Talk:Red fox

Introduced to North America?

From Fox hunting an editor has deleted "It has also been suggested that he imported 24 red foxes from England because the red fox was not indigenous to North America. The "he" in question is Robert Brooke, Sr. The editor claims the suggestion is not true. Can anyone here shed light on this? --Una Smith (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction and Range Expansion of Nonnative Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in California; Jeffrey C. Lewis, Kevin L. Sallee, Richard T. Golightly, Jr.; American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 142, No. 2 (Oct., 1999), pp. 372-381 has some interesting cites. MikeHobday (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That would make at least 2 introductions of European foxes to North America, but does not address the question is the red fox native to North America? It is not an either/or question. --Una Smith (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction, nonnative does not mean introduced from Europe; per maps, it is a range expansion from fox populations to the north. Someone who has the Am Mid Nat article in hand please add details. --Una Smith (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this, European red foxes established in SE US were introduced from the SE US to California. So, as far as known, one introduction to the US. --Una Smith (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed from the article because of specious reasoning:

Evidence of at least one high-altitude adapted population of red foxes in the Rocky Mountains, it is suggested, may at least support claims of its nativity. --Una Smith (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Improved reference to the article referenced by Una Smith about a "high-altitude adapted population of red foxes in the Rocky Mountains". Title: "On the trail of a gray ghost." Abstract: "A search for the heritage of an elusive gray-colored mountain fox is described. Results seem to indicate that these foxes are distinct from other fox species." ScottS (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Most red foxes in America now are hybrids of native populations and European imports. Dark hyena (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What would have been the position prior to 1650? Were there (many) red foxes prior to English fox hunters coming to America? MikeHobday (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this article, red fox fur was a very valuable commodity among native American tribes in Colonial times. Also, conservation ecology sources note its preferred habitat is the edge zone between woods and meadows. Before introduction of European farming to North America, such edge zones were scarce. So, for both reasons, during the early Colonial period in eastern North America the red fox would have been scarce. --Una Smith (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Most red foxes in America now are hybrids of native populations and European imports." Citation? --Una Smith (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What interested me about [1] was the front page citing Presnall (1958) and Churcher (1959) about introductions to the Eastern seaboard. The Presnall article is at [2] and says:

"Red foxes were introduced numerous times from Enmgland between 1650 and 1750 and may have become naturalized or crossed with our native red foxes. The survey did not contirbute any new information on the debateable question of whether present fox populations .. are entirely native, a mixture of native and introduced animals, or entirely from introduced animals as deduced by Gilmore (1946)."

Churcher is at [3] and says that there are records of European red foxes into New York, Maryland and Virginia in colonial times.MikeHobday (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The North American distribution map needs to be updated. Numerous maps show the foxes extend at least as far as east Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.65.251 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Paleo history

For the fossil record of the red fox in North America before humans, see this book on Google Books. --Una Smith (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

This website states red fox introduced to Falkland Islands, citing:

MacDonald, D., J. Reynolds. 2005. "Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)" (On-line). IUCN Canid Specialist Group. Accessed September 27, 2007 at http://www.canids.org/species/Vulpes_vulpes.htm.

--Una Smith (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

National Fox Welfare Society as a source

The National Fox Welfare Society is a group that advocates for foxes and provides care, and is not a reliable scientific source. If you want to assert exact percentages of the affect of foxes on sheep, then either use a peer reviewed scientific source or government agricultural stats. Don't use a biased website that lobbies for foxes. VanTucky 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, replaced the book review with the book. Pity the detail's been lost, but there you go. MikeHobday (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Conservation problems of feral foxes in Australia

An anon editor repeatedly replaces sourced material with reports of a Tasmanian police report and unattributed statements by "conservationists", most recently attributed to the Tasmanian Parliamentary Hansard. I have removed these edits for the following reasons:

• Tasmanian Police are not experts in the ecology of foxes, rather in the investigation of crime.
• Their report is dated 1991, reports of foxes in Tasmania have continued after that date.
• Unattributed statements by "conservationists" are weasel words, conveying a POV.
• Hansard is not a reliable source for information. Hansard is a record of what members of Parliament say in Parliament, and can thus be used to quote the opinions of members of Parliament, but nothing else.

