Talk:Fennec fox

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fennec fox/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wolverine X-eye (talk · contribs) 13:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Previous review

I note the acrimonious GA2 review. The reviewer mentioned the following issues. I've checked them and inserted my responses below. Where an issue is no longer of concern I have struck it.

• Stability
  • I see no sign of edit-warring.
• Article too short (breadth, coverage of sources)
  • Breadth has been increased, is now sufficient for "the main points". ** Coverage of all existing research is outwith the GA criteria.
• Vulpes material in 'Taxonomy' not related (this'd be WP:SYNTH if true)
  • Synthesis or not, all of the 2nd paragraph except the first sentence is basically off-topic for this article, so please remove it.
• IUCN described as not a WP:RS, insufficient for Distribution, Habitat
  • IUCN is a reliable secondary source. Its use in the article is within reasonable limits.
• Misplaced images
  • Image placement now seems fine. (The 'In culture' issue (below) is not part of this, it's about formatting.)

Comments

• I've inserted a 'clear' to keep the image from disturbing the reflist; it could be moved, placed with |center (or in a gallery tag), or the 'In culture' section could be beefed up, which would be desirable.

• 'Taxonomy': Serge Lariviere 2002 states that Zimmerman 1780 named the species Canis zerda.]This should be both in the section and in the infobox under 'Synonyms'.
  • Has been done.

• Synonyms/Taxonomy: Lariviere 2002 lists numerous synonyms given by Gmelin 1788, Meyer 1793, Desmarest 1804 and 1820, Illiger 1811, Lesson 1827, Boitard 1842, Gray (and Leuck.) 1843, before Corbet finally named 'Vulpes zerda' in 1978. This all needs to be explained in 'Taxonomy'. The authors need their full names and wikilinks. Ref [2] Wozencraft has a useful list of synonyms, btw.
  • Has been done.

• All of They are two of eight "desert fox" species, which is a group of Vulpes that share comparable ecologies. The other members include the corsac fox, pale fox, kit fox, Tibetan fox, Ruppell’s fox and cape fox. All eight species evolved to survive in desert environments, developing several traits such as sandy colored coats, large ears, pigmented eyes, and specialized kidneys.[4] is irrelevant to the 'Taxonomy' section. It should be deleted from there, but see next item.

• Some of the Vulpes material (item above) could go in a 'Phylogeny' section which would have to present the phylogenomics of part of Vulpes with a cladogram showing V. zerda in context with its nearest neighbours, using a fresh source. It is not clear from any of the existing text in 'Taxonomy' which those nearest neighbours are, so the current Vulpes text (in either paragraph) is not germane to this article.

• 'Description': locating vertebrates: I think you mean "locating prey" here, which includes insects and birds.

• I've made one or two very minor copy-edits.

• 'Distribution and habitat' is ok.

• 'Behaviour': family groups consisting of several members - don't family groups always do this? Suggest we lose the last 4 words.

• 'Diseases': suggest we gloss each of the 3 parasites mentioned, and rename the section 'Parasites and diseases'.

• I'd actually go one step further and merge the 'Diseases' and 'Predators' section so we have a single section on upwards-facing ecological interactions (i.e. all but prey), named 'Predators, parasites, and diseases'.

• 'Threats' is fine.

• 'Conservation': suggest demote it as a subsection of 'Threats'.

• 'In captivity' conflates two subjects. One is conservation: that material should be merged into the section above. The rest is about keeping fennec foxes as pets and their captive behaviour; I'd suggest this 'In captivity' material belongs in 'Interaction with humans' as a subsection alongside 'In culture'. If you put the 'In culture' bit first then the image won't run into the refs, btw.

• 'In culture' seems too thin, as mentioned earlier. How did Gustav Mützel come to do that fine drawing (not a "sketch", by the way)? He must have seen groups live somewhere in Africa.

• Additional material for 'In culture':
  • Antoine de Saint-Exupéry has a desert fox in his 1943 novella The Little Prince. Many sources including [1] say this is a fennec. (There are images of his fox on Commons, e.g. File:Исполнители_главных_ролей_в_шоу_Маленький_принц.jpg if you want to say it's appeared in theatre.)
  • [2] mentions US law on keeping in captivity.
  • [3] mentions the fennec as one of "the faces of Ranger Rick magazine for the year 2000". National Wildlife Federation publication with "full-color cover shots".
  • [4] tells us that " my boyfriend (or mate within the Furry community) Woolf is a fennec fox. He intentionally chose the name 'Woolf' because of its normative nature (a true rarity in the Furry community) but it is also funny because he is not a wolf." You read it here first. I guess fennecs as cute, cuddly and furry is a theme somewhere.
  • Wikipedia's own "Foxes in popular culture" needs a "see also" link in this section. It mentions "Aggretsuko – Fenneko" and "Beastars – Voss (a Fennec Fox)". Should be worth investigating, citing, and mentioning.
  • All of this is only scratching the surface of 'Fennec foxes in culture' as I'm certain there are folktales from Africa about them.

Images

• All the images are relevant and plausibly licensed.

Sources

Spotchecks:

• [1] ok. [7] ok if we're using it. [9] ok for both desc and distrib. [29] ok.

Summary

• This article is taking shape well but still needs work especially 'In culture' and 'Taxonomy'/'Phylogeny'. A bit of reorganisation is needed to make sense of 'In captivity'. I don't see any serious show-stoppers once the breadth and focus have been addressed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I completed everything except the In Culture part which will need more digging and searching. I think I'll go give my local library a visit to inspect any books/novels they may have on this species. It should take me about two to three hours to fully analyze the library's literature, which is quite large. ✿ WolveríneX-eye ✿ 11:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Chiswick Chap: That's all I could find. My library only had books discussing Japanese/Chinese and European fox tales, legends and folklores. I couldn't locate any lengthy literature review of this species. Also, I failed to track down a reliable source describing Voss or any character for that matter as the animal they resemble. All I found was a bunch of fancruft. ✿ WolveríneX-eye ✿ 13:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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