Jump to content

Talk:Camas pocket gopher/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I'll review this, some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sections seem a bit unconventional in structure. Distribution should be in the same section as habitat, and behaviour should be with ecology.
  • "Description and morphology" is a pretty redundant name, description should be enough.
  • Conservation could be a subsection of human interaction.
  • Under ecology, you have a bulleted list, these are discouraged, should be written as prose.
Yes, it has been done before, see for example dodo, which I wrote. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the binomials and went with common names.
  • " This name was taken up by subsequent writers and is used in the gopher article of the 1879 edition of The American Cyclopædia." Needs citation.
  • You could make the synonym list be less intrusive by doing the same as seen on for example red rail.
  • It's a bit hard to get an idea of how the animal looks from the taxobox image alone. Consider madding this one somewhere, as it shows the head in a different view.[1]
  • Can I ask your advice on image use? Of the 14 images at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Thomomys_bulbivorus I have uploaded 12. The other two there before are the taxidermy in the Italian museum and the woodcut from the 1800s encyclopedia. Both incorrectly labeled as "California". Do you think the article would benefit from having those images added, to highlight the complex taxonomy issues discussed in the article? Also, where/how best to incorporate the other image you mentioned? —Gaff ταλκ 04:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the layout so that most images are now in use. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mis-lettered Diplostoma douglasii" How is it mislettered?
Still seems a bit odd for a "mislettering", it is a completely different word.
I think "mislettered" at the time may have meant more that the letters were laid out wrong at the printer or something along those lines. The reference here reads "The fourth (Diplostoma 1 bulbivorum) was based on the skin of a "Camas-rat," from the "banks of the Columbia," an animal said to be very common on the plains of the Multnomah River" (F. B.-A., I, p. 206, pl. xviii/>, wrongly lettered " Diplostoma douglasii")." The reference F. B.-A. is the Fauna boreali-americana and the plate/image is the one here. I think "mislabeled" is more appropriate than "mislettered." —Gaff ταλκ 04:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only place on the Columbia from which" Too esoteric for non-Americans.
I have edited it and tried to clarify. The wikilink for Columbia River goes to the 1,243 mi (2,000 km) river.
  • "It was to have been in" Seems a bit awkward.
  • better?
  • "Even prior to that, it seems that this specimen was not well preserved" What did it consist of?
  • The water is a bit murky. I'll read up more when I get a chance. Made some edits for now.
* okay?
  • No word on the former genus it was classified in, Diplostoma? What is it?
  • "In 1855, Brandt first referred to the Camas pocket gopher as Thomomys bulbivorou" Seems like reclassification, should be stated and clarified.
  • I doubt that it is going to be worthwhile to translate the Brandt text. I ran some through Google translate, without much information. I'm not sure how to go about getting more clarity on this point (not for lack of searching). I'll keep in on the to-do list, but need to focus on bigger issues first. —Gaff ταλκ 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There just is not much in the Brandt text about this. I;ve clarified a lot in the article. This again seems an "artifact" of the Diplostoma affair. —Gaff ταλκ 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "what at the time as thought" Was thought?
  • "at that time for the Camas pocket" Only for the?
  • That is my understanding. I've added the "alone." Its in the first paragraph of referenced article, under "Context and Content". The rationale was questioned later by some other naturalists. I'll have to review references to get the full story & clarify. Something about some minor concavities of the pterygoids, if I remember. I'm not sure what prompted adding the others later. I acutally cannot find anything about one of the species in the subgenus listed in ITIS http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=900156 : Thomomys atrovarius —Gaff ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • -- this has been addressed.
  • "In the 1920s, reference is made to the "Willamette Valley Gopher." Why shift of tense here?
fixed
  • "In German is is known as "Camas-Taschenratte," in French, "Gaufre bulbivore," and in Italian, "Gopher gigante." Why do we need to know the name in countries where it doesn't even live?
It's referenced and somewhat interesting in a trivial way. I moved it to the talk page.
Yeah, the thing is, one could write such lists for prettt much every6thing on Wikiedia, but its relevance would be questionable, especially when a species isn't native to the places these languages are spoken. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
::* I get it. I had added that when the article was still a stub, because it seemed interesting in the moment. It is obviously not essential. That it is called Gopher Gigante in Italian is marginally relevant, since it is the largest in the group. But I vote we leave it out. —Gaff ταλκ 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No subspecies of the Camas pocket gopher are described." Why present tense?