--Michael Johnson (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tasmania Police investigation into the alleged introduction into Tasmania of fox cubs in 1998 and 1999 actually began on the 20th June 2001,not 1991. No evidence of the alleged introductions was found to corroborate these allegations. A letter confirming this was sent to the Deputy Commisioner of Police on the 17th of July 2001.
• Hansard is a true and precise record of the spoken word in the Parliament under the Westminster system. It is a serious offence to answer questions asked in the Parliament untruthfully.
• According to the Hansard of the the Tasmanian Legislative Council dated the 30th October 2007,the question asked was what animals have been photographed at Tasmanian fox bait sites. The answer given by the leader of the house was; animals photographed at 1080 fox bait sites have been,Tasmanian Devil,Quoll,feral cat,echidnas,wombats and brushtail possums.

Diplodwatcher (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Diplodwatcher (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Climbing Ability

I saw no mention in the main article of a red fox's ability to climb trees. A fox repeatedly climbs a 12 ft (4m) hedge in our back garden. I have video footage of it sat on the top. Worth a mention? 88.105.56.189 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Rob Lewin 18/6/2008

Best of my knowledge, it's grays that climb, and not reds. most medium to large quadrupeds can "ladder" up objects, fyi. - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

European red foxes can climb quite well too – much better than a dog (and you should see my collie go...), but not so well as a cat. Usually up a slanting trunk or where branches provide steps; also up mesh fences and the like. Can grey foxes actually climb up a trunk like a cat or bear? Not so sure about "most" large quadrupeds, Metanoid – I've not noticed my cattle or horses shinning up many trees lately... Goats do climb, though. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Like Metanoid, when I read that an animal can "climb" trees, I'm assuming that means up a bole or trunk of a tree, like a cat, not by jumping up slanted trees to a branch or laddering up a thicket. That same debate occurs with lions and grizzlies so this POV of what consititutes climbing isn't universal. I suggest just making it clear if you wish, menting hedgerows, laddering etc. to make the difference clear.--Paddling bear (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox speed

I find it hard to believe, that a fox should run at 72 km/h.

If i train my english setter in an open field, and she comes upon a fox, she catches it, which has happened on several occasions. An estimate of her speed would be around 80 km/h, impossible!!Csblach (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is referenced, so to remove it you would have to find another, more reliable source as to the maximum speed foxes can achieve. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, but to evaluate the statement, i would either have to read the book, which i don't and probably never will possess or i should simply argue my way out of it. Will the following do?? A european hare runs at 70 km/hr(Dansk Jagtleksikon)

Therefore a fox cannot run so fast, besides other sources state that the fox runs at 50 km/hr(Department of Agriculture Western Australia.)Csblach (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Zero chance of a fox ever running at 45mph. Greyhounds are significantly faster than foxes and the very very best greyhounds peak at about 19-20m/s and can sustain about 18-18.5m/s over few hundred metres including a standing start, the vast majority of greyhounds being slower. As for hares running at 70kmh maybe the fastest hare on its fastest day as a peak speed. They are regularly caught by greyhounds when given a headstart despite greyhounds not being able to sustain speeds over about 67kmh. That would suggest a sustained speed over a few hundred metres in the range of 60-65kmh for hares, so a peak speed of 70kmh is not unreasonable. I have never seen anything to make me think that a fox could easily outrun the fastest hares and greyhounds, even briefly. --LiamE (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Emotions

Socially, the fox communicates with body language and a variety of vocalizations. Its vocal range is quite large and its noises vary from a distinctive three-yip "lost call" to a shriek reminiscent of a human scream. It also communicates with scent, marking food and territorial boundary lines with urine and faeces.

