Talk:Brown bear/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Evolution and taxonomy

Extended content

Why is the Etymology in this section? Done "Generalized names and evolution" is an odd heading. Maybe just "Evolution" would work better. Done "these two types broadly define the range of sizes of all brown bear subspecies." - but we don't mention their sizes till much later, so this is pretty cryptic. Since these are only types not subspecies, maybe move the whole sentence down to where the sizes are discussed. But I'm not sure it's needed down there either. Done 2 trees: since they are the same for all but Ursinae, consider cutting tree 2 down to Ursinae ("An alternative phylogeny for the Ursinae ..."). Done BTW we don't use terms like "below" to indicate diagrams and images as browsers do all sorts of things with image placement. Done "(known either as a pizzly bear or a grolar bear)" - tone is not encyclopedic, let's do without. Done "A bear shot ... or a grizzly bear." - not sure this single doubtful specimen is worth mentioning really. The ref doesn't have a page number, either. Done I wonder whether we shouldn't have the recently-extinct species in the tree, if there's a decent source. Found [1] So you're adding Aurorarctos † to the tree? I'm not sure, what do you think? Note that the tree in Aurorarctos, sourced to Jiangzuo & Flynn, 2020, shows Arctodus and Tremarctos too: as these are in the Arctotheriini they're closer to the Ursini; and there are multiple extinct Ursini shown to. I suppose we could use a cut-down Pleistocene tree rooted at Ursinae (and † marks would help to distinguish the species), but I agree it's all a bit marginal for a species article, might be better to leave it for Ursinae and other such groupings. Perhaps just mention that U. arctos shared North America with several other Pleistocene species. Implemented last suggestion.

Description

Extended content
Maybe "Coloration" would be a better section name than "Color" as we're describing coloration patterns like "a yellowish-brown or whitish collar across the neck, chest and shoulders". Done "have been found to typically measure" -> "measure". Done

Distribution and habitat

Extended content

US with 32,500 ... Alaska ... 32,000. So the first is "contiguous US"? No, it's all of the United States. So there are just 500 grizzlies in the whole of the contiguous US, when there are 1000 just in Yellowstone? That makes -500 in the rest of the landmass ... Fixed error If so, the numbers don't sum to 200,000 ... 194, 500 is close enough, I think the rest may be captive bears. " 16,000 ft)(the latter in the Himalayas)." -> " 16,000 ft in the Himalayas." Done Ursus arctos syriacus and Ursus arctos isabellinus can both be abbreviated. Done

Behavior and life history

Extended content

"Cubs flee up a tree, if available, when they see a strange male bear and the mother often successfully defends them, even though the male may be twice as heavy as she, although females have been known to die in these confrontations." - too long, repeated "even though ... although"; please split and reword. I suggest "as heavy as her". Done "Conclusively, the individual power of the bear against the collective strength of the wolf pack usually results in a long battle for kills or domination." - reads oddly (WP:OR?) and isn't cited. Suggest remove, or rewrite and cite. Removed "a recent increase" - when? done We are missing at least a brief word on diseases and parasites. done

• Some sort of graphic (like a pie chart) would be extremely helpful for typical diet (mammals/fish/insects/berries/roots and shoots) as the text is not easy to visualize for this sort of thing, if we can find a table of suitable data (surely we can: Bojarska 2012, page 131 for instance). If so, may be easiest to use Excel to make the graphic and then press Export to save as a pic to upload to Commons. I ccan do this if you like.
  • Nah, it's cool. I know how to do that.
    • Forgot about this one, will complete tomorrow.
      • @Chiswick Chap: I don't currently have a laptop; I lent it to my sister earlier today so she could use it for her school assignment. She is returning it tomorrow. In addition, I'm always busy and never have time to myself. So please do the honors, and I apologize for the inconvenient and lengthy process. I won't be available for the next 20 hours or so. Again, sorry. 20 upper (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
        • Actually this can't be a GA requirement, just something that would be a definite improvement.

Relationship with humans

Extended content

We are missing a section on Bear hunting (another "Main" link). Note that this covers eating bear meat. Done We should mention bear meat dishes, which include roasts and stews, at least: either under 'Hunting' or as a separate section. More suggestions are listed in the 'fly-by' comment at the end of this page. Done So we would have 3 or 4 subsections under 'Relationship with humans', of roughly equal length: 'Bear attack' (or near offer, 'Physical encounters with bears' maybe), 'Bear hunting' (and cuisine), and 'Culture'. The 'Bear attack' section should be no longer than the others: the requirements of balance, and neutral point of view should visibly hold good. I think that Bear attack should be a "Main" link for a large part of this, implying that much of the text should be condensed: or rather, that it should be replaced by a short "summary style" paragraph not unlike the lead section of that "Main" article. Done Hm, it's improved but still too much (aim for a single terse paragraph); and there isn't a "main" link at the top. Shortened a bit, but I think the information is now sufficient. The image "Ancient depiction of a brown bear in the arena (Papyrus 3053)" doesn't seem relevant to the section.

Culture

Extended content

Teddy bear needs to be mentioned, along with Teddy Roosevelt (Human uses of mammals#As toys may help); and an image, please. Comment: The Teddy bear was originally based on a black bear not a brown bear. LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Maybe we need to say (and cite) that the bear's image is cuddly: remarkable for a top predator, by the way. Comment: My opinion, it can be difficult to separate cultural references to the brown bear from that of bears in general. especially in areas where there are multiple species and the brown bear is the archetypal bear. I would stick to Native American legends specifically about the brown bear (apparently they saw it as the big brother to the black bear) and European bear references, since there are no other bears in Europe. LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Better say the California grizzly is extinct. Ah, you have done that one but not noted it here. Bears often figure: indeed, but signifying what? A monstrous beast (to be transformed into), evidently, but not as vicious as the wolf ... I think we need to say something on that front. Bears are never portrayed as "monsters" but as "cute" Hmm, really.... but I think we now have "the main points" here covered. Russian Bear needs a source; I suggest it should also have an image: Commons has good political cartoons to choose from. Suggest the images in this section are organised into a small gallery. Done

Images

• All are relevant, from Commons, and plausibly licensed.

