Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tiger/archive3

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2024 [1].

---

Tiger

Nominator(s): LittleJerry and BhagyaMani 15:21 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've avoided doing this article for years since there are already felid FAs including lion and jaguar, but the tiger is in a category of its own. Its the most iconic animal of Asia and one which many would consider their favorite animal. Its absence from mammal FAs has left a gaping hole. We've worked on this article for months, preening through each line and cite and rewriting along the way when needed. It has had a peer review. Special thanks to Wolverine XI and UndercoverClassicist.

PS. This article can't make it to the front page in time for International Tiger Day on July 29 this year, but I'll like to save it for next year. LittleJerry (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: (close the peer review) 750h+ 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Airship

The most majestic creature to walk this earth, in my mind. Will certainly make time for this.

Apologies for the delay. As usual, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• We have a number of tiger-related featured pictures not currently used in the article. Obviously, we don't have to include them, but it would be nice for high-quality articles to include the best-quality media.
  • They include: File:Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) female 3 crop.jpg, File:Panthera tigris tigris Tidoba 20150306.jpg, and File:Siberischer tiger de edit02.jpg (all featured on en:wp) and File:Amurtiger-Zoo-Muenster.jpg, File:White Tiger in Touroparc.jpg, File:Standing white tiger.jpg, File:Tiger Zoo Vienna.jpg, and File:Close-up view of the head of a white tiger, yawning with the tongue out.jpg (all featured on Commons).

Etymology & taxonomy

• "In the 1st century" probably best to specify either AD or BC
• "originates" I think this should be past tense, as you're talking about the Latin word?
• "between the early 19th and early 21st centuries; namely the" not sure this is the right use of a semicolon
• The repetition of "namely" seems unnecessary.
• " calling for recognition of P. t. tigris comprising the Asian mainland tiger populations and P. t. sondaica comprising the populations of the Sunda Islands" isn't this just repeating the end of the previous paragraph? I would cut it.
• "the two-subspecies proposal of the comprehensive 2015 study" could be shortened to "the 2015 two-subspecies proposal"
• "and recognised the tiger populations in continental Asia as P. t. tigris, and those in the Sunda Islands as P. t. sondaica" more repetition, could be shortened to "recognising only P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica.
• "These results were corroborated in 2021 and 2023." while acknowledging WP:CRYSTALBALL, can we say anything about the possible future developments of the classification?
• "the classification used by the Cat Classification Task Force in 2017" did the CCTF use or recognise this classification?
• I assume that the † in the Population column of the tables means "extinct"? A key to that effect would be helpful.
• "from Turkey to around the Caspian Sea" slightly vague; how far southeast or northwest was its range?
• I believed that the Siberian tiger was thought to be the largest subspecies. If this is correct, might be worth mentioning?
• " all living tigers have a common ancestor 108,000 to 72,000 years ago" think the tense is off

AirshipJungleman29, fixed all. The Siberian and Bengal are both the largest as stated below. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

• "has a typical felid morphology;" should it be a semicolon or a colon?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Stripes are likely advantageous for camouflage" I'm surprised to see "likely" here: is there any reasonable doubt that it isn't?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The white dots on the ear may play a role in communication." how so? I'm assuming they flap about in certain ways?

Clarified and moved to communication section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The tiger historically ranged from eastern Turkey and northern Afghanistan to Indochina and from southeastern Siberia to Sumatra, Java and Bali." This reads like the range was unbroken, but looking at the infobox map, that is incorrect.

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• "has a scattered range that includes the" "includes the" suggests that the range covers the Indian subcontinent etc. , would suggest rephrasing.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "In the Amur-Ussuri region" might be useful to say where this is, seeing as neither of "Amur" or "Ussuri" have come up in the article before.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• The article's switching between direct speech "The tiger has/does..." and impersonal wording "There are five digits.../It will take to water..." is somewhat stilted; I would suggest sticking to the former.

I don't understand. We can't keep saying "the tiger..." over and over. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Social spacing" is quite lengthy indeed; would suggest splitting or cutting—do we really need exhaustive listings of data from (five?) tiger ranges? It is the most unreadable part of the article.

I suggested keeping the Sundarbans and the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve as they appear to represent the lower and higher ends respectively and as well as Panna which shows how they change during the seasons. BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you think is difficult to understand re the home ranges? Please suggest how to reformulate this part to improve readability. BhagyaMani (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think they're referring to all the different number ranges and technical information. Anyhow, better? LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree to removing this entirely. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is the second person to object to the structure of the paragraph. (first at PR). LittleJerry (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• "while in still mode" sounds too technological for my liking

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Death of cubs by predators" rather ungrammatical

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• In the image of the Chinese medicinal market, do we know what is the tiger claw/penis?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Many of the initiatives outlined in the second paragraph of the "Conservation" section end in 2022-23. Any updates?

Its only been a year. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The use of tigers and other animals in shows would eventually decline in many countries" seems to contradict "As of 2009, tigers were the most traded circus animals"

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• No mention of The Tiger Who Came to Tea? :(

Not mentioned in general sources. We have a main article for more. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Will try to have a closer look soon, but it seems the subspecies table needs work (below some nitpicks just on the table that immediately struck me, but I guess there are more, so it would be great if you could re-read it to clean it up):

• The table contains information that should better be discussed elsewhere (e.g., "Linnaeus's scientific description of the tiger was based on descriptions by earlier naturalists such as Conrad Gessner and Ulisse Aldrovandi" – that clearly should rather be the second sentence of "Taxonomy", just after Linnaeus description is mentioned, no?).

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Bengal tiger skins in the collection of the Natural History Museum, London were described as bright orange-red with shorter fur and more spaced out stripes than northern-living tigers like the Siberian tiger – why has the Natural History museum to be mentioned here (unnecessary detail?), and isn't there a recent source for this quite obvious feature (you cite a paper from 1939 for this)?

Revised. No more recent source than Pocock (1939)'s article with descriptions of skins in this apparently huge collection. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

My question was rather why this needs to refer to the collection in the first place; isn't this feature valid for the entire population? Other Bengal tiger skins do not show this pattern? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Your question made me read Kitchener (1999) again who wrote that 14 of the total 51 skins in the London museum collection are from Bengal tigers and cautioned that the variation in colour and striping may be much greater than represented by these 51 skins. While I agree that it is not so important to link to the London museum collection, I think it relevant to mention that all descriptions are based on museum specimens. So I amended text in the 1st paragraph. I also removed statements on number of stripes, as Kitchener (1999) showed that the range of stripes from continental to island tiger specimens overlaps and again emphasized that samples are too small to know whether these are representative of populations. Your thoughts? BhagyaMani (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that number of stripes – i.e. "fewer" or "more" – is a characteristic of only a few museum specimens, which does not allow to generalise to the entire populations; see Kitchener (1999). – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. Do you think we can add this to the article (e.g., … striping patterns and body size of specimens in natural history museum collections that are not necessarily representative for the entire population or similar?). Without this information I fear that the reader is just confused why museum collections are mentioned (I was, at least). Independent from that, I suggest to change "specimens in natural history museum collection" to "museum specimens"; short and simple is better. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Authors are not properly introduced with full names (e.g., you say "Illiger's description", seemingly assuming that the reader already knows that Illiger described the subspecies).