The article on Grey Wolves elaborates on this, so why not this article? *shrug* -- Snip3rNife (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You can be bold and edit the article if you wish, hopefully with references. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Subspecies list

I've reconciled the subspecies list with MSW3 (here). Several on the list appear to be synonyms of others. For the moment I've left these in brackets, with a cross ref – is that the best thing, or ought they just to be deleted? Richard New Forest (talk)

In this passage "Vulpes vulpes fulvus Desmarest, 1820", is often referred to as V. v. fulva, this confuses me a bit ... Shouldn't it be with a female suffix, like in "Vulpes vulpes crucigera (Bechstein, 1789)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.173.115 (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Black red foxes

"The first is silver or black, comprising 10% of the wild population." Is this a worldwide percentage, or referring to a distinct geographical population? I only ask as there is a big fuss being made at the moment in the UK about a black fox that has been spotted - the fuss would suggest that they are very rare indeed. I've certainly never heard of one here before, and find it hard to believe that as much as 10% of our native population is black. BBC video links: [4] (Chorley is in Lancashire); [5] (in Surrey). Roisterdoister (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sympatric link needed

To the gatekeepers who have decided to lock this page:

The first reference to "sympatric" needs to be linked to Sympatric speciation. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Todd and Vixen?

Are these accurate terms for male and female foxes? I can't seem to find this information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See the general articles on Foxes. And, no it's not correct: it's Dog and Vixen. GDallimore (Talk) 16:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The human male name "Todd" is actually derived from "Fox Hunting" - so it's kind of ironic it's mentioned here... MJN SEIFER (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Group behavior

I'm confused by the line in Behavior that states, "Young foxes disperse promptly on maturity (approx. 8–10 months)." then "The reason for this "group living" behaviour is not well understood; some researchers[who?] believe the non-breeders boost the survival rate of the litters while others[who?] believe there is no significant difference, and such arrangements are made spontaneously due to a resource surplus.". Is the latter referring to polygamous pairings vs. monogamous? If so, it's not group living with non-breeders. Are we missing a sentence? Also, since it clearly delineates polyandry and polygamy, don't we need an example of polyandry? All I see is ex. of the polygyny side of polygamy. --Paddling bear (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam

Wait, why is this article part of "WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No idea. It seems to be a mistake; Vietnam is not mentioned once in this article. I will remove the template. Robofish (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Pic of a good fox maybe?

Under Red_Fox#Feral_foxes_in_Australia it'd be good to have a representative picture of what's colloquially known as a "good fox" (because "the only good fox is a dead one"). Google Image Search turned up this, which is (presumably) copyright; does anyone have a free image that could serve the purpose? There's plenty of other pics of living foxes in the article, so removing the one currently illustrating that article won't lose too much imo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22295180@N06/3693662878/

Rosuav (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Distribution map is incorrect

There are tons of red foxes in Utah, yet this map doesn't show them extending into Utah. You can see a map here (linked from the Utah Division of WIldlife Resources page) showing distribution in Utah. It can also be found in northeast Arizona, northern New Mexico (see www.examiner.com/wildlife-in-albuquerque/new-mexico-s-foxes as the system has that domain blacklisted for some reason), all over in Colorado, and in some locations in Oklahoma. Can the map be updated to include these areas? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I would add that tasmania has no recorded foxes and while they are all over the mainland, tasmania should not be colored at all. If it is, it should be "uncertain" and not present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.193.253 (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

typo in Fur Use section

Fur Use has this curious sentence: ...over 1,000 American fox skins were imported to Britain annually, while 500,000 were exported annually from Germany and Russia. Why were they imported to Britain and "exported from" Germany and Russia? If they were American fox skins, how could they have been exported from Germany or Russia?

If we're talking about American fox skins sent to Britain, we should probably say they were "exported to" Britain, since the sentence's subject is the American fox skins. (We wouldn't use "imported" unless the sentence subject were "Britain," as in Britain imported 1000 fox skins annually from America.)

