A request has been made for this article to be
peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic
dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Overall: Great work on the article,
Generalissima! That's quite an interesting hook; humans caring for a 14,000-year-old puppy?! Anyway, for the hook's source, which I managed to track down using the DOI in the article and leading me to a
ScienceDirect source, and verifies the hook as the data "statistically overlaps 14C". Again, great work! :) ~
TailsWx (
đŸ,
me!)
02:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Since you reviewed my FAC for Hotline Miami 2. It'll take me a little bit to get to this one, but I'm going ahead and marking it. λNegativeMP117:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I was unable to find any issues within the prose, and I'll be performing a spotcheck later when I have enough time to go through the Wikipedia Library to look at sourcing. λNegativeMP118:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I've spotchecked #8 and #20, they seem to verify the content they are cited to. I greatly apologize for the long wait, as I explained on Discord I was doing a lot of other stuff and this slipped my mind for the most part. I'll be approving this nomination now that I've actually been able to do the spotcheck, good job. λNegativeMP120:58, 16 May 2024 (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.
Dog's date
This statement is puzzling:
The Oberkassel site was previously dated to the Middle Magdalenian .... Radiocarbon dating of the remains in the 1990s instead dated the site to the early portion of the Late Glacial Interstadial.
The puzzle is that (according to WP) the middle Magdalenian is 14,000-15,000 BP and the early Late Glacial Interstadial is 14,000-14,600 BP. They are in the same time range. So, what does this statement mean?
Zaslav (
talk)
05:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for trying. It seems the same to me. I think you're trying to say the age was "narrowed", but I don't see how. We non-experts don't see any difference at all between Middle Magdalenian and early Late Glacial Interstatial (with which we are unfamiliar) and no meaningful difference between 14,000-15,000 BP (my guess about "Middle Magdalenian") and 14,000-14,670 BP. Note that I use dates because the period names have no meaning to me.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
If radiocarbon gives a date range, please just state the date range. That's independent of conventional names and more precise. Thanks.
Zaslav (
talk)
07:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I added a parenthetical date; what differs is that it's specifically the earliest portion of that range and that the dating was in reference to geological period rather than cultural periods, which are usually messier and vaguer to date to.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply