Former good article nomineeArctodus was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
March 20, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Error in Maximum Weight?[edit]

Hello ~ I think there is an error on this page. According to the article in the second cite (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724630903416027), the maximum weight found in their study was 957 kg (2110 lbs.). However, in looking at the article, Table 3 appears to show a maximum estimated weight of 1,110 kg or 2447 lbs. Am I interpreting this correctly?? Mithalwulf (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected talk page[edit]

It should be noted that the original talkpage and talkpage history were redirected to Talk:Short face bear and never moved back when this article was renamed. This and Talk:Short face bear need to be merged. --Kevmin § 18:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to common name -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great article about an awesome beast! But...why was it moved from Short-faced bear? Did something overrule WP:COMMONNAME? Chrisrus (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arctodus → Short-faced bear – WP:COMMONNAME -- relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Chrisrus (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Common name" refers to readers, not experts. Everything should always be about the readers and their needs. Even so, Google Scholar searches for "short-faced bear" resulted in 1,400 hits. For "arctodus" it's 651. "Bulldog bear" yielded eleven hits, most of which were in parenthesis after the term "short-faced bear". What will happen when we do a general google search or one on You-tube? It can only get more heavily weighed toward "short-faced". Where does your idea that "arctodus" is more common come from? Chrisrus (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was that 1400 with or without quotes? Searching with it in quotes gives 639. Youtube is not a reliable source for names.--Kevmin § 08:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You tube is a place people might have heard of this animal from. Another is TV, popular science magazines media in general. Please think in terms of a likely reader, not an expert, doing the search. A general Google search yields @54,200,000 hits for "short-faced bear" in quotes, and only 31,500 for Arctodus. And anyway, none of that matters really because "Arctodus" is a technical name for use by experts only and isn't English per se but a contrived international Latin/greek taxonmic term for use by experts and, and "short-faced bear" is a common name used used by common people and experts when they are speaking English. It's like calling the article "lion" "Felis leo". Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Chrisrus (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Size comparison[edit]

Is there a more accurate size comparison somewhere? If so, I can use it as reference, and shrink the man in the article's image. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass[edit]

Hello, i added new recent informations about the mass of this animal. I also replaced the image which compares arctodus simus with a human because this image was not really accurate.--C T (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Height of Short Face Bear[edit]

I see that the reference for the largest male specimen of Short Face bear from Shasta County, California and Yukon Territory give a standing height of 4 meters. I was curious if this is true? All of the height estimates on 2 legs, that I have seen for Arctodus range from 11 to 12 feet, or 3.5 meters. Is there any evidence Yukonensis and Shastanensis were taller than the average. Large males may have commonly grown this big, but it seems very tall for an average. Just curious. --174.25.117.220 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true, take it as original research but I've made an skeletal based on the specimen described by Richards & Turnbull (1995), I've improved it in details since the last time I reposed it to be standing on 2 legs but I got it to be 2.9m tall and its measurements are around 90% those of the biggest specimens known, heights over 3.5m are certainly out of the question, even 3.5m looks like a tall order. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

The short-faced bear, also known as the bulldog bear, or Arctodus (Greek, "bear tooth")

Doesn't this imply that short-faced bear is as valid a name as Arctodus? wouldn't something like this be more appropriate? "The short-faced bear, also known as the bulldog bear, is the common name of the extinct bear genus Arctodus (Greek, "bear tooth"). Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting style?[edit]

"Paul Matheus, paleontologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, determined that Arctodus' moved in a pacing motion like a camel, horse, and modern bears, making it built more for endurance than for great speed. A. simus, according to these arguments, was ill-equipped to be an active predator...."

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. There are lots of carnivores that are endurance hunters, chasing their prey over long distances until it wears down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.163.217.104 (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, all bears are 'active predators' - they grab fish and small animals all the time - Matheus' comment needed to be fine-tuned. Are bears killers like a lion? No - but they are most assuredly active predators. So is a blue whale. 104.169.28.113 (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Media[edit]

I don't know if this is worth creating a subsection for, but this animal appears in the video game Guild Wars 2 in an ice age-like setting. Might be worth creating a subsection if anyone knows any other notable depictions. Natural ironist (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PBS Eons?[edit]