  • "The patterning reflects a destructive event occurring across a broad expanse of the territory about 13,000 years ago." With what consequences for the animal?
  • I thought the sentence immediately prior helped clarify. A study was done in 1993 analysing genetic patterns and tracing patterns back to an event at that time. The two references I have listed in the article are a bit. From IUCN http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/42594/0 : "This species exhibits a genetic pattern of limited inbreeding within populations and much differentiation among populations; pattern reflects a cataclysmic event affecting the entire geographic distribution of the species about 13,000 years ago (Carraway and Kennedy 1993)." I will try to find the original paper, but need to avoid relying too much on primary sources. —Gaff ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, could be interesting to note what this event consisted of, if that is explained in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The floods have a stand-alone article here: Missoula Floods. (The map shows the Willamette Valley flooded (near the west coast). I'm prepping the discussion section from the journal article in user space: User:Gaff/Camas pocket gopher draft and will add it to the article once polished. —Gaff ταλκ 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The story of the floods. I put it in the biology section, with the map. Will need to sort out the image layout later. —Gaff ταλκ 21:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diplostoma douglasii from Fauna boreali-americana, 1829" Is that a depiction of the type specimen?
  • The taxonomy section is a wall of text, could be split into at least two or three more paragraphs.
better now?
  • "now known as Thomomys bottae." You could mention the common name in parenthesis.
  • "They most closely resemble Botta's pocket gopher.[citation needed]" All such tags should be dealt with prior to nomination in the future.
  • Likewise with the second to last paragraph in the description section.
  • "peculiar fur" That means little by itself.
-- clarified
  • "This heavy rostrum" Should be the, it is only a part of the skull. But I wasn't aware that any mammals had anything referred to as such, does the source really say rostrum?
That being said, "rostrum" seems like an awkward word. I may switch to Snout. —Gaff ταλκ 20:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would at least make it more understandable to the average reader. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • After dividing paragraphs under taxonomy (which will create room), the museum specimen could maybe be moved there to illustrate mislabelling.
. We now have the skull cross sections. I don't think we need both for the article. —Gaff ταλκ 22:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe four skeleton images are a bit much? FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took down the skull cross section. Not sure if that one or the full skeleton pic from the Oklahoma museum needed to go. —Gaff ταλκ 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe under conservation (for no particular reason), then you could right align the 1855 drawing... FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the skeleton in the conservation section. It's like a warning... —Gaff ταλκ 03:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as T. mazama" Always remember to provide common names as well.
  • Good with the new flood stuff, though it leaves some stuff repeated in the taxonomy section, and perhaps it would make more sense under distribution? That is, after all, what it is about.
-- fixed redundancies there. Need to go over the rest of the article as well.
We'll get there!
  • "They are probably set upon by carnivorous mammals." What does this sentence mean?
rephrased. The source is page 3; says that no species are identified, but presumptively so.
  • "There are two parasitic worms, which were named after having been collected from the Camas pocket gopher." Which?
done. I will probably wind up writing stubs on the red-links... —Gaff ταλκ 17:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reproduction and growth stuff looks like it would be better of as a subsection under behaviour.
  • Likewise, the last paragraph now under "biology" (about predators and parasites) seems like it would make more sense under ecology. Ecology could perhaps be its own section.
  • After this, there would be no separate "biology" section, which doesn't make much sense anyway. Behaviour and ecology is biology.
  • "The cataclysmic Bretz Flood crashed through the Willamette Valley approximately 13,000 years ago in an almost perfect overlay of this distribution at an elevation of around 122 m (400 ft)." Much of this appears to be redundant, after you added the new text on floods.
fixed.
  • "Before the floods, and since," Wouldn't "before and since" read better?
done.
  • "It is uncertain if burrow systems of different gophers communicate." Communicate? What is meant by that? Interaction?
Exact quote from Verts :"Burrow systems of several pocket gophers may communicate although tunnels of adjacent individuals may be ..." It means the systems of gophers liveing near each other may connect. I fixed the odd phrasing. —Gaff ταλκ 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dandelions were found more often than other vegetation in the nests and burrows than other food sources." Repetition.
