# Talk:Quoll

If not, then the article should be changed. --Ettrig (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Where should I change the article. Which part is wrong.. Tasmania is off the coast of Australia. So it is like New Guinea. --Savetheoceans (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The text under Habitat says the quolls were found all over the two land masses. According to your answer this excludes Tasmania. But quolls both were and are on Tasmania. Also: This text lacks references. --Ettrig (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I put that info up before i was finished with my research.... I fixed it. Thanks for pointing out mistakes, even though I am bad at accepting criticism I am definitely learning that criticism is a good thing, and only makes articles better. Thanks!:) --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Tasmania is not a separate country...it is part of Australia, and part of the Australian Continent (as an island). 58.6.103.74 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I just finished with most of the peer review. The reason I say most of the peer review is because at first I changed everything, but looking back, I decided that, in my opinion, the old way was better. For example, I saw no reason to take out mentions of the threats from the conservation section. I thought that it helped link the two, and make the article a better read. Also, when told to differentiate more between Australia and Tasmania, I did, but the article in my mind became choppy. Lastly, a suggestion to separate the article even more for each of the 6 species of quoll worried me. The peer review said I was being general, but I thought that this article was meant to be general, and that if you wanted specification, one could go to the other articles for a particular species. Then again, I am just a teenage girl, so I don't want to seem like I know everything. I am proud of my work, and I think that might cloud my judgement on what needs to change. If anyone would like to explain how these would make it better, or make the changes themselves, go right ahead. This is a learning experience and I am just beginning to understand Wikipedia. Thanks! --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best to handle comments in the following order: Read, Understand, Evaluate, Change. Change should come last, after you have come to the conclusion that the change is a good one. Wikipedia is to be driven by consensus. In some cases it takes time and discussion to reach consensus. Only in rare cases should the final decision be made by vote. In Wikipedia itself, almost no person has particular authority to decide what is right. (But in your case I suppose the teacher has some authority over what you do in Wikipedia.) As for Australia/Tasmania, I did not ask for differentiation. Australia is a landmass. I asked whether Tasmania is considered part of that land mass. This depends on the meaning of landmass. Because English is not my mother tongue and because I have never lived in an English-speaking country, I am sometimes unsure of the precise meaning of common English words. In this case I felt that the word landmass can only refer to contiguous land and would therefore exclude Tasmania. But we wanted to say that the quolls occur on New Guinea, Australia and Tasmania. I think it would be quite OK to say that the quolls are indigenous to Australia and New Guinea. There is no need to use the word land mass. --Ettrig (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I was wrong about Australia. Here is a better solution. (But again: use your own judgment.) The quolls are indigenous to Australia. (Check the wikilink!) --Ettrig (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! Maybe I should have clarified. Ettrig, all of your help is wanted and needed. The fact that Enlgish is not your first language makes what you are doing even more impressive. It was not you, but a comment made by yomangi. I just didn't want to point fingers thats all. :)--Savetheoceans (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That WP:Easter egg is definitely to be avoided. Better to say the continent of Australia. And while I'm here Savetheoceans, you asked me earlier whether I thought the article was ready for GA, and I think it is. Bear in mind that it can easily take a week or more before a reviewer shows up, so you've got plenty of time to continue buffing up the article in the meantime. Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes and no! Yes, "continent of Australia" is better. No, Australia only, linking to Australia (continent), is not an easter egg. The continent is one of two equally valid meanings. --Ettrig (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I will put it up right now! Oh my goodness this is so exciting!--Savetheoceans (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the article River martin and the two articles about the species. These articles form a Good topic, menaing all three articles are classified as Good and as relating well to each other. Maybe this gives some ideas on what to put in the genus and species articles, respectively. --Ettrig (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Quoll/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'll begin reviewing and jot notes below - looks promising: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Some reorganising is in order....
this sentence " Early English settlers referred to quolls as "native cats", "native polecats", or "spotted marten". " is about what the critters were called and is best off in taxonomy not description, and would slot in well after the last sentence in the taxonomy section. In fact, up until the late 1970s, all the books called them native cats, until there was a swing back to calling them quolls. Would be great to get this history of names into the article. I might try and hunt something myself...