As for the remaining 500,000, I suspect this is supposed to be exported to Germany and Russia, but I don't have the source book. Were the 500,000 pelts even American? The original source may have claimed that Britain imported 1000 pelts from America and 500,000 pelts from Germany and Russia. Could somebody please check? Thanks. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what the source states: ... as many as 100,000 skins of the various American foxes come to England every year. From Germany about 500,000 are exported every year, and nearly as many from RussiaMariomassone (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That provides more context, but it doesn't completely clarify things. Was it claiming that the 500,000 from Germany were going specifically to England? Or was it saying that Germany annually exports 500,000 pelts to all of its trading partners? To put it another way, was this sentence in a paragraph about where England gets its red fox fur, or about the global fur trade? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

3.5 Relationships with other predators

Hi, all. We lived in a large wooded area (the western edge of what is called the "Black Forest") north of Colorado Springs for seven years (2000 - 2007) in a strongly-established and fairly extensive red fox area. Pairs of foxes were observed several times in our neighborhood chasing single coyotes -- and the coyotes were running, not fighting. The paper cited, Sargeant, Alan B., and Stephen H. Allen, 1989, "Observed interactions between coyotes and red foxes," Journal of Mammalogy 70(3):631-633, should not be taken as definitive; not only did they find the coyotes to be the aggressors in only 71 % of cases, but the paper was based upon interviews with only 28 individuals (ranchers, hunters, and local residents, along with the two authors) who had observed these interactions. The statement, "there are few reports of red foxes acting aggressively toward coyotes except when attacked or when their pups were approached," may therefore be somewhat misleading (i.e., I can think of three such incidents in our neighborhood during the period June 2000 - October 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.230.160 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Urban Fox

There is nothing in the article about foxes living in cities. This has become widespread of late and is surely worth a mention, especially as many believe that the urban fox is evolving into a distinct distinct species, with a different diet and behaviour. The urban fox has learnt to cross roads safely, avoiding vehicles and it's main source of food is human left-overs, eating discarded kebabs, KFC, burgers etc. rather the fare it's country cousins rely on. SmokeyTheCat 12:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have essayed a new sub-section on this. Please feel free to improve it my lovely fellow editors. SmokeyTheCat 13:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Diet

I often see Red Foxes near my home eating rabbits, but they are not listed under diet, while some very odd things like Llamas are listed. Seems strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.42.242 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Rabbits are listed. See leporids Mariomassone (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

photo problems

most of the photos in the current article do not match their captions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.198.91 (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected two per image files, bit didn't notice other problems upon a cursory look. Materialscientist (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The photo that says Foxes mating in Washington D.C. may not actually be a mating position. Read the detailed description on the photo. The photographer assumed they were mating, but later found out they were wounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.115.219 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. To me this looks like a typical post-mating position (can't think of anything else), and that the people describing the image simply did not know how animals mate. Further opinions are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like a perfectly ordinary "copulatory tie", typical in the canid mating process. I agree with the above statement; it is likely that the photographer was unfamiliar with this detail.Mariomassone (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean?

The sentence Though largely monogamous, DNA evidence from one population indicated large levels of polygyny, incest and mixed paternity litters.[79] is completely opaque to me. I'd like to copyedit it into meaning something, but I am not sure what that would be. Can anyone help? --John (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for a stupid comment - I known nothing about any of this and only read the sentence above. To me it says that most red foxes mate a single partner for life, and the couples don't have common parents. However, DNA analysis carried on one group [of uncertain size] indicated that those foxes mated more than one [male] partner, and some of the couples had common parents. Materialscientist (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. The way it is currently written is both ungrammatical and confusing. I think some references for the first claim would be a good start. --John (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the grammar; it is the foxes that are claimed to be monogamous, not the DNA evidence, as I thought. It does seem somewhat difficult still to reconcile the two claims.--John (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, the sentence, Though largely monogamous, DNA evidence from one population indicated large levels of polygyny, incest and mixed paternity litters.[79] says that foxes usually pair with just one partner (they're monogamous) but DNA (at least from one population) showed many offspring (not their parents) actually had more than just the two parents. Put another way, if you were to watch foxes, it would appear that the pairs act monogamous, but if (at least in one population) if you test the DNA of their offspring, you'd find that some of the kits had different parents. They found evidence of polygyny (the dog fox fathered litters with more than one vixen), incest (some siblings or parent-offsprings mated), and mixed paternity (vixens had litters with more than one father). The point is that like people, black birds and many others, monogamy may be the usual mode but not 100%. FYI, monogamous doesn't necessarily mean one partner for life. If one mate does, monogamous animals will often find a new mate, they just have one at a time.Paddling bear (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red fox/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 14:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am quickfailing this nomination as there are a number of cleanup tags that need addressing, some dating back to 2005 - [Articles containing potentially dated statements (2005), Articles with unsourced statements (August 2011, December 2011), Articles with links needing disambiguation (June 2011)]. When all of this is sorted out and you have checked the article against the GA criteria feel free to renominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Picture of the Fox at the top of page