Is it true that Arctodus pristinus evolved about 2.5 million years ago as described in the PBS Eons episode "The Mystery Behind the Biggest Bears of All Time"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsath3 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 February 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. short-faced bear to redirect to Tremarctinae (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short-faced bear → Arctodus – In doing my research for short-faced bear articles on Wikipedia (see my contributions), it has become clearly apparent that the term "Short-faced bear" is not just the common name of Arctodus, but also of the entire Tremarctinae subfamily of bears (which while including Arctodus, also includes Arctotherium, Tremarctos and Plionarctos),. This would be the equivalent of choosing the title Ape for an article on Homo. Particularly now that the other colossal tremarctine, the South American short-faced bear Arctotherium, has entered the public conscience in the West, both Arctodus and Arctotherium are usually referred to via their genus names these days, if not the general term "Short-faced bear", or "North/South American short-faced bear" (at least in the media I've seen). I would suggest that the title "Short-faced bear" redirects to Tremarctinae instead, and Arctodus regains its own article. SuperTah (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: You didn't search for the uncaptalized variation. When you do, the Google Ngrams show that "short-faced bear" is more common.
Interesting idea, would be open to seeing this happen... SuperTah (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: I have not doubt the term "short-faced bear: is still used frequently in academic literature- in fact I totally expect it to be so. However, as I mentioned in the initial post, the term "short-faced bear" is not exclusively used for Arctodus- the term is also used for other tremarctines, such as Arctotherium and Tremarctos floridanus. As a result, the general term "short-faced bear" is also used in conjunction with the genus name whenever a paper or book is talking about any of these three genera (e.g. "Arctotherium belongs to Tremarctinae, a subfamily of ursids otherwise known as the "short-faced bears" / "Another short-faced bear from North America, Tremarctos floridanus, also went extinct at the end of the Pleistocene"). The rise of "short-faced bear" over "Arctodus" in this graph more demonstrates the increase in research and press about the latter two genera in the last ~25 years- if "short-faced bear" were used exclusively with Arctodus, you'd imagine they'd roughly mirror each other on the graph after 1995, no?. SuperTah (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if this is a common name for an entire subfamily, we can't even know what those search result refer to. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia articles for Tremarctinae already refer to short-faced bear being for the entire family, and a search on Google Scholar show that Arctotherium and Arctodus are both known as giant short-faced bears. Unless we want to change the article title to North American giant short-faced bear, renaming the article Arctodus seems to be the easiest way to avoid confusion as long as it is done thoroughly enough. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps! Could be like the Glyptodont article SuperTah (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverTiger12: but surely some short-faced bears can also be spectacled bears? YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverTiger12: In the spectacled bear's case, both names are valid- just like a macaw is still a parrot. I would also be against the potential re-naming of the Tremarctinae page if each member of Tremarctos didn't already have their own Wikipedia pages. Seeing as only one member of the subfamily is commonly referred to through a different name, and that there isn't much space for confusion as the spectacled bear has its own page, I'm open to it. The only scientific issue I have is that technically their snouts are deep rather than short... the shortness is an illusion. However, looking at the spectacled bear, the illusion is strong enough to fool me! Curious to hear everyone else's opinions about that move though. SuperTah (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperTah: seems fine to me. I think the illusion of shortness is caused by them actually having deeper faces than other bears, so maybe deep-faced bear should be the name (or maybe not). YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireExpat: Maybe! SuperTah (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop[edit]

Hi everyone. As I've spent a while trying to add to this article (but also needing to work), I've decided to lighten the load on my Chrome and place a bunch of sources I was reading through here, in order to be used later. Some other things I learnt while researching Arctodus:

a) The Pliocene includes the Gelasian before 2009, so be careful

Topics:

Arctodus simus' temporal range- 1.6Ma, 1Ma or 800kya?

Specimens in the scanners:

Cass County Nebraska (The giant short-faced bear (Arctodus simus) in the Pleistocene of Nebraska)

A mastodon humerus from the Snowmastodon site in Colorado bears tooth marks also suggested to be from Arctodus.Flickr seems to believe so (possibly due to the museum exhibit), but haven't find a source yet

Frankston Cave, Pennsylvania

Rock Creek Texas

Follow up on https://carnivora.net/north-american-giant-short-faced-bear-arctodus-sim-t469.html

Notation on a much larger La Brea specimen from an abstract in the 1990s (1991?1992?) from a recent source

Elsinore Arctodus

Shorts Creek, Haskell Co., Kansas, arctodus

Do any of these exist? Burrough Valley (CA), Wakulla Springs (FL), Lake Wawasee & Syracuse Lake (IN)

Other Sources:

Nueva evidencia sobre la relación filogenética entre los osos pleistocenos de América del Sur y del Norte

Relationships and Structure of the Short-Faced Bear, Arctotherium, from the Pleistocene of California

M. E. Arnaudo

Currently blocked

Voorhies, M. R., and R. G. Corner. 1986. “Giant Bear Arctodus as a Potential Breaker and Flaker of Late Pleistocene Megafaunal Remains.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 3: 49–51.

Schubert, B. W. 2008. Dental evolution in North American short-faced bears. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 28:138A

The Age and Vertebrate Paleontology of Labor-of-Love Cave, White Pine County, Nevada

Geomorphology and paleontology of Riverbluff Cave, Springfield, Missouri

Friesenhahn Cave: Late Pleistocene paleoecology and predator-prey relationships of mammoths with an extinct scimitar cat

Eng-Ponce et al. 2018? Nuevos registros de Smilodon, Puma y Arctodus para el Rancholabreano de la Cinta Portalitos, Mich-Gto

I. Ferrusquia-Villafranca. 1978. Bol Univ Nac Aut Mex Inst Geol 101:193-321 (used to source Arctodus pristinus being in New Jersey).

Grayson 2016

"Carnivores from the Mammoth Site Hot Springs, South Dakota." Baryshnikov et al. (1994)

Schubert et al (2013, not Donohue)

Climate, environment, and game animal resources of the Late Pleistocene Mexican grassland. In El Hombre Temprano en América y sus Implicaciones en el Poblamiento de la Cuenca de México (coords L. J. C. Jiménez, S. González, J. A. Pompa y Padilla & P. Ortíz), pp. 231–45. Colección Científica, 500, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia

Arctodus simus from the Alaskan Arctic Slope

Monroe gravel pit Utah

The great North American short-faced bear, (Arctodus simus) 1988

Distribution of Cenozoic vertebrate faunas in Middle America and problems of migration between North and South America

Dietary Interpretations for Extinct Megafauna Using Coprolites, Intestinal Contents, and Stable Isotopes: Complimentary or Contradictory?

dholes, Soergelia

Source bundles

https://ielc.libguides.com/sdzg/factsheets/extinctshort-facedbear/bibliography

https://eurekamag.com/research/004/598/004598729.php

Site list 1 (Mindat)

Site list 2 (UTEP)

Source bank

Another source bank? Blog

80th SVP

SuperTah (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal[edit]

I am considering splitting the "Discussions regarding diet" section, as this article otherwise feels a bit bloated. I think this could also at least partly help with concerns regarding the clarity of prose in this article, as this is probably the unruly section for me. I have tested this concept in my sandbox. The article could be similar to the Dietary biology of the brown bear article. Any feedback? SuperTah (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A thing to consider, though, is whether the article is too detailed. See WP:Be concise. Compare with how for example the featured article Smilodon is written. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk Hmmm, I'd say yes and no. I do agree that the Smilodon article is nicely written, but beyond my love for detail, the reason why my additions to this article are detail heavy is because there is very little elsewhere on the internet with accurate, sourced and up to date information about this genus. Even museum exhibits still sell the stale science, which I'd say is a major point of difference with Smilodon. I am happy to review sections to see what could be trimmed (which is partly why I requested the peer-review). However, I thought that this split could go someway to balancing this article. What do you think? SuperTah (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting deleting information, just that it should be possible to make the wording more concise with the same info. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah fair enough! On that we certainly agree, there are definitely areas where info could be more concise. Do you have any other feedback? SuperTah (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I was too late for the peer review, but I'll try to write something here when I get the time. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems new information is emerging? There are still issues with length, which can maybe be looked at when the peer review issues below are dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep true! That may always be the case though... I've combed through the more obvious cuts, but I'll go further with a deeper trim, and find avenues where plain language does not distort the science. I'll try to get an expert on Arctodus to review fluency. SuperTah (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I got some additional feedback from SilverTiger12, what are your thoughts on the length of specific sections (or the entire article)? SuperTah (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arctodus Wikipedia article discussed on r/Pleistocene in Reditt[edit]