Now here is an article which I like as it goes into greater detail than  what we have which is scattered about the web. Note that the alternate name Mustela quoll which is proposed and rejected by the authors is less interesting than the lengthy discussion on the etymology and early discussion by settlers. added - the species name disputed we can add to the individual species it's relevant to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
aha! it was David Fleay who was instrumental in resurrecting the term! Now he's an iconic figure in wildlife conservation etc. here so this is very interesting. A fascinating book this, not sure if folks outside Oz can see it on google books...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
in a similar vein "Quolls are carnivorous marsupials." is about behaviour, not description, and so should be moved there.
I'd reorganise the taxonomy section so that the " The name Dasyurus means "hairy-tail"..." is the first sentence - have the naming and name first, then relationships to other critters, then species, then common names.
The section called Habitat is actually about Distribution and habitat and should be renamed thus.
The caption "The quoll's range" - erm, there are more than one quoll so the apostrophe goes.........where? ;)
Ditto at "The quoll's diet is dominated by medium-sized mammals..."
A 2008 study of the pouches of spotted-tail quolls... (this is the alternate name for which species?)
I suspect there will be some anatomical information about what features the critters have in common skeleton-wise, and what distinguishes or allies them to their relatives. I'll have a nose around and ask. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
a bookmark of a paper on genetic study of Dasyuridae - as it is an Australian journal - easy for me to get fulltext of this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC) now added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is important to get. I can get the fulltext of this and add if you don't have access to get it. But right now am tired and need to sleep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I would love full access to this article. Thanks :) Savetheoceans (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
OK - I can't attach files to the "email user" option. If you email me I can reply with the file attached. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Emailing you would be great. But I don't have your email address and I could not find it on your talk page, this may just be an oversight on my part. Thanks Savetheoceans (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Go to User:Casliber and in the frame on the left of the screen you'll see a Toolbox, one of the the options of which is to "email this user". Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Malleus! Just emailed him. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sent now - don't get too bogged down in the middle bits as it is very heavy going, but the conclusions are interesting. If you feel lost with it I'll have a go at tweaking :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Just as a word of encouragement, you're really lucky to get Casliber as your reviewer. He's far more demanding than the average GA reviewer would be, but if he passes it you can be pretty sure that it's top notch. Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Aww, gee thanks Malleus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I am more than thankful that he is my reviewer. I will have a look at the article today. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
So, I've begun reading the article, but I can't figure out where I should put this in the article. Should I write the information in habitat, behaviour, or description? Thanks Savetheoceans (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
What I would do is  combine the list of species info and have it only once - in taxonomy. Then I'd add the material to habitat and behaviour. Have a go and I'll review and fine-tune afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It becomes tricky in some of these parent articles (i.e. of genus rather than species) about how much info to include etc. I'll have a think about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"There are more than one quoll"? The subject is the genus, not individual quolls, hence "the quoll's diet" and "the quoll's range" is correct. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think it depends on context (i.e. singular as a group defining noun, or plural as shorthand for (the six species of) quoll). The one in the description section...nevermind I think we can ditch that one....the one in diet comes after two sentences talking about larger quolls and smaller quolls, so I reckon that one looks odd as a singular. The one in reproduction I agree goes best as singular. The one next to "cane toad" I am iffy about - it is not a threat to the majority of species whose range isn't anywhere near the toad, so doesn't go well there - I'd specifiy the species it is threatening (as long as the source does) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all of the editing suggestions and for editing the article. I think that I have fixed most of the edit suggestions. I am a bit confused about what you want me to do concerning the David Fleay. Do you want me to do research? What information are you looking to be added to the article? Thanks again --Savetheoceans (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I was giving you first dibs on adding it, but never mind as I am more familiar with the material, so will add soonish. added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Well thanks! I am really happy with the amount of work that we've put into the article since nomination. Its starting to look really good. Thank you for reviewing it! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Ack! Free time has been patchy - back later today (Oz time) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
No worries! There is no rush. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Now, here's a tricky bit - one thing you try and do is to not mention bits twice if you don't need to - see this edit where I found you'd mentioned the number of species twice in the lead, so I removed one. There is a remaining issue in that the list of the six species is listed out twice in the article and it'd be great if we could remove one - this can be maddening. This is  avery common problem in articles with groups of critters in them.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

are you talking about the species being repeated in the lead and in the taxonomy??? Because if you are, maybe we could keep both in as I believe that they are important content to their specific subtitles... Savetheoceans (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No no, I mean combining the lists that are in (1) taxonomy, and (2) distribution and habitat - I'd place a more comprehensive profile of the species in taxonomy and make more of a paragraph in distribution and habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. So I did my best to take out a list.. I hope it makes sense... Would you mind striking through what has been discussed and done so that I know whats done? Thanks Savetheoceans (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Errrr, sorry I realise I wasn't clear above - I meant to keep a list (profile) of the species in taxonomy and make a para of all species distribution and habitat in distribution and habitat. Oops. I'll strike as much as possible above...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I put the list back in. Is it all better now? Savetheoceans (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Getting there (sorry, been a very busy couple of days!) - I will show you what I mean. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, have a look now and see what you think. Also note some questions at Talk:Quoll#More_comments, which I think are valid. The tiger and eastern quolls co-occur - I do recall seeing a paper documenting that they have different niches (one is much bigger and hence they have some diferences in prey) somehwere which I think would be good to add. WIll see if I can find it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Any information you find is valuable to the article. On that note, my teacher is looking at the article you emailed to me, as it was a bit too scientific in its vocabulary for me to understand completely.