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it redundant to repeat names of authors in the 2nd column of the table and therefore shortened descriptions. More details are anyway given in the resp. pages on the populations. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Better now. There is still one "Temminck" in the description of the Javan Tiger, I don't think we need that there, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Illiger's description was not based on a particular specimen, but he only assumed that tigers in the Caspian area differ from those elsewhere. – why "but" rather than "and"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Should the column be named "Population" instead of "Populations"? The column "image" is singular, too.

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• with long hairs and dense coats – should that be "long hair" and "dense fur"?

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Check for "hairs" at other places, too. We usually use the singular. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• reach as far west as Turkey – "reaching"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• "It was noted to have"; "It was also said to have"; "The skull is described as"; etc. – Why use such convoluted wording? Any reason why simply "It has", "The skull is", etc. won't work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• The type specimen from Sumatra had a dark skin. – I'm confused about this sentence. Only the type specimen had, not the population itself? "Had" means that the type specimen is lost? "Skin" refers to the naked skin under the fur?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• It has particularly long hairs around the face, a broader and smaller nasal region than other island tigers with many thick stripes. – "It" still refers to the holotype specimen? What exactly is meant with "nasal region" (technical term to be avoided here; better describe where that region is relative to the nose or other landmarks that every reader will understand). In the photograph I do not see "many" thick stripes, only four at the whiskers.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• The skull is shorter and broader then the skulls of tigers further south – "than"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• and a broad occipital bone – for another population below, you call it "occipital plate", is that referring to the same thing? Also, this should be explained (state where it is). Is this a feature that is visible in a living animal (if so, maybe write "broad back of the skull" or something if possible) or is this only visible when looking at a skeleton?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• For Panthera tigris sondaica, you give the nominate subspecies and author in the "Population" field, but you don't do the same for the Bengal tiger. Why this inconsistency?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• You link Temminck twice in the table, but other authors are only linked once.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• I found that the "subspecies" section is a bit confusing and difficult to follow. It could be clearer. It starts with the nine tiger subspecies, but at first does not make clear that this view is already outdated. (Not sure, maybe start with pointing out the current classification, and then dive into the issue with the other proposed subspecies?). More suggestions on the issue in the following comments:
• The validity of several tiger subspecies was questioned in 1999. – This is followed by some explanation, but while reading, it first wasn't clear to me that these directly relate to that sentence. Maybe use ":" or directly combine parts of the following sentence with this one to make this clear.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Later, you have Therefore, it was proposed to but it was not clear to me that this relates to the 1999 study. Text could be re-arranged for better flow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• This two-subspecies view is still disputed by researchers, since the currently recognised six living subspecies can be distinguished genetically. – Now this directly contradicts your previous text: "Disputed by researchers", you mean by "some" researchers? Currently recognised are only two subspecies, not six, right? And of course populations can be distinguished genetically, even single individuals can be, that does not make any sense to me.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Its genetic distinctiveness and separation were corroborated in 2021 and 2023. – "Its" refers to what, exactly? I can't follow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Results of a 2018 whole-genome sequencing of 32 samples support the Bengal, Malayan, Indochinese, South China, Siberian and Sumatran tigers being distinct monophyletic tiger clades – Do these researchers propose to recognise the mentioned tigers as distinct subspecies, or what is the conclusion here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 and Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• however, today, the connection between 'arrow' and the river's name is doubted, and they are likely to be Latin homonyms. – I can't really follow here. This means that the connection between "tiger" and "arrow" is firmly established? What does "they are likely to be Latin homonyms" mean here? You were talking about Armenian and Persian, not Latin?

The source does not make it clear whether the connection to arrow is discredited.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Following Linnaeus's first descriptions – why plural, did he publish several first descriptions? I furthermore think that this part of the sentence can be removed; it does not add anything as far as I can see.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Results of genetic analysis – "analyses"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• modern cladistics place – "places"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• least two recent studies – "subsequent" instead of "recent"? Also because you are already using "recent" with a very different meaning.
• link synonym to appropriate cladistics article

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• sister taxon, sister species – these refer to exactly the same thing. Using two different terms here confuses. I would stick with "sister species", since it is a bit more accessible than "sister taxon".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• originated from a refugium in Indochina that spread – a refuguium cannot spread, right?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Genetic studies of modern and ancient lineages suggests – "suggest"? And why "modern and ancient", what does this add? Or where fossils sampled for DNA?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• The ancestors of the South China tiger intermixed with a relict population in northeastern China. This comes out of the blue and without any context, and I really cannot follow.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• tigons are around the same size as either species. – same size as which species? "either" does not make sense to me because tigers and lions are not the same size?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not completely convinced about prose quality, but I will try to list everything I find. I am very busy at the moment in RL so I cannot promise anything though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• The tiger's skull is large – You already stated that the head is large, so this feels repetitive.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• link cranium?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• resembles a lion's skull, with the structure of the lower jaw and length of the nasals being the most reliable indicators for species identification. – I am not sure how helpful this information is when you do not specify how the lower jaw differs (seems that the underside is concave in one species and straight in the other, so this is something a lay person can easily see, not some obscure detail).

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

an incurved lower jaw – are you sure? The German Wikipedia article says that the jaw is convex at the underside, not side, so the underside is "upcurved", if anything. Also, you now mention the jaw twice in two subsequent sentences, which sounds repetitive. I would propose to change the sentence It resembles a lion's skull, with the structure of the lower jaw and length of the nasals being the most reliable indicators for species identification to It resembles a lion's skull, but differs from it in the convex (rather than concave) underside of the lower jaw and in its longer nasals, which would be shorter, easier to read, and more informative (I assume that the nasals are longer (?), this is another thing that is unnecessarily unspecific; instead of stating "differs in the length of the nasals" it would be easy to state that the nasals are longer or shorter). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The information about size is a bit lacking. I think you should not only provide total length, but also body length excluding tail length. Also, height at the shoulders is important.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is the tiger really larger than the lion? It seems to be longer, but that only seems to be because of the longer tail? You could also mention that the tiger's tail is longer than that of the lion.

There's no information on the that. LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

See [2]: The team also looked at the popular idea that tigers are ‘bigger’ than lions (which could mean that the tiger’s relatively bigger brain size simply reflects its bigger body). However, careful re-evaluation of original field data and relatively well-documented hunting records does not support this idea. – If this is correct, than our Wikipedia article is in error. We have to dig deeper into this; the question "which is the biggest cat" is absolutely central for this article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Addded. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• It has been hypothesised that body sizes of different tiger populations may be correlated with climate and be explained by thermoregulation and Bergmann's rule. – This is not as accessible to general readers as it should be. This sentence need some explanation; what does it mean? Thermoregulation is not even linked.

Revised + removed the term thermoregulation, as I think it is not appropriate in this context. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Better, but temperatures do not really seem to differ between India and Indonesia? And doesn't Foster's rule apply here? Also, there is a wording issue I think: you now state that Bergmann's rule has been used to explain, but Bergmann's rule does not explain anything, it is just a correlation. There are different possible explanations for Bergmann's rule, but the rule itself does not explain why animals in warmer climates are smaller. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove this reference to Bergmann's rule altogether? Kitchener states .. there are too few data to confirm this. So it is pure speculation whether size is influenced by this or any other circumstances like availability and size of prey. Little Jerry : your thoughts? BhagyaMani (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• ventral surface – Again, way too technical. Why not simply "underside"?

