&l=commderiv&ct=0 . We could also hit up the owners of these photos here for a release: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=mountain%20lion&w=all . Kla'quot 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kla'quot. I'd noticed your removal of certain technical items—"sympatric," "intraspecific," "morbidity" etc. I'm somewhat ambivalent. Jargon should be avoided in the lead, hence I'll take "extinct" over "extirpated," though extirpated is more proper in context, as near as I can tell. But I don't want to remove these items completely—you should receive a small education when you read a Wiki page, which includes new vocabulary. One way to put it: I'm a complete amateur, and I can understand the terms after some reading. I don't think taxonomy is a problem, for instance (though I would say that, because I don't have fresh eyes on the writing.)

You're welcome. As for the technical terms, my general feeling is that if there's a concept that the term represents, such as crepuscular, it's worth including. Otherwise, teaching the term tends to break the flow. It's not a big deal though - I'm sure we can work these details out and the issue shouldn't affect FA status. Kla'quot 06:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have shuffled the pic out for the timebeing, and will send off an e-mail regarding it (I've generally had luck with that). I'll check your links for others. Cheers, Marskell 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ack. The links are censored for me (UAE). Could you upload any you think useful? Marskell 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Working on it. Dude, you should move back to Canada, we let people look at Flickr here! Kla'quot 06:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work on the pics. Some sort of collar is just visible in the top one, but otherwise it's beautiful. Marskell 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Another comment: Something should be added about the vocal behaviour of the cougar. It can't roar, but I believe it can purr, call, and hiss. Kla'quot 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thx, done. It had been in the back of my head to add it. Marskell 15:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Support I've given the article a copyedit. As far as I can tell, it is factually accurate and based on high-quality sources. I have found it to be very interesting and enjoyable to read. Kla'quot 00:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Article is very informative, well-written, well-referenced, etc. Though, it would be nice to see the subspecies links (e.g. Argentine Puma) turn blue with small stub articles. --Aude (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Copyedit needs seem cleared up now, beautiful article! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.