I will be happy to address all of the concerns as soon as possible. Sorry I have been away for Thanksgiving, where internet connection was spotty at best! I will start editing tonight! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I hate to seem pushy, but I would just like to reiterate that I was hoping that we could get this article to GA before Christmas. I am working on this for a school project, and quality is most important, but it would also be nice to show my teacher that my article made it to the prestigious position of GA. I apologize if you feel that I am rushing you. Thanks :) Savetheoceans (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Right then, marking time...
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  - I rejigged the diet myself as it was a bit tricky, it sorta covers the same material that I was going to hunt down anyway so I think we're over the line for GA status. Have a look at how I rejigged it. Anyway, there we go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
WoooHOOOOOO!!! yay GA! Awesome! Thanks so much for being such a helpful GA reviewer. I love the new diet stuff! :) :) :) ;) 21:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheoceans (talk • contribs)  

Cheer up! This is going fine. Take one problem at a time. 

Of all the places where the name is not used, why is only Sydney mentioned? I guess this should be explained or this mentioning should be removed.
Because Sydney was where Cook had landed and was where the specimen was believed to have been collected. Hence the interest in the name having come from north Queensland aborogines (5000 km away!). I'll see what I can add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe clarify that the length of the tail should be added to the other length specified. Or shouldn't it?
distinct areas is used after a list of habitats. There is a need to clarify that these are distinct geographical areas. Maybe also sort the statements so that range statements come together and habitat statements together.
agree with adding adjective. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
After "Trans Fly ecoregion", "southern part of of New Guinea" is redundant
I feel that the reasoning as the bronze and western quolls share 98 per cent of their DNA is incomplete. Of course it was stranded, in the sense that after this, it cannot migrate or spread to mainland Australia. 98% rhymes well with the fact that the difference between human and chimpanzee is about the same. We parted about 6 Mya and this article says that all the extant quoll species diverged more than 4 Mya and bronze and western are the most geographically separated so it is natural to think that they diverged substantially more than 4 Mya. But again, how does this relate to a geographical separation that occurred 8 thousand years ago? That is practically yesterday, in this evolutionary perspective.
mesic zone is too difficult for me.
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The quoll is a solitary creature, with contact with ... in social activities What? It is solitary except in social activities? I think this requires elaboration.
There is some tension between the four sentences about what the quoll eats. The two first specify per species group. The third seems to be about all species. Is it applicable to both species groups? The same question about the fourth statement.
--Ettrig (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed what I could but I do have a few questions:
Is my rewording for the "solitary creatures.." ok?
I cannot see a different way to specify their diet, though I am open to any suggestions
Think again! To start with, choose whether the rabbit is a small or a medium sized mammal. I hope you agree that it cannot be both in the same context. --Ettrig (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought that the 98% DNA match was interesting, and I threw it in as more of a fun fact. If you don't think it is necessary you can delete it if you want. I just thought it was unique.