That are not the same thing. The inward side of the legs is not the "underside". LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

But the "inward side of the legs" would be the medial surface, not the ventral surface, right? Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Dorsal and ventral scale are two dimensional. LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Where does your definition of "ventral" come from? It is, as far as I can see, not supported by our article anatomical terms of location, and I don't think that our average readers will be able to follow. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not simply "the underside of the body and inward side of the legs", avoiding these terms that >95% of the readers won't understand anyways? Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Because the sources don't state it this way. LittleJerry (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"Ventral surface" means "underside", nothing more and nothing less. Anyways, here are a few pages of the Mazak book about the tiger. It seems to be the most comprehensive resource available, a pity you don't have it. It is in German, but I will see what's in there. For a start, on p. 23 he states that "the inner parts of the ears, the snout region, the throat, the cheek beard, the chest, the belly and the inner sides of the limbs are pure white to light cream coloured." Do you like me to add important bits of this source? Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed. I don't see the need to use that source. We've already got seven major books, one of which is an written by an expert from India and another is an English translation of a Russian language book. I don't think we need a German language book (no tigers in Germany) for granular information. LittleJerry (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You were saying that you don't have a source stating that the inner side of the legs is white and therefore cannot fix the accessibility issue I pointed out. I then found a source for you that explicitly states this. And now you don't want to use it. You can fix it anyway you want, but unnecessary technical terms like "ventral surface" in such a central article are a no-go for me. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It no longer says ventral. LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I am ok with that change. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• posterior – same

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• spatial frequencies – same

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• dichromats – same. There are too many unexplained and often unnecessary terms to list them here; please look for others. Many things could be formulated much more simply.
• It also has a prominent white spot on the back of the ears which are surrounded by black – That means that the ears are surrounded by black?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Do the stripes join at the body midline on the back? Nothing about this mentioned.

Yes but the sources don't state this. LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• What is the nose colour?

Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that nose colour is so obvious and basic that it should be inside here. The German Wikipedia cites Mazák "The tiger" (p. 115 and following) for this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to that. We already have plenty of major sources and they don't mention nose color so its not significant. LittleJerry (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's see what others think, then. "What is the nose colour of a tiger" is something every child could ask, and it is even more relevant because nose colour in the lion is quite different. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

[3] – This is an entire article just on the tiger nose. It says that the nose is pink and without spots in young tigers, and that black spots appear and become more numerous as the tiger gets older. This has even been used to estimate the age of wild tigers. I think that this is a fascinating fact to mention! Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Even if tooth count is the same as in other cats, I think this needs a sentence as well.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hair length and density are interested facts to mention, especially when comparing the Sumatran tiger with the Siberian tiger.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• and three Indian zoos; population genetic analysis – "a" missing?

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• radio-collared – link to appropriate article?

Done. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• they exhibited a high temporal overlap with ungulate species. – Maybe try a simpler, plain wording like "similar to the ungulate species they prey on"?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Tigers groom themselves – In this paragraph you switch between plural (tigers) and singular (it) back and forth, which I found quite confusing.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Tigers groom themselves, maintaining their coats by licking them and spreading oil from their sebaceous glands. – What's the function of the oil? Water proofing? You could also mention why they groom, I don't think that casual readers usually have an idea. (removing parasites? maintaining functionality of the coat?)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• The first two paragraphs in behaviour are without second-level heading, so the reader doesn't know what they have to expect there. Maybe call it "Activity and locomotion", move the grooming to the section "health and parasites", and move the information on sprinting speeds here? I know that organising all this diverse information into clear-cut sections is not easy, but I feel that it is possible here.

I don't see the need. But I moved the activity paragraph to the top as it is a better header. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The benefit of avoiding paragraphs without heading is that the reader would know what the section is about before reading it, and they would also know where to find the information about activity and locomotion by looking at the content menu and without looking through the entire article. Don't you agree that this would be an improvement? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the non-sectioned header looks better for the section. "Activity and locomotion" is just an awkward section title. "Locomotion" is probably one of the topics that would be least searched for anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally still disagree for the reasons mentioned, but it is not a dealbreaker for me. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• establish and maintain home ranges - can one really "establish" and "maintain" a home range? Maintainance can only mean defending it, but then it would be a territory, no?

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Males and females defend their home ranges from those of the same sex, – Home range or territory? As you formulate it, "home range" does not appear to meet the definition provided by the linked article.'

They mean the same thing for tigers. An author of one of the papers confirmed this for me. LittleJerry (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Young males have an annual mortality rate of up to 35 percent. By contrast, young female tigers die at a rate of only around 5 percent. – Why is this in "social spacing", wouldn't mortality be better paired with the health section?

No. Disease is not the only and sole reason for mortality, I presume. BhagyaMani (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC) But I concur that the sentence is somewhat misplaced under #Social spacing, so moved it to #Reproduction and life cycle, where relation between adults and young is explained. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What I had in mind was a section "Mortality and diseases", as both are related, but your solution looks good as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Also, what is the reason for this striking difference in mortality?

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• increasing her vocalisations – complex, convoluted wording again. And too unspecific, too (what kind of "vocalisation"?). "Roars more often" or something like that?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• A tigress in oestrus signals her readiness to mate by scent marking more frequently and increasing her vocalisations. – Why is this in social spacing rather than reproduction? It does not seem to have anything to do with spacing.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• rather than outright violence. – Maybe "rather than fighting" is more appropriate and to the point? I never saw "violence" applied to animals.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• as long as they do not live in close quarters – What does this mean? They live in some quarter of their home range but not in the rest? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think the Conservation section has a structure problem:
  • It starts with the protection status in the different countries, and then dives into specific measures the individual countries have taken. So far so good. However, then you have one general remark, (In 2010, representatives of the tiger range countries agreed to double tiger populations.), which is then again followed by measured of more individual countries. I think this general remark should be moved into the first paragraph of the conversation section, before going into the actions of the specific countries.

Imo, this general remark can be removed, because this multilateral agreement is just a political statement of a multi-decades long-term vision. Far more relevant for conservation, I think, are the action plans developed in range countries with participation of researchers and other stakeholders working in the field who have a more realistic understanding of what is feasible and achievable in shorter time frames of 5–10 years. That is why we grouped all the info about the national action plans into one paragraph. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

However, I agree that the remaining sentences in the 3rd paragraph are somewhat disconnected. I therefore propose to move statements re legal issues into the 1st paragraph about nationals laws and statements re patrolling into the next paragraph on anti-poaching measures. Since the last sentence .. one unit under the Central Forest Spine initiative is about management, not about conservation, it can be removed as well. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• • Parts of the conversation section is organised around countries, but some is organised around one particular measure, wildlife corridors, which has a paragraph on its own. As a result, for example, some of the content on Indonesia is discussed in the second paragraph that discusses actions country-by-country, while other content on Indonesia is discussed in the wildlife corridor paragraph. The structure (succession of information) of the whole section is therefore a bit confusing and inconsistent. A possible solution of this problem could be to start with a general paragraph that lists and briefly explains the principal conservation actions taken (e.g., protection of habitats, protection of prey species, anti-poaching, wildlife corridors). This could then be followed by the country-by-country accounts. As a result, the lone "wildlife corridor" paragraph could be resolved, with the general content going into the new introduction paragraph and the rest into the country accounts.