Sources

Extended content

Heptner and Sludskii 1992 is listed in Bibliography, which seems sensible; but [125] repeats the whole citation (in more detail) but gives the "Hyaenas and Cats" section (?!) which is pp. 95–202, much too broad a page range. Further, Heptner and Naumov 1998, which seems to be a later edition of the same book, is cited as [54], 5 times, but to the whole of "Part 1a Sirenia and Carnivora (Sea cows; Wolves and Bears)" of the volume, which is not sufficiently precise; it's also cited just as "Heptner" (undated, unpaged) in [58]; and if we have the 1998 edition, we should ditch the 1992 edition and update the refs. Basically all of these need to be re-cited with more precision and to a single edition. Done [10] needs page no. for quote. Fixed [17] major ref. [18] needs page nos. Fixed [19] Harris is a 1631-page book! It's at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236842872_Pleistocene_Vertebrates_of_Arizona_New_Mexico_and_Trans-Pecos_Texas/link/02e7e51953996c7896000000/download so suggest we add the URL and the page numbers of the bear material, please. Fixed [33] The 5 clades are mitochondrial DNA, see page 27 of Servheen. Fixed [41] needs page no. Fixed [45], [46] both need entry names or page nos. Fixed [53] needs entry name or page nos. Fixed [59-62] ([61] has many refs) need page nos. [61] Hunter needs to go into the cite book template. Fixed What makes [66] Rolling Hills Wildlife Adventure a reliable source? Fixed I guess [77] N. Am. Bear Center is borderline reliable but a scholarly source would be better here. Fixed [90] ref is incomplete, need pages (232–242) and Conference, whatever it may have been. This is very old, you may want to replace it. Fixed [91–92] need page nos. Fixed What makes [96] Bear-hunting.org a reliable source? Fixed [97] needs page nos. Fixed [102] needs page nos. Fixed [110] needs language tag (French) and page nos. It's very old, we should really have a newer source for this, such as [17]. Fixed [111] also very old and needs page nos, suggest replace. Fixed What makes [114] Shadow of the Bear a reliable source? Fixed [129] Seryodkin thesis (guess that's ok) needs narrower page range than whole volume please. Fixed [131] Peter Matthiessen (novelist, travel writer) is an odd thing to cite here? Fixed [140] needs page no. Fixed [144-145] Intellectual observer, Adams: these are terribly old sources, doubt if we can rely on them for actual zoology. Fixed [149] needs entry or page nos. Fixed [157-158] Herrero needs page nos, would be better to use just one edition too. Fixed [160] is doubtfully usable, and it's about black bears; surely we have better sources for this. Fixed [162] Cornish: as per 144-145. Fixed

Summary

Extended content

The article reads pretty well, with some gaps as identified. The rather variable and sometimes antique sourcing is clearly the biggest issue that needs fixing. The newer zoology sources like [61] Hunter and [17] ASM should sort this without too much trouble. One small thing - the word "also" appears about 18 times in the text, adding ... not very much. Maybe do a quick sweep of the less useful also-rans... Done

OK, I think we've crossed the finish line. There is plainly more that could be done (including a chart or two); and it would plainly be better to get the next article rather more complete before bringing it to GAN. But we're there, good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Fly-by comment

Extended content

I think that the "Relationship with humans" section does not adequately cover the topic. It is mostly about bear attacks; this section is way out of proportion. There is very little about the importance this species played in human history. For example, mention appearance in cave paintings; Mythology (Greek, Nordic, Native American etc., including mythology surrounding Ursa major); heraldry; bears for entertainment (for example, in the arenas of Ancient Rome; in circuses; as tame bears); problems of bears killing life stock (in fact more important than bear attacks on humans); hunting of bears for various reasons; use in traditional Chinese medicine (which is why many bears in Asia are currently killed), etc. It is a long list, but the article currently has nothing on this apart from some notes about modern popular culture. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I still agree, despite the improvements to the chapter. Hunting is now covered, but the other topics need to be incorporated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Dancing bears: thanks, but the "hot metal plates" is just one method. Better say "for example" or something of that sort. The "In captivity" section should go before the "Culture" section so we group the material about real bears separately from the material about stories about bears. OK, completed both and off to bed; see you tomorrow. 20 upper (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Yes indeed. The reviewer has said as much above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Please give me till the end of the day to complete this. 20 upper (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) No worries! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) I'm busy with real-life stuff at the moment, so I'll see when I can get to this. 20 upper (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) I'll bear with you on that, then! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Bear no more my friend, I'm on the case . 20 upper (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Question: Should this 2 images [2] [3] be combined as one just like at the characteristics section of Polar bear article and possibly maybe remove this image [4]?. It is taking too much space 2001:4455:3AA:B000:2D2A:6920:68B3:6AA4 (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC) @Chiswick Chap: I was working on the bear hunting section, and I was wondering: why not place bear meat dishes under this section? They are basically connected, so there's no need for two separate sections. Also, the IP's statement may be of interest. 20 upper (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Well it might work. The key point is that the Humans chapter needs a *much* shortened bit on bear attacks, a short bit on hunting, and a substantial bit on culture - to include dancing bears, grizzly tales, fairy stories, team mascots, etc. You'd best mention bear bile/gall bladder in TCM too. If you only want 2 subsections here they should be Practical uses (pets, performers, meat, medicine) and Cultural (stories, religion, folklore, mythology). Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.