Sorry it took me so long to reply back, I was on vacation. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I liked the 98% line, I think leaving it in might whet the appetite of the reader....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I like it too! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says: A 2007 study conducted by the University of New South Wales suggests that the bronze quoll may then have become "stranded" in New Guinea, as the bronze and western quolls share 98 percent of their DNA. My interpretation of this is that it means that the observed difference of 2% is caused by the normal divergence that has occured since the populations were separated 8000 years ago. This is not a correct interpretation of the facts. It takes much much more than 8000 years for a difference of 2% to arise. So, is the articel wrong, or am I wrong? Is there another interpretation of the article? My criticism is that the article is misleading here. Inlight of this, the fact that you like the statement is not a good argument for keeping it. --Ettrig (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Good points. I'll have a read as well - it's getting late here and I need to sleep...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me save you the trip. Here is a large chunk of the article "Scientists say that New Guinea's bronze quoll might be an immigrant Australian that was isolated from the mainland by rising sea levels caused by climate change.
Eighteen thousand years ago and for 90% of the last 250,000 years, Australia and New Guinea shared a land bridge that allowed animals and people free passage in both directions.
But 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, warmer temperatures, glacial melting and rising seas closed the land bridge, effectively "stranding" a colony of Australian western quolls across Torres Strait on the mountainous island of New Guinea.
Now, new genetic research by UNSW biologists Karen Firestone and Steve Hamilton reveal that the bronze and western quolls may be the same creature. The two marsupials share 98 per cent of some parts of their DNA in common and are more similar genetically than any of Australia's four quoll species (the western, northern, eastern and spotted-tail)."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheoceans (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 

Thanks! Your article text accurately reflects the statements in the source. To me this is obviously misleading, as explained above. But the way Wikipedia works and with the limits in my knowledge and patience, I will not be able to demonstrate this with sources. --Ettrig (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
So, you think that it should stay in the article or not? Sorry I am just a bit confused.... Savetheoceans (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can fully understand if you think my comments on this are peculiar. The direct answer to yur question is that I want this passage to go away, even with Casliber's improvement. I think the reasoning in the cited article is obviously faulty, from my general understanding of evolution. BUT, on Wikipedia noone has authority (and if people did have authority, mine would be low on this subject). Instead, we are supposed to discuss in a constructive spirit, and all arguments must be based on reliable sources. Your source is generally reliable (a university site) and I think it would take me too much time to find sources that are obviously more reliable and that show that this is untrue. So I give up this cause. I also think these rules for the Wikipedia process are very good in general, although I dislike their effect in this case. I thought of a more concrete comparison for explaining my thought on this problem. Your source says that the separation of New Guinea from Australia about 10 000 years ago caused the divergence between two species. Compare this with the separation of the (so called) native americans (indians) from their ancestors. That also happened about 10 000 years ago. We still consider these people the same species as the rest of humanity. If that separation for 10 000 years did not cause speciation. We need an explanation why the same cause did not have the same effect. My answer is that the separation of New Guinea from Australia 8000 years ago did not cause the 2% divergence between the two quoll species. But again, I am not willing to take on the task of demonstrating this the Wikipedia way. --Ettrig (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I am guessing that the 2% comes from samples at either end of the species pair. Pity the chuditch is extirpated from all but the extreme southwest as maybe the more northern ones were alot closer to the bronze quolls. Hence my much more general alteration below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
After rereading, I am fine with Caslibers improved formulation. I was hung up on the statement that separation of New Guinea from Australia about 10 000 years ago caused the divergence between two species. This is what I objected to, 10 000 years is too little time for 2% (it is not insufficient for speciation, but neither is it sufficient, as this formulation suggests). But they also say bronze and western quolls may be the same creature. I guess that the study behind that article says that the separation is short (in time) that they might very well be the same species (creature), exactly my point. And then they probably got the percentage wrong. The use of the word creature and grammatical error (share 98 per cent of some parts of their DNA in common), share ... in common, suggest that this article isn't very carefully written. I cannot access it, but get the feeling of a journalist writing after a single interview. Anyway, Caslibers formulation gets rid of my problems. Thanks! --Ettrig (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I kept it simple - tweaked to "A 2007 study conducted by the University of New South Wales suggests that the bronze quoll is closely related to the western quoll, their ancestors diverging with the separation of land masses" Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks guys! I like it the new way too, and I'm glad we could keep it in the article! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding its reintroduction onto the mainland last year, as mentioned later in this article and in the Eastern Quoll article, should the parts of this article which describe as being extinct on the mainland be adjusted to note that they were considered extinct on the mainland, past tense? Or something to that effect.Frond Dishlock (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)