There is a discussion currently in r/Pleistocene in Reditt in "Is the wikipedia page for Arctodus inaccurate?." It sounds like they have valid concerns about statements "that Arctodus simus was unable to overpower other large predators..." citing the paper "Demythologizing Arctodus simus, the ‘short-faced’ long-legged and predaceous bear that never was". It looks like to me someone should look into it. Paul H. (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I initially read that statement, I was rather surprised. I thought it was too harsh myself, and wondered if I had written that. Turns out, that quote (at least verbatim) doesn't exist in our Arctodus article. The closest I could find is "however, in addition to many contemporaneous predators being gregarious and thus better able to defend their kills, Arctodus' great size variation would have likely limited the frequency of this behavior to all but the largest Arctodus simus." (which was talking about kleptoparasitism, in the Paleo-ecological reconstructions section) and which I think can be revisited. The gracility of Arctodus simus seems to be their main problem with the article, however I have just been paraphrasing what the published articles and scientists have written- the sources are there. Perhaps they were talking about the "Super predator" hypothesis section, where the idea that Arctodus mauled large megafauna as its main predaceous strategy is discounted. It's not clear, as the only quotation marks are around statements that do not exist in the article. In any case, stating that Arctodus did not habitually wrestle with megafaunal prey does not mean large Arctodus individuals could not steal kills away from other megafaunal predators- do you think that's the misunderstanding?
Additionally, a response to their claims. There is no mention of northern populations being differentiated by size in the source. In the paper, there is a single specimen thought to have reached 900-1000kg. There may have been an additional specimen outside of the paper which also may have reached that size, but that's it. As we have over specimens from over 100 localities, I don't think we should be so sure about their frequency, at least in this article. The comparison between Arctodus and Arctotherium is sourced, and relevant as both massive tremarctines are often compared to each other. Drawing out parallels and differences helps understand how they convergently evolved, and how their ecology and temporal ranges could have been unique. SuperTah (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the comments on the peer review! I took a wiki-break on the latter end of the year, so I seem to have missed these excellent notes by @Z1720, which I very much appreciate. I've edited the comments into a more itemized list to keep up with all the comments.

Comments by Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

a) "leading to the diversification of the genus, including the colossal Arctotherium angustidens." Needs a citation

b) "Typically thought of as an open habitat specialist, Arctodus seems to have also been abundant in mixed habitat where C3 vegetation was available. Based on the wide distribution of the species, Arctodus simus inhabited diverse climatic conditions and all sorts of environments, ranging from boreal forests and mammoth steppe in the north, open plains and highland woodlands in the interior, subtropical woodlands and savannas in the south, to the pine–oak forests of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, the boundary of the Nearctic realm.[13][18][84][60][85][86]" Is this many citations needed? Perhaps move some of them earlier in the paragraph or WP:CITEBUNDLE

c) "One theory behind the extinction of Arctodus simus is that A. simus may have been out-competed by brown bears as the latter expanded southwards from eastern Beringia, and gradually established itself in North America." Needs a citation

d) "Brown bears and Arctodus have been discovered together in Alaska (then Beringia) before ∼34,000 BP, and in later Pleistocene deposits in Vancouver Island, Wyoming and Nevada." Needs a citation

e) Wow, that map is huge. I would consult with an editor more familiar with writing biology articles to see if that map is needed or can be reduced.

f) "and Utah. The Intermontane Plateau extended deep into Mexico, where it demarked the southernmost habitat of Arctodus simus." Needs a citation

g) "Additional Irvingtonian remains have been recovered from Arkalon in Kansas, Hay Springs in Nebraska, and Rock Creek in Texas." Needs a citation

h) "Additional remains have been found at Island Ford Cave in Virginia, and Frankstown in Pennsylvania." Needs a citiation

i) "A mastodon humerus from the Snowmastodon site in Colorado bears tooth marks also suggested to be from Arctodus" Needs a citation

j) "These behaviors may be applicable to the giant short-faced bears Arctotherium and Arctodus." Needs a citation

k) " However, this has been discredited by modern research- evidence continues to maintain a prolonged co-existence of humans and Arctodus across North America." Needs a citation

l) "Calico, Hartley Mammoth Site, Pendejo Cave and White Sands suggest that humans co-existed with Arctodus for many thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. This extensive overlap with Arctodus across North America puts significant doubt to the migration barrier hypothesis." Needs a citation

m) "Below is a table collating radiocarbon dates directly sampled from Arctodus simus specimens (not including dates from associated remains nor stratigraphy).[16][31][38][43][65][78][169][188][204][205][206][207][208][209]" Can these citations be placed in the table instead of here?

n) I don't think "GeorgiaBeforePeople" is a reliable source and should probably be removed.