Ceaned up and simplified throughout the article. —Gaff ταλκ 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their bones have been identified in the regurgitated material from predatory birds." This seems to overlap with a sentence in "biology", should be merged.
Ceaned up and simplified throughout the article. —Gaff ταλκ 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The gopher is also reportedly "one of the most vicious animals known for its size." Attribute direct quotes in the text.
Placed in quotation block. —Gaff ταλκ 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, what I meant was just that you need to name the person who stated it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that, but thought the quote in its entirety may be interesting enough to stand alone. I'm not picky about the block quote being there or not. Kind of fun, because I didn't know how to make that until yesterday...—Gaff ταλκ 22:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the intro seems to be short, abrupt sentences. Stuff that is related could be grouped together (morphology stuff, for example), to give a better flow.
  • "may become tame in captivity" This is not covered in the article. There should be no unique info in the intro.
-- fixed and expanded. Added a new reference to plunder.
  • One last thing, which I'm unsure whether the article addresses: What does Camas mean?
Refers to Camassia. They were thought to be devouring the bulbs. There is some controversy in the literature, but later authors say that they are not bulb eaters. Which makes bulbivorus a misnomer. I will spell this all out better in the article. —Gaff ταλκ 22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check this for accuracy and add the info from Camassia quamash page. Derives from Native American term... —Gaff ταλκ 22:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going into the origins of the word "Camas" too much, but linked to the article about the flower and clarified why it is the common name of the gopher.
Good enough??
done. Can still benefit from going over by an excellent copy editor. Request was placed at Guild of Copy Editors a while ago. —Gaff ταλκ 03:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

[edit]
  • Awesome work with the dodo. I will plan on incorporating some of the boxed quotes from naturalists of the era and some other features of "your" article. Once this article passes GA, if you have additional ideas and want to help out, it would probably help me a lot in terms of developing my skills.—Gaff ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as for quotes, that was mainly done because the animal is long extinct and can't be observed by modern scientists, which means all we have are those old accounts, which should not really be interpreted, and are therefore left as they were. I'm not sure quotes are much relevant to extant taxa, and they could instead present outdated information. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, though I can't help with that, since it was implemented there by someone who has since been blocked... FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For FAC, I'd recommend that you request a copyedit here:[2] I always do that. But beware that it can take long before someone does it, as it is mostly done chronologically, so you could list it now already, this review will no doubt be done by that time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you are a copy editor! Well, the thing here is that it seems some of the sentences are a bit convoluted, and some complicated stuff could need explanations. You could re-read it once this review is over. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still a work in progress. I'm not a great copy editor & actually haven't done anything since putting the userbox on my page! I may have asked for a GA review sooner in the process than would be ideal, but your feedback has been extremely helpful. —Gaff ταλκ 21:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think, to break up the taxonomy section a bit?:

There is a specimen of a quadruped in the Hudson's Bay Museum, which Mr David Douglas informs me is the animal known on the banks of the Columbia by the name of the Camas-rat, because the bulbous root of the Quamash or Camas plant (Scilla esculenta) forms its favourite food. The scull is wanting, and the animal, therefore, cannot be with certainty referred to a genus, but the form of its exterior cheek-pouches leads me to think that it may belong to the diplostoma of M Rafinesque-Smaltz.

— John Richardson, Fauna boreali-americana, 1829
  • Alright, seems everything has been fixed appropriately. Now there is one last thing: a number of words are wikilinked twice in the article, they should only be so at first occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed them all except a few intentional exceptions. Where important names of people, or taxonomic classes are linked in the infobox, I left them linked on first mention in the text. Additionally, in a very few instances, important concepts linked in the lead or early sections were also linked linked once more if they occurred at the very end of the article. I think there is Manual of Style precedent for doing it this way. I'm totally open to changing it if you think best. —Gaff ταλκ 14:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course, I only meant in the article itself. Intro and taxobox are exempt. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "posteriorly and dorsally" Most readers won't understand this, it would probably be better to just say "behind and above, or some such.
done.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Camas_pocket_gopher/GA1&oldid=1048517147"