The picture showing the Fox is in fact a smoky red fox not a red fox and is a cross breed of a black forx and a common red fox. It needs to be indicated as it is incorrect as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.34.108 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, i'm not sure that's correct. Black foxes are just variant Red Fox Vulpes vulpes, with a recessive genetic trait making them black. They are not, as far as I know, a separate species, meaning that in either case, they would belong here in their species article. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Red fox is the name of the species as a whole, whereas smoky red is simply a colour variation. It's still a red fox. Mariomassone (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Australia - range missing in map

The species is widespread in Australia, but this it not indicated in the mp in the infobox. There are plenty of sources which map the species range across the continent, such as this one http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/information-gaps/introduction.html Given the large area that the species inhabits in Australia it seems wrong to leave it off the map. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Selective use of jargon

The reason I de-jargonized this article was the use of the term "leporids" to refer to all animals commonly called "hares" or "rabbits". Because most sub-species of foxes will take "hare" or "rabbit" prey outside of the leporidae family, the use of such a term is inaccurately exclusive. 24.11.192.78 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Current Vandalism

Regarding the current vandalism by the (now blocked) user WizardBeardBoii of the introductory section, the revision history lists that ClueBot_NG reverted the affected section to its previous state. However, this reversion has apparently not occurred, as the actual page still displays the vandalized text, despite appearing to have reverted in the Edit page.

As I am not terrifically experienced in dealing with vandalism, I have to ask if there is sort of error preventing the reverted text from appearing on the page. Shadowmask (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Predation aided by magnetic fields

I stumbled across an article about the hunting behavior of red foxes. The research indicates that the foxes use the earth's magnetic field to hunt. I do not have the time to add this to the article but wanted to leave a not here in case someone else is so inclined:

• Predation by foxes aided by Earth's magnetic field: http://phys.org/news/2011-01-predation-foxes-aided-earth-magnetic.html

• Directional preference may enhance hunting accuracy in foraging foxes: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/3/355

DouglasCalvert (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Map issues - Tasmania is highlighted and NZ's north island is missing ..

The map appears to indicate that foxes are widespread in Tasmania, however this is clearly not the case - see http://www.thefoxwebsite.org/images/aus_map2.jpg. They are likely to still be extremely rare, if not extinct. Many researches have noted that their range is unlikely to extend into the western wildnerness areas (ie more than half of the island) due to similar factors as the distribution of the Thylacine (unsuitable habitat). --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red fox/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm going to have to jump in and review this one, given the high importance to the dogs project. :) Plus my own general interest and happyness that an article in so many Wikis has got some love. I'll aim to get the review completed over the weekend. I'm looking forward to reading it. The only thing that is slightly disappointing immediately is that there isn't an image in the urban foxes subsection. Mainly because the section heading immediately brings forth thoughts of foxes ripping apart big bags and scattering rubbish everywhere. But there isn't anything on commons that suits. So I'm having a look on Flickr for anything that could be brought over and so far the only really good shots are perhaps one with two foxes on the roof of a shed, one where a fox is crossing a road - finally found one with a bin bag! I'll upload them onto commons and then post the thumbs here for you to look at so you can decide if they're worth adding to the section. The things I do when I could be properly reviewing your article, eh? ;) Miyagawa (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Darn it, the big bag photo was actually a dog! I'll add the fox on the street image to the article. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up this review! Sasata (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I haven't forgotten about this, but I do keep on getting distracted. I was about to say it was a good thing as the new GA in DYK rules meant I figured you could have put it through there once it passes... but then I noticed this had already been a DYK in 2004. :( Miyagawa (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I can at least do the basic run through/checks and put the template out right now:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   All present and correct!