Overall, this article looks like it is in great shape, but might be too long. I think with some fixing up and some trims it could be nominated for WP:GAN and possibly WP:FAC. I hope these comments help.

Response by SuperTah

Thank you very much, these help a lot! A lot of these are reasonable requests for citations which are already in use across the article, which I'll retrieve. I've added comments to the other feedback. I will work on these like a checklist and post a response for each one when I've completed each point.

a) Citations needed Done

b) Citations need sorting Done

c, d) Citations needed Done

e) I really hope the map can stay- as a visual learner, it really helps in visualising the range of Arctodus. Out of curiosity, what's the reasoning behind removing/downsizing the map?

f) I hoped that this could be inferred based on the biogeography of the range, what sort of reference would be appropriate? 8 Nov 2023: Done

g, h) Citations needed Done

i) Present since before I started editing this article. The caption on Flickr alleges that Arctodus caused the bone damage citing a paper covering the Snowmastodon site. However, the article doesn't reference it, and neither does the other paper I found on Snowmastodon. The damage does look like it was inflicted by Arctodus simus/Panthera atrox though, so the caption on this article could be changed to "predator damage", as that's the focus of the section. Done

j) Covered within the previous citation, will reposition it. Done

k & l) Also meant to be an inference, but this one is a bit trickier to cover with a citation as there aren't papers on human/Arctodus interactions covering that period. I may reword it to better fit the citations. 8 Nov 2023: Done

m) Yeah I'd definitely prefer that, IIRC I think I had some difficulty working with the format. I'll either get it eventually, or hopefully get assistance. 8 Nov 2023: Someone deleted the entire table, not reconsidering replacing it at the moment. Defacto Done

n) Valid, I think I added it as there was extra information in the article. May not be ultimately necessary. Done SuperTah (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would've been much easier to understand if you'd responded in-line as is normally done in reviews. I can throw in a few comments too:

With work, though, this has the potential to be a very good (or even a Good or Featured) article. Good luck and happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!
- Yeah my bad
- That's a shame about the map. I think I find it easier to process when it was larger, but I'll trust your judgement. Just wondering about your doubts though, the map seems to me to be just like a range map (with the fossil localities labelled once scrolled over). What issues may there be?
- I'll get on that
- Yeah that's fair, there was much more detail that I expected when I began researching Arctodus. Even more so considering the sheer volume of misinformation online.
A lot of the information I compiled also isn't easily available online (there are 200ish papers I included after all). Another issue is that there isn't a ton of academic consensus. Splitting was also an option I floated, but I didn't get many bites. Do you have any recommendations for how long the sections should be? If not, then thank you very much for the feedback, I'll chew on it while condensing this article! SuperTah (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over-detailed[edit]

Before this article can hope to pass GAN, it needs severe editing to comply with Wikipedia's summary style. Perhaps half of the sections and subsections should not be, including but not limited to: Relationships with other bears, hibernation, diet, carbon isotope studies, all the subsections about locations.

I would also recommend some reorganization to match the layout of other fossil mammal genera: Start with a section that covers the research history and taxonomy, the description, then palaeobiology, then palaeoecology. I strongly encourage you to limit yourself to one large paragraph about size, and a second about possible sexual dimorphism. Among other summarizing. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the changes suggested above would seriously improve the article and make it more likely to pass GA. I would like to also suggest taking a look at the placement and size of the map of fossil localities in the article. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Arctodus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Morrison Man (talk · contribs) 21:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reading through the article and will provide notes within 24 hours. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Having read over the page there are a few major issues I'd like you to address before I can move along with the rest of the review. Most prominently I have some concerns in relation to WP:Readability. The guideline advises to trim an article or split out content when a page reaches more than 9000 words, which Arctodus at its current size clears easily (11145). Looking at the page, this should be solvable by going over some sections again and keeping an eye on overdetailing, in adherance with WP:Summary style. In my opinion there's three sections of the article that could benefit most from cleanup, namely Diet, Paleoecology and Relationships with other bears, all of which I think go above the required amount of detail. I would advise checking the rest of the article aswell. Should you want more input on what could potentially be simplified or removed, let me know.