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that info on wildlife corridors merits a separate paragraph. Several more articles on such corridors have been published in the 2010s, but we decided to focus here on transboundary ones + reference only the most recent post-2020 articles. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• • Conservation breeding is not mentioned under "conversation" but surely plays an important role too?

Already mentions South China tigers breeding. Otherwise, captive breeding does not appear to be important for conservation. LittleJerry (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The South China tiger is the best example since this population only exist in captivity; this highlights the importance for conservation. However, I think some more general remarks are needed. Or maybe in the "Captivity" section. In that section, the role of coordinated breeding programs modern zoos is not covered (the goal is to establish a “genetic reservoir” as "insurance against extinction in the wild", see e.g. [4]). Captive tigers in zoos are also important for education (people protect what they know), which indirectly aids with conservation. Zoos and their positive aspects come too short; the section only lists negative aspects of captivity but this positive aspect should be there too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

A good start, but you should mention the coordinated breeding programs of zoos that make this happen. It needs to be clear that you are not talking about the circuses and pet trade that the "captivity" section is all about. This uncoordinated breeding can in fact have a negative impact on conservation (e.g., overrepresentation of white tigers, as already mentioned earlier in the article), so it is absolutely crucial to make this distinction. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Tigers will move around their ears – "move their ears around" sounds less confusing to me.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Tigers kill large ungulates like gaur and opportunistically, smaller prey like – I think the comma behind "opportunistically" is too much.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Occasional attacks on Asian elephants and Indian rhinoceros – the latter should be plural, too?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• More often, tigers take the more vulnerable small calves – I found the "small" a bit irritating, can it be removed? Goes without saying that calves are smaller?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• They sometimes prey on livestock and dogs in close proximity to settlements. They – Two sentences starting with "they" could be combined with "and".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• They occasionally consume vegetation, fruit and minerals for dietary fibre. – Consuming minerals for dietary fiber? Does not make sense to me.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• which is important but not necessary – Sounds a bit like a contradiction. Use "essential" instead of "necessary"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Depending on the prey, they typically kill weekly though – "Depending on the prey" can mean so many things. Prey abundance? Type of prey? Should be more specific.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• with a bite to the back of the neck or skull – "head" instead of "skull"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• They can leave the denning site in two months - "after" two months?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• she will guide them to the kill – bit repetitive as it was already stated that she takes them to kill sites earlier in the text.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Tigers are recorded as hosts for various parasites including Diphyllobothrium erinacei, Taenia pisiformis and Toxocara species in India and Physaloptera preputialis, Dirofilaria ursi and Uiteinarta species in Siberia. – I think you should also state what these are, respectively (tapeworms, nematodes, etc), to give the casual reader the necessary context.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• The tiger has been listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List since 1986, as the global tiger population is thought to have continuously declined – "and" instead of "as"? The causality implied by "as" does not make sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• In 1830, two tigers and a lion were accidentally put in the same exhibit at the Tower of London. This led to a fight between them and, after they were separated, the lion died of its wounds. – I wonder what this anecdote adds to the article. I am inclined to suggest to remove it.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• conducted by cable television channel Animal Planet – you don't usually provide that level of detail elsewhere. Maybe remove the mention of the TV channel?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• The "Hunting" section is basically a list of examples of tiger hunts, but without connection and context. Instead, the section should ideally focus on general information, and provide examples only to illustrate these general points. For example, a sentence like Historically, tigers have been hunted on foot, horseback, elephant-back, and from machans (from the article tiger hunting) would be such general information (just to give an example; I am not suggesting to necessarily include this particular sentence). Also, the paragraph needs some introductory sentences and stuff to guide the reader, to provide some red threat, to provide a logical structure.
• The "hunting" section also is exclusively about India, which is undue weight. I think the section needs to be rewritten. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support on prose and content. I didn't look at sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  One last comment: In the "hunting" section, I would include a sentence stating why they were/are hunted, pointing out the different reasons (to reduce attacks on humans and livestock; for sport; for their coat and other parts; etc.). Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Sarah Christie

The following is feedback from my sister, Sarah Christie, who was a significant figure in the tiger conservation world in the 90s and 00s. She's one of your cited authors (Seidensticker, Christie & Jackson, Riding the Tiger). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"I would be very wary of using that 1967 International Zoo Yearbook paper as an authoritative source ('cubs born in spring').I don't recall the details of the paper, but I bet the sample size wasn't high and it was from only one reserve, in India. Probably the authors cited it because it was the only statement available on the matter, which is presumably because nobody's ever found any signfiicant data. I can't give you details, but I and others looked for birth seasonality in our substantial zoo tiger datasets and didn't really find anything significant, and I know that Dale Miquelle and others, looking for it in wild Amur tigers - the one place you might expect it to confer benefits, and where we found a weak bias in our zoo Amur tiger data - also failed to find it, to their and everyone else's surprise. Get the authors to check this with a current expert. (Breeding in zoo tigers can be managed by separation, and a motive exists for ensuring cubs are present through the summer season, so I think wild data are better - they're also much harder to get, of course.) Tara Harris now runs the American Zoo Association Species Survival Plan for tigers (Ron died) and has good links to the WCS tiger people for wild data, she would be a good place to start. Look for contact details for the AZA Tiger SSP Coordinator."

"The captive section is somewhat lacking. It mentions tigers in AZA facilities in passing only. This gives the impression that the US is the only place with zoo tigers which is incorrect, and there's no info on numbers or role. I'm not suggesting an essay, but a couple of paras on current numbers and what roles zoo tigers play might be worth adding in. A LOT of money has been raised by 21CT, primarily from zoos, and the tiger SSP now raises funds for WCS projects. Zoo expertise has also been helpful in the rehab and release stuff particularly in Sumatra. Tara Harris and 21CT will have all this stuff."

"I wonder why there's nothing from Russia in the para on Population Density, which is lower there than elsewhere, in general. Maybe it's because they're too thinly spread there for a proper camtrap study to work and so the data would not be directly comparable. The next bit on social spacing has plenty of Russian info, from radiotracking rather than camtraps."

Sarah also mentioned a point that would be harder to cite, but I'll pass it along:

"I doubt this is worth adding in, not least because I can't think of a way to cite it, but I know of at least two instances in which male tigers have been seen associating with a female and cubs not actually on kills. One is photos by Valmik Thapar in India showing a family group using a pool to keep cool in the hot season; another is a series of camtrap pics by Linda Kerly in Lazovsky NP in Russia, showing a male followed, at intervals, by a female and several cubs along a trail. I don't know if she ever published on that outside the ZSL internal conservation newsletter I put it in (she was our person in Lazo)."

End of Sarah's comments. If you have any questions for her I can pass them along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Mike_Christie Please pass this along. Thank you for the comments. I have added numbers for captive tigers in the US, Europe and Asia. The captivity section mainly focuses on tigers used for display and entertainment. I'm sure we could add a little more on the role of zoos in conservation in that respective section. A few paragraphs seems a bit much. We do have tiger conservation as a spin-off article where more information can be added there. I'll look for a replacement for the Yearbook article. I've replaced the Yearbook as a cite in regards to the mating season and gestation period but I have also contacted Dr Harris for her comments. LittleJerry (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, Thapar 2004, pp. 55–56 does mention and includes a picture of a male tiger swimming with family. Thats what is referred to with "They socialise and even share kills". LittleJerry (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Re fund raising in zoos for tiger conservation projects : the latest I found in this regard is a book chapter dating 2004, see https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20093032085, hence rather outdated for the purpose of this wiki page. If there is nothing more recent, e.g. post-2020, I suggest to skip this issue of funding here. Some authors acknowledged zoos for partly funding their projects, but it seems that the donor landscape has changed in the past 20 years to Panthera Corp and WWF being major funders of tiger focused projects. BhagyaMani (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Wolverine

Just recently I happened to cross paths with a female Bengal; quite the experience that was. A second look into the article won't hurt. Comments forthcoming on the 10th of June; if not, give me a ping. Stay tuned for more. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• This population inhabits the Indian subcontinent.[17] The Bengal tiger has shorter fur than tigers further north,[8] with a light tawny to orange-red colouration,[8][18] and relatively long and narrow nostrils. Why link tawny?

Its less familiar with average readers. LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Its ground colour varies widely from ochre-yellow And this one?

Same. LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• and larger postorbital processes; skins are yellowish with rhombus-like stripes. I don't understand the sudden change of tense

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• It has a unique mtDNA haplotype Could you explain why?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Indochinese tiger specimens are smaller with smaller skulls than specimens from India.[27] They appear to have darker fur than specimens from India with stripes being slightly narrower. "Specimens from India" in the second sentence is a bit repetitive

Revised BhagyaMani (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• the stripes were longer, thinner and slightly greater in number. Greater? Do you mean more numerous?

Revised BhagyaMani (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't review the table in PR, so I thought it would be appropriate to do so here. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support comments in PR and FAC have all been addressed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 12:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

From a first skim-through looking for typos etc I take it that the article is intended to be in BrE (behavioural, colour, colouration, hypothesised, recognised etc) but a couple of AmE spellings have crept in: "molt" (the OED favours moult, and Chambers calls molt "N. Amer") and, in a section heading, "Behavior [and ecology]". "Flehmen response" becomes "flehman" at one point, which is not in either dictionary (and the OED capitalises Flehmen as it is a proper noun).

Fixed. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

More when I have had a proper perusal. Tim riley talk 06:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. I've found it difficult to spot anything else to quibble about. The few following points are so minor that I can happily support without waiting for a report back.

• "transverses across rivers" should be just "traverses rivers" – no "n" and no preposition.
• "A young male may have to live as a transient in another male's home range until he is older and strong enough to challenge the resident male. Young males thus have an annual mortality rate of up to 35%" – two points here: I can't work out why "thus" is there – the implied causality is unclear. And in prose (though not in tables) it is usual to write "per cent" rather than using the % symbol.
• "Tigers typically move kills ... though they have been recorded dragging it..." – plural "kills" has become singular "it" by the end of the sentence.
• "four of these do not harbour tigers any more at least since 2013" – this reads rather awkwardly: perhaps "four of these have no longer harboured tigers since at least 2013" or some such?
• "Man-eating tigers tend to be old and disabled" – this looks puzzling at first glance until one realises that homo sapiens is easier prey than elephants or rhinos. Might be worth a word of explanation here.
• "Methods to counter tiger attacks have included face masks worn backwards" – eh? How do they help? A brief explanation would be a kindness.
• Delightful closing paragraph – Blake, Kipling and Milne: a pleasing combination.

Excellent article, and I can't see anything that doesn't meet the FA criteria. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 11:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Made some changes LittleJerry (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "It is traditionally classified into nine recent subspecies, though some recognise only two subspecies, mainland Asian tigers and island tigers of the Sunda Islands." You imply in the subspecies section that most experts recognise more than two, and I think this should be in the lead.
• "overlaps with that of multiple females with whom he has reproductive claims." "claims" is an odd word here.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "This two-subspecies proposal was reaffirmed in 2015 through a comprehensive analysis of morphological, ecological, and molecular traits of all putative tiger subspecies." If I understand the source correctly, by molecular traits they mean MtDNA, which supports two subspecies, whereas you say below that whole genome analysis supports more subspecies. If so, this should be clarified. There is a parallel with the debate on Neanderthal/modern human interbreeding. Early results of MtDNA analysis found no evidence of interbreeding, and it was only when methods of whole genome analysis were developed that this was found to be wrong. Was the two subspecies theory based on outdated methods? Mike Christie does your sister have anything to say on this?

  I've emailed her and will post any response here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Here's what my sister sent in response to the question.

  With regard to the number of species, the key sentence in the article is “In 2017, the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group revised felid taxonomy in accordance with the 2015 two-subspecies proposal and recognised only P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica.” This is cited to Kitchener et al. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group". The key statements on the Cat Group page are “"However, based on recent studies, only two tiger subspecies are proposed:" and "These inconsistencies in the number of proposed tiger subspecies are thought to partly be a result of the lack of genetic samples across the tiger range. Given the varied interpretations of data, the taxonomy of this species is currently under review by the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group." I’d recommend that the Wiki article reference this second statement. They certainly should not ditch the two subsp thing in favour of the larger set. Being published later doesn't automatically make it more valid, and the existence of genetic markers capable of distinguishing poulations doesn't necessarily mean those populations should be managed separately, which fundamentally is the point of subsp distinctions.

  Note they give the two subsp thing the status of proposed, meaning it is under serious consideration, and don't give that weight to the larger set. I haven't spoken to Urs [one of the two Cat Group Chairs] on this since the noughties, but given ref 12 I suspect they lean towards the two subsp thing but are retaining the rest of the info, and not stating the larger set has been superseded, for political reasons - and to be cautious.

  Also, a note about both Sarah’s background and the authority of the specialist group. Sarah was for a few years a member of the core group of the Cat Specialist Group. Per Sarah:

  “it might be wise to follow the Cat Group’s lead; while there is no central, international formal authority on taxonomic revisions, IUCN Specialist Group positions on it do tend to be taken up over time, and this particular group is highly competent (most of them are). There is no other method of settling such disputes. It's about consensus, not enforcement.”

  And with regard to her credentials for reviewing the article in general, she asked me to add this:

  Please ensure your contacts are aware I have no recent information on status in the field, ecological info etc, nor have I ever been a field scientist. They should not consider that those aspects have been reviewed by an expert.)

  I checked with Sarah, and she confirmed that she didn't mean that the 2018 studies finding six subspecies should not be mentioned, just that the Cat Group's position should be cited as the most authoritative current statement on the number of subspecies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "It was found to have repeated sequences that parallel those in other cat genomes and "an appreciably conserved synteny"." I am not clear what this means - that the tiger's genome has diverged less than that of other cats from their common ancestor?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Results of a phylogeographic study indicate that all living tigers have a common ancestor that lived between 108,000 and 72,000 years ago." No change needed, but it is interesting that this is similar to modern humans, but no subspecies of modern humans are recognised. I wonder whether tigers have diverged faster or humans are treated differently for cultural reasons.

Hmm, I don't know. But given that the tiger's generation length is way shorter than the human's, it may be plausible that it diverged faster. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hybrids - perhaps mention that male hybrids are infertile and female ones fertile.

Its not mentioned in current sources and I don't like to dig through non-scientific news articles. LittleJerry (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, neither do I. BhagyaMani (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The question is anyway : WHY are hybrids under the section on Taxonomy ?? They are NOT a taxonomic unit. I suggest therefore to move this subsection under #Captivity, as they were ONLY bred in zoos to experiment. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

They are the union of two taxons and show how closely related the two parent species are. The section goes into detail on genetics. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Records in Central Asia indicate that it occurred foremost in Tugay riverine forests and inhabited hilly and lowland forests in the Caucasus." "occurred foremost" is an odd expression. I would say that most lived in the Tugay riverine forests if that is what you mean.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "pine forest of Jim Corbett National Park". I suggest adding "in northern India".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "moved an average distance of 4.6 km (2.9 mi) per day". This seems very low. The source says that it is the only large population in mangrove forests, and that the tigers are reluctant to cross wide water channels. You say below that the home ranges in other reserves are much larger, in Sikhote-Alin Nature Reserve around 30 times larger. These factors make this population atypical. Are there no estimates for other populations?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Though the female and male act amicably, females are more tense towards each other at a kill." This is clumsy and the first part repeats what you have just said. Maybe "Females are most tense with each other at a kill."

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Tigers will move around their ears to communicate with the white spots, particularly during aggressive encounters and between mothers and cubs". "communicate with the white spots" sounds odd. Maybe "display their white spots".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Paragraph starting "Tigers learn to hunt from their mothers". This switches back and forth apparently at random between singular and plural cases.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Conservation - protection of tigers has presumably collapsed in Myanmar due to the civil war. Is there no information available on this?

Couldn't find specific information on the current conflict's effect on tigers. BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Who presumed so? – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• "During the Mughal Empire, tiger hunting became a sport; they were chased on horseback and killed with spears". This is wordy and seems to imply that tiger hunting as a sport was something new. Maybe "In the Mughal Empire, tigers were chased on horseback and killed with spears".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Tigers are said to have directly killed more people than any other wild mammal." What does "directly" mean here? What would indirect killing mean?

Indirect killing would be via disease. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• "and used for public executions of criminals". Do you mean that criminals were killed by tigers? This should be clarified. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by FM

• While it already has a good bunch of reviewers, it's such an important and long article that it probably needs as many as it can get, so I'll mark my spot for now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• The range map and cladograms could be scaled up (with the upright parameter), per MOS:IMGSIZE, as they are almost impossible to decipher at default size.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The following tables are based on the classification of the species Panthera tigris provided in Mammal Species of the World,[9] and also reflect the classification recognised by the Cat Classification Task Force in 2017.[12]" You should make it clearer in this paragraph that what's shown reflects more traditional schemes, and that the edition of Mammals of the World you cite is from 2005, so quite long before any meaningful genetic work.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• If there is a potentially valid six subspecies scheme, showing even more subspecies than that in the table seems misleading. The table is already extremely long, and I don't see any good reason other than completism to give subspecies that no one recognises today their own space, they should instead be covered under the entries of the potentially valid subspecies (one of the six possible ones) they belong to .

The DNA papers focused on the living subspecies, they did not invalidate the three extinct ones, which are still recognized in the literature. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in whether you present people mentioned with nationality and occupation or not. A bit jarring when it's within the same sections.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• "and gave it the scientific name Felis tigris" You could explain for context that at the time, most cats where grouped there.

Not supported by source. There no why to know "most". LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• "the species under the genus Panthera"

Seems I forgot to list the issue, but the somewhat awkward wording seems to have been fixed in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link felid at first mention.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Explain monophyletic.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Why are two cladograms needed when they show the tiger in the exact same position? Could just use one and save the space. Even better, use a code cladogram with links, can be requested at WP:treereq.

Requested. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Captive tigers were bred with lions" Probably say "have been", now it's worded as if it only happened in the past. Tiger King at least showed there are still some around.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• "However, as of 2023, at least two recent studies considered P. zdanskyi likely to be a synonym of P. palaeosinensis, noting that its proposed differences from that species fell within the range of individual variation." Not something that has to be done for this FAC, but this would suggest the two articles should be merged, no?

• "Middle- to late-Pleistocene tiger fossils were found throughout China, Sumatra and Java." Have been found would sound more fitting, again sounds like it's only in the past.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• While you mention their historical range, how was the prehistoric range? Did it expand further into the west and north?

Sources don't make that clear. LittleJerry (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Don't we have a better view of a tiger skeleton? That foreshortening doesn't show the anatomy well.

None of the alteratives are any better. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• "shortened legs" in relation to what? Their legs don't really seem short at all.

The sources does say. I'm not changing it.

• "and can reach 10 cm (3.9 in) long" In length.

I prefer to not use too much of the same wording as the source.

• "The nose ends" The snout? "Nose" sounds very human.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "a lengthened cranium with a large sagittal crest" Should behin with "and" as it's the last listed item in the sentence.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link nasal bone.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The tiger has a head-body length of 1.4–2.8 m (4.6–9.2 ft) with a 0.6–1.1 m (2.0–3.6 ft) tail and stands 0.8–1.1 m (2.6–3.6 ft) at the shoulder." This seems strange as a flat statement when the preceding sentence says tiger populations vary in size. So what are these measurements, an average, the maximum of the largest subspecies? Needs more precision.

The source just gives these measurements. The differences in size between populations is within those ranges.

• "The extinct Bali tiger was even smaller." How much smaller? "Even" means little.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The tiger is considered to be the largest living felid species. However, there is some debate over averages compared to the lion." This could be a single sentence, reads disjointed now.

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Since multiple subspecies are covered, and a good part of the text is devoted to distinguishing them, it would be best to state which subspecies are depicted in image captions wherever available, for comparison.

Done where possible. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Tiger coat" This image caption has little value if you don't state where on the body it is.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The three colour variants – nearly stripeless snow-white, white and golden" It seems from their respective articles that each variation is found in specific populations, which should be clarified here, otherwise it seems as if it can occur in all tiger populations. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What the spin-off articles state doesn't matter. Its about reliable sources and what's relevant for this article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying you have to take the spin-offs at face value, but if there's anything to it according to the sources used there, it should be stated here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Added that they occur in Bengal tigers. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link ungulate at first instead of second mention.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Phylogeny of the Panthera" Link Panthera and add "the genus" for clarity.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Could also add year of the study. "Based on a 2016 nuclear DNA study".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "they were largely active at the same time as ungulate species" Presumably their prey? Specify?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk? LittleJerry (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed down to Threats now. More to come. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Bengal tiger attacking a sambar deer" Link sambar deer in caption. Also wild boar.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link tiger subspecies in captions as you do in the infobox.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• There are more names and terms that could be linked in image captions.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• "they reduced their home ranges and steadily enlarged them until their offspring were 13–18 months old.[86]" Why? I assume it has something to do with this, stated much further down, so should probably be elaborated more generally at first mention: "maximised the time spent with her cubs by reducing her home range".

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Anything on subspecies hybrids?

Not in the wild. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Considering the tiger isn't particularly closely related to the lion according to the cladogram, can it reproduce with any of the other members?

Yes, but ligers and tigons are the most common and notable tiger (and big cat) hybrids. Other hybrids are discussed in the above linked articles. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is rather that the article now reads as if it's only possible with lions, which I assume is not what you want. You don't have to go into a whole paragraph like you do for ligers, just state that it's possible. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Link oestrus at first instead of third mention.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• "will sometimes share a carcass with the females and cubs within this home range" Because there's a chance they're his, or no?

Yes, and I think the article already implies it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Where does it imply this clearly? It is very ambiguous from reading the article and could benefit from an explicit statement. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"A resident male mates with all the females within his home range".... When a new male takes over, dependent cubs are at risk of infanticide as the male attempts to sire his own young with the females." LittleJerry (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• "a characteristic grimace" Specify this means it curls its lip up, since you go so much into this topic.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "One male was recorded looking after orphaned cubs whose mother had died.[161] By defending his home range, the male protects the females and cubs from other males." Can it always be assumed the young in a male's home range are his offspring? If so, should be stated so explicitly somewhere.

Removed "orphan".

• "Tigers learn to hunt from their mothers, which is important but not essential for their success" I'm not sure what the latter part of the sentence means. Does it mean that it is not essential that they learn to hunt from their mothers? But how is this known if they generally learn to hunt this way?

Based on the cited study of captive tigers hunting in the wild. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Then this should be specified, otherwise it seems contradictory. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• There is WP:image sandwiching under Hunting and diet between the deer and boar images. Could perhaps be solved with a multi image template.

Sandwiching is when the text is completely smushed in by images on both sides. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it looks on my rather large screen:[5] Text should never be entirely between two images like that. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Switched LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• You go into detail about relations with dholes, but how do they interact with leopards?

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Younger, transient males are also attracted, leading to a fight in which the more dominant male drives the usurper off." This wording implies that the younger male could also be the winner, but then you specifically say "usurper" later, perhaps specify it's always the resident that wins at "which the more dominant male drives".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Copulation is generally 20 to 25 seconds long" Seems oddly worded, "Copulation generally takes 20 to 25 seconds"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "In the Tanintharyi Region of southern Myanmar, deforestation coupled with mining activities and high hunting pressure threatens the tiger population in the area." - "In the area" is redundant.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• "have no longer harboured tigers since at least 2013" - "Have not harboured tigers since" would sound better.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• "A Javan tiger skin on display" Could give date in the caption. Since it's not exactly a recent photo, perhaps a newer one could be dug up to show the continued severity of this threat? Like tigers being trapped or similar, there's a big selection on Commons.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure why a general term like "retaliation" needs a link, and it should be linked at first instead of second instance either way.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it makes more sense to have the Relationship with humans section come before Threats and Conservation, as the latter two are actually subjects within the former.

I prefer the way it is now. Like Tim riley said, William Blake, Tigger and the Jungle Book make for a nice ending. LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Considering that Tiger conservation has its own article, the section seems extremely long here, especially considering the length of the overall article. In particular, descriptions of individual countries' measures seem excessively detailed, and could be condensed into a paragraph covering general measures taken by multiple countries, instead of listing the same/similar measures over and over for each country. Kind of like you do in the intro.

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You are the first to criticise the length of this section : in about a dozen review rounds. We already amended content as suggested by previous reviewers. And unless you find glaring mistakes or incorrect statements, I think the content with details on conservation measures in range countries is important for this main page. BhagyaMani (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Tigers are said to have directly killed more people than any other wild mammal.[53" Seems like a pretty strong statement that could be supported by more sources or a statement as to who have said this.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Modern authors speculate that feeding on meagre human flesh forced the cat to kill more and more" I'm not sure what this implies as to cause and effect. It was forced to eat humans because it was weal, or it became weak by eating humans and then had to eat more humans?

Human flesh is of lower quality but easier for a weakened tiger so the cat had to keep eating it more frequently because it couldn't sustain itself on one human too long. LittleJerry (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• "In the 1840s, the number of deaths ranged from 200 to 300 annually.[232]" Worldwide, or in Singapore you cover in the preceding sentence?

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps worth stating outright that there are more tigers in captivity than in the wild.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - good to see another big cat here, might as well do the rest now you're at it... FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

Wait, no one has done an image review?

• File:Walking tiger female.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Tiger distribution.png - CC0
• File:Sher Khan (cropped).jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Panthera tigris virgata.jpg - PD
• File:P.t.altaica Tomak Male.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:2012 Suedchinesischer Tiger.JPG - CC-BY-SA
• File:Panthera tigris corbetti (Tierpark Berlin) 832-714-(118).jpg - CC-BY-SA, GNU Free Documentation License
• File:Panthera tigris jacksoni at Parc des Félins 15.jpg - CC-BY (I will note here that MOS:IMAGELOC advises not to flip images around in order to achieve facing towards the text. an image like File:2012-09-15 Tierpark Berlin 26 (cropped).jpg (CC-BY-SA) might be more appropriate here.
• File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Een groep mannen en kinderen poseert bij een pas geschoten tijger te Malingping in Bantam West-Java TMnr 10006636.jpg CC-BY-SA
• File:Bali tiger zanveld.jpg - PD
• File:Panthera tigris sumatrae (Sumatran Tiger) close-up.jpg - CC-BY-SA, GNU Free Documentation License
• File:Two cladograms for Panthera.svg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Siberian Tiger by Malene Th.jpg -CC-BY-SA, GNU Free Documentation License
• File:Bengal Tiger Skeleton.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Tiger Stripes (29808869755).jpg - CC0
• File:White tiger Nandankanan.jpeg - Released into public domain
• File:Sundarban Tiger.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Tigerwater edit2.jpg - CC-BY
• File:Queen of Ranthambore.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Panthera tigris altaica 28 - Buffalo Zoo (1).jpg - Released into public domain
• File:Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) vocalising.webm - CC-BY
• File:RANTHAMBORE TIGER RESERVE.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Tiger's killing wild boar.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Tigerdholes.jpg -PD
• File:Tigress with cubs in Kanha Tiger reserve.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Panthera tigris altaica 13 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg - Released into public domain
• File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Een jager poseert bij de huid van een geschoten tijger bij Kalitapakdoewoer TMnr 10024166.jpg - CC-BY-SA
• File:Wild Sumatran tiger.jpg - CC-BY
• File:ElephantbackTigerHunt.jpg -PD
• File:Tipu's Tiger front view 2006AH4173.jpg -CC-BY-SA
• File:Clean Toes are a Tiger's Friend (15588882074).jpg -CC-BY
• File:Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Circus Gunther Gebel-Williams 1969.jpg -PD
• File:Bronze Tiger Tally "Jie" with Gold Inlay from Tomb of Zhao Mo.jpg - CC0
• File:Durga Mahisasuramardini.JPG -PD

All of the licenses check out, and all the images seem appropriate for the article. They do need alt-text, however, before I can approve this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding alt text where appropriate. LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima? LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ope! Did not see that you were done. Alt-text looks good now, but the File:Panthera tigris jacksoni at Parc des Félins 15.jpg still needs to be fixed to no longer be mirrored around. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

And let the record show that the new image File:Tiger in Ranthambhore.jpg is CC-BY-SA. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima, I added and replaced some images. Can you confirm they are free to use? LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• All the images in the evolution section are CC-BY-SA
• File:TigerSkelLyd1.png is PD
• File:Tigress Anna Savelevna 01.jpg is CC-BY-SA
• File:Sundarban Tiger.jpg is CC-BY-SA

Looks good. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

AK

• Will see if I can find anything to quibble about. AryKun (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

AryKun, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• The use of the Oxford comma is uneven.
• "is the largest living cat species and a member of the genus Panthera native to Asia." Confusing to read and seems like it implies that it's the largest cat native to Asia. Maybe split it into two sentences instead: "is a species of cat native to Asia. It is the largest living cat and a member of the genus Panthera."

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "with black, mostly vertical stripes" to "with mostly vertical black stripes"?

"mostly" applies to only "vertical", but not to "black". BhagyaMani (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "and island tigers" to "and the island tigers"?
• The wl for Endangered in both the lead and body lead to the article for the general concept, not the IUCN classification.

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Tigers are also...prey is scarce." doesn't make sense, how can they be victims for preying on livestock?

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "ratified conservation action plans, established anti-poaching patrols" to "ratified conservation action plans and established anti-poaching patrols".

Revised. BhagyaMani (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Major reasons for this decline...medicinal purposes." The previous sentence refers to a decline in its range, which the latter two reasons mentioned here are not responsible for.
• "subordinated the species under the genus" reads weirdly to me, I'd use "placed the species in the genus" instead.
• "early 21st centuries, the Bengal" to "early 21st centuries, namely the Bengal"?
• "The validity...Greater Sunda Islands." Run-on and difficult to understand.
• "from a of low 5% to" typo.
• "in between three and nine week intervals" to "at intervals of between three and nine weeks"?
• "paid bounties for tigers since 1757" to "paid bounties for tigers beginning in 1757"?
• The George V statistic is a factoid and not really DUE imo.
• The articles linked in See Also seem very randomly thrown together. Why are we linking one random tiger attack from 2007 and Tiger King instead of other man-eaters that have eaten dozens of people or a cultural depiction of tigers that wasn't a 3 week phenom during COVID?
• Refs seem fine.
• That's what I got. AryKun (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  "At intervals of between three and nine weeks" is exactly how the source put it so no. Fixed the rest. AryKun when you say "refs seem fine" did you also do a spotcheck? LittleJerry (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support. I didn't do a spotcheck, I just checked the formatting and whether the sources were HQRS. AryKun (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I see Mike Christie above has already pointed out some things about the sources. What makes Cat News a reliable source? It looks like we are working with major books and journals here. I notice inconsistent application of archives and identifiers like DOIs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Cat News IS a peer-reviewed journal. Why do you consider it not to be reliable source? BhagyaMani (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed archiving of journal articles. Some articles don't have DOIs so we can't put them. Cat News is part of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group. LittleJerry (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Only because I couldn't find a lot about it. I generally question sources when I can't find anything endorsing them. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 09:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, we need a spotcheck. Right @FAC coordinators: ? LittleJerry (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Based on this version;

• 3 OK
• 10 Is "Amur tiger"="Siberian tiger"?

Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• 19 Can't access this source.

  That works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• 30 Can't really find "Indochinese tiger specimens are smaller with smaller skulls than specimens from India and appear to have darker fur with slightly narrower stripes" in there.

Its on page 269. LittleJerry (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, can you confirm now? LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• 68 Can this page range be narrowed a bit?

Why this one in particular? LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

'cause I am dubious that this information would be spread across so many pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• 73 OK
• 74 OK
• 79 This says "dawn and early morning hours" not "the early morning with a peak around dawn" which is slightly different.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• 92 OK
• 119 Can't access this source.

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• 148 Can't access this source.

  Not sure what this source supports. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  It mentions that floods, fire and predators kill cubs [b]. It also mentions that mothers transport cubs when "disturbed", The statement in the article; "When she suspects an area is no longer safe, she moves her cubs to a new spot, transporting them one by one by grabbing them by the scruff of the neck with her mouth" is more fully supported by Thapar 2004 p. 51 so I removed it for that anyway [a]. LittleJerry (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• 158 Can't access this source.

  OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• 163 OK
• 178 Where does it say "people harvesting forest products that are vital for prey species to survive in winter"?

It mentions poachers taking lichens "which can comprise up to 65% of the musk deer's winter diet". BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct. But this is ref 179. BhagyaMani (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Source number changed during editing. LittleJerry (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• 184 This would benefit from a page number.

BhagyaMani? LittleJerry (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• 188 OK although I wonder how good this source is.

Its the World Wide Fund for Nature. The Top conservation organization. LittleJerry (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• 221 OK
• 230 OK
• 241 Can't access this source.

  This checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• 247 Is the original source still available?

No, thats why its archived. LittleJerry (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, are the sources to your satisfaction now? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the sources I noted as "can't access"? For spotchecks I like to have every source singled out checked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The Thapar book can be accessed online. Click their title links. Otherwise, why single out sources you can't access? LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Grassing myself up to @FAC coordinators: , but frankly LittleJerry you'd find your reviews more malleable and your reviews more to your liking if you weren't so fucking confrontational and aggressive about everything. You seem to delight in turning everything into a sodding argument. ——Serial Number 54129 18:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You guys can access the 2004 book by creating an account on archive.org and borrowing the book for 1 hour. I don't know what's so difficult about that. Besides that, I think LittleJerry should send an email to JoJo for ref 19 and 241. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for coming access as confrontational but if one needs to shotcheck more sources than there are others freely available online. Anyhow Thapar (2004) and Mills (2004) are both available for borrowing on archive.org. I can send an email for Mazák, J. H. (2010) along with a screenshot from Green's book. LittleJerry (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I single out the sources matching a number from a random number generator. For spotchecks, I generally insist on getting a copy of offline sources, since they aren't easily verified and thus more likely to have issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I can email you Mazazk and Green. LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus; is that it? Thapar (2004) and Mills (2004) can be accessed with an archive.org account. Those cover your last three cites that you couldn't access. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: , I think we're ready. LittleJerry (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That would seem hasty as Jo-Jo Eumerus doesn't appear to have signed off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus are we done? LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this seems done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Why no publisher location for Wozencraft; Novak and Walker; Perry; and Ministry of Forestry? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Added publisher locations in the last three refs. Wozencraft is embedded in the template msw3, which does not contain location of the publisher, apparently. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And publisher location for Novak and Walker is already provided : Baltimore. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2024 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

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