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   All sources appear perfectly suitable.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No problems there.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Review underway. Miyagawa (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I count 11 duplicate links. Miyagawa (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Duplinks removed. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Evolution: Good use of the illustration due to the close proximity of the two species. However you don't need to link to Rüppell's fox in the image caption as it is linked in the article (especially as it is very much nearby the image).

• Unlinked. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Build: "Vixens have three pairs of teats" - given the next half of the sentence, would it be better to say "normally have..."?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Senses: I think the plural of grouse is still grouse.

• It seems that both forms are acceptable, per this. I don't know if one or the other is preferred in British English though. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Social and territorial behaviour: The piped link to Spraying (animal behavior) is a little long - I'd reduce it down just to words "urine to mark their territories".

• Done. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Images: You might just want to double check whether you need the wikilinks in the image captions or not. Certainly in some places they won't be in the main article, but I'm sure they are in others.

• I think duplicated wikilinks in captions are generally tolerable, but I've removed a few anyway. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hunting: I would suggest that you duplicate the cite from the quote onto the end of the first paragraph.

• Done. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Taming and domestication: You might want to work in a link to Domesticated silver fox.

• It's already piped in "population of foxes" in the 2nd paragraph. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's a great article and a very interesting read. Considering the size, there really isn't a great deal of issues. It's 99.9% there with just a few tweaks required. Placing this one on hold and once those bits are cleared up then it'll be a straight forward pass. Miyagawa (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again for taking the time to review this, it's much appreciated. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Great - I did a double check on Grouse vs. Grouses and I've found both. So I think it's probably fine. I've updated the table above and I think this one now meets the criteria for a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What does the fox say?

Is there any way this recent GA could have a DYK summarizing Red fox#Vocalisations?

Did you know... the Red fox makes a variety of vocalizations, including a barking "wow wow wow" and a long, drawn out "waaaaah" sound?

It would be like Christmas for me. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Brighton's Fleet / Winterwatch

Not sure where to put this but feel this little fellow deserves a mention, he's made a lot of headlines. I made a new section to talk about rural/urban distribution; I don't see dispersal itself covered in the article, though that would not be appropriate to talk about in the subsection I made (under Relationships with humans -> Urban foxes). Harshmustard (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Dead citation link

• Allen 1938 Harv error: link from #CITEREFAllen1938 doesn't point to any citation.

I'll try to fix this, unless anyone gets it first.Gaff (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Livestock, game and pet predation

Is the "game" section really necessary? The "Diet, hunting and feeding behaviour" is all that needed about "game". Editor abcdef (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Title

The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is the largest of the true foxes and the most abundant [clarification needed] member of the Carnivora,

Not true!

There are more cats, or dogs. This needs clarification, because foxes, cats and dogs are all in the order Carnivora.

Most abundant Carnivora?

In the first sentence — the most abundant [clarification needed] member of the Carnivora?

Cats and dogs are In the order Carnivora and their populations are far greater than any foxes.

Would most abundant carnivoran species be better, since cats and dogs are subspecies. Editor abcdef (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Carnivory?

Among the true foxes, the red fox represents a more progressive form in the direction of carnivory.

The phrase "represents a more progressive form in the direction of carnivory" seems possibly less clear, more complex than it needs to be. I take it that it's saying the red fox has a more predominantly carnivorous diet, relative to other foxes (which, one assumes, are more omnivorous).

But not my field and I may have misunderstood, so I'll leave editing to others. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Tasmania ... please change map to "Presence Uncertain" ... no official evidence since 2011

According to the Tasmanian government: "Encouragingly, no physical evidence of fox activity has been collected in Tasmania since July 2011 and it is hoped that fox eradication has been successful. " http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=3026 This is pretty definitive and based on this, I propose that Tasmania be removed from the distribution map. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

In section Subspecies, Steppe Foxes range is mentioned being in Kherson, _Russia_. Kherson is situated in Ukraine.

TimoHellman 16:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)