As for my second point, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, I also have some issues with the way the page is structured. The sections on hibernation and diet should arguably be included under paleobiology, and a number of small subheadings like the one for paws could be left out. You've also created a number of new sections (meaning I haven't seen similarly titled ones on articles for extinct animals before), but seeing as they're well-sourced I don't see any issues with those except for aforementioned overdetailing.

To sum it up, I can see that you've put a lot of effort in this article, which should be evident to anyone from the source list alone. However, because the issues I mentioned above do clash with two of the six good article criteria, I was doubting whether or not the page should be failed. But, the article as it stands is a good base layer. If you can sort out these issues I think it can become an article of very high quality, hence my decision not to fail it. If you have any further questions, let me know. More detailed feedback per section will follow after I've seen some progress on the two major issues. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lack of edits I have placed the review on hold. You have seven more days to fix the issues addressed before I'll have to cut the review short. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperTah Final reminder, you have one day left to reply, otherwise I will have to fail the article. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Apologies, I have been travelling on and off intensively over the last month. So glad to have email notifications on user mentions!
Thank you for the initial review. I will go over it shortly. SuperTah (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperTah Hi there, just want to tell you that we highly encourage you to put talk pages of articles on your watchlist the next time you nominate an article. You didn't leave any responses or edit activity for GAN concerns brought up on the Arctodus talk page back in January, so we had no clue if you wanted to work on the GAN nomination still. Some GAN reviewers are not as generous, so please make sure to respond in a timely fashion next time. Thanks! PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been four days and I still haven't seen any signs of progress. You have three more days to show otherwise before I'll have to close the review. The Morrison Man (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No further activity. I've decided to fail the article for GA. Before nominating again I would advise taking care of the points listed above. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder height[edit]

The article says that the highest height of a short-faced bear at the withers is 1.67 meters, and the average value is 1-1.67 meters. Don't you think this estimate is too low? I saw a complete skeleton of a short-faced bear about 1.7 meters tall, and with flesh it would have to be at least 6 feet. Cryzziermaximum (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the edit without consulting other participants. Cryzziermaximum (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that 1.67 meters is only 0.03 off from 1.7, right? That seems within the margin of error, and I assume the height estimate in the article is cited. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article implies that 1.67 meters is the largest arctodus. If the height of the skeleton without meat is 170 centimeters, the overall height of the animal will be much higher. And the height of the arctodus at 1 meter is very ridiculous. Cryzziermaximum (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the provided sourcing? The Morrison Man (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes
" Cryzziermaximum (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 feet, he was 5½ to 6 feet at the shoulders.
With the front legs straight, the skeleton is 66 inches to the top of the shoulder blades (the big shield-shaped shoulder bones). If short-faced bears had a hump of muscle on the shoulders, he could have been as much as 6 feet at the shoulders.
On 2 legs, he stood 11 to 12 feet tall.
From the crown to the hip joint and down to the heel is 134 inches. That’s 11 feet, 2 inches standing up looking at you or peering down through a basketball hoop. He could look up and bite a branch 12 feet high.
He could reach up 14½ to 15 feet.
He could reach 2 ½ to 3 feet higher with a paw than he could reach with his mouth. This skeleton measures 72 inches from the center of the shoulder blade to the tips of the toes (adding 2 inches for the missing claws). Subtracting 42 inches from the center of the shoulder blade to the tip of the nose, this bear could reach 30 inches above his up-stretched nose—to at least 14½ feet. If he rotated his shoulder upward a few inches, he could reach even higher. Ice Age campers had to hang their food higher than campers do today.
He weighed about a ton.
Archeologists estimate most giant short-faced bears, including females, to weigh 1600 to 1900 pounds. Some estimates exceed a ton. This large male specimen probably weighed close to a ton, which is more than twice what the Bear Center’s resident adult male Ted weighs. Cryzziermaximum (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher, W. A. (2018-02-05). "How Big Was This Short-Faced Bear?". North American Bear Center. Retrieved 2023-11-02. Cryzziermaximum (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories