Talk:Florida mouse

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am planning to start reviewing this article against Good article criteria.

For now, nothing obviously wrong is present by the quick fail test. One thing that I did notice was this:

"Lifespan is probably less than one year."

Why the "probably"? Would someone please verify and confirm that they do live less than one year? Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected this, but don't expect this sort of thing to always be known—there are a lot of probablies in zoology. —innotata 20:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there is no image of the species in the infobox, and that's usually the first place some looks for a good image of the species in an article. I don't live in Florida, so I can't really get an image of this species, so maybe I should look on Commons or someone upload an image for the article. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 02:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No luck on Commons looking for an image of this particular mouse. Maybe someone could upload one? Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 02:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed a couple places where citations could be needed, like this one:

"The Florida mouse has been called the gopher mouse because it shares the long, deep burrow of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). The mouse makes nest chambers, small side passages, sometimes a pad of oak leaves and wiregrasses for chamber floors, and small chimney openings in the roof of the burrow."

Now that is a good fact, but it isn't citied from any source. I think we need to start adding more citations before continuing to review it. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The entire passage is cited to [10]. "The Florida mouse has been called the gopher mouse because it shares the long, deep burrow of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). The mouse makes nest chambers, small side passages, sometimes a pad of oak leaves and wiregrasses for chamber floors, and small chimney openings in the roof of the burrow. It uses these openings, the main entrance, and side passages for entrance to and exit from the burrow.[10]" Susanne2009NYC (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Opps. Didn't see that. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think there should be an image of the species in the infobox at the top. Could someone please find a picture clearly showing the mouse or take a picture and upload it? Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I am going to get a second opinion because the article itself looks good, but I really am unsure if it meets GA criteria. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many biological GAs without pictures of the subjects—it's unavoidable for rare species. In this particular instance, though, has anyone tried to find a picture from the Florida or U.S. federal goverments, which would be in the public domain? Ucucha 16:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked for free Florida gov and US gov images but haven't located one. I do have nonfree images, but I understand they can't be sent to the infobox. There's an image here: [1] from the Florida Department of Agriculture but I'm not sure it can be loaded to WikiCommons. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making the second opinion—just a few comments. I think the article is rather short—does the broad in coverage criterion for GA mean one or two sentences on each aspect? Not all of it is that well writen, the taxonomy section for example. Also, for (mostly old) references, and public domain images, why not try the Biodiversity Heritage Library, searching for each of the names in the synonyms section. —innotata 21:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I found the article a little short too, but there still is good information here so I am unsure on if it does meet GA criteria or not. (Don't be alarmed that I changed my signature) Usb10 ^Connected? 01:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There are also a few fossil records of Podomys that may merit a mention. See Morgan, G. S., and J. A. White. 1995. Small mammals (Insectivora, Lagomorpha, and Rodentia) from the early Pleistocene (early Irvingtonian) Leisey Shell Pit Local Fauna, Hillsborough County, Florida; pp. 397–461 in R. C. Hulbert, Jr., G. S. Morgan, and S. D. Webb (eds.), Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 37. Ucucha 06:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Opinion: Hi everyone. I'm an experienced GA reviewer (12 reviews) and I've even reviewed an article or two on animals. So let me give you my opinion on this article.

About Short Articles

This article is short, but it's bigger than a long stub so it's not too short. As for breadth, I think every main aspect has been touched upon, and I can't find a number of missing major points. FYI, USB10, looking at the article's sources and looking at a GA article of the same type is a good way for reviewers who don't have specialized knowledge of a topic to judge for breadth.

I'm not really sure that fossils of another species are really relevant to this article. If you can find a numerical estimate of the Florida Mouse species population, that probably would be a major point.

About Illustrations

If a copyright suitable picture of the animal can't be found, then the article can be passed without it. But I would make sure every avenue had been pursued by the nominator or others before passing it without one.

Other

The article needs some rrestructuring to reduce the number of single paragraph top-level sections. And the diploid number doesn't belong with measurements of the animal's feet, BTW.

There's some jargon that can be replaced with simpler wording, like diploid number and the sexes present the same appearance. And the dental stuff should be explained by writing out what is meant.

I dispute that "providing a study topic for researchers" or "maintaining its place in the ecosystem" are significant interactions with humans worthy of mention. Now that's the kind of padding I'd do for a high school paper that was too short. Please...

Overall though, a nice article. I think addressing the above will bring it to GA quality. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I will try to see if I can fix these things. Usb10 ^Connected? 23:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Population estimates are rarely available, even for well-studied species. Ucucha 14:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Helping out is great, but I'm a little confused. Usually non-trivial corrections are up to the article's contributors to make or not. The reviewer is the judge, and so doesn't jump in. Unless you are wanting to give up being the reviewer. Which is ok with me, if, for example, you want me to finish it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The fossils are relevant, as they are of this species or of other members of the genus Podomys, currently mentioned as monotypic—can you clarify this, Ucucha? I also might try to address the issues brought up by Diderot's dreams. —innotata 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen the papers describing fossil Podomys, only other papers referring to them. "Peromyscus" oklahomensis has been placed by some at least in Podomys, and an Irvingtonian locality in Florida contains an unnamed species of Podomys. I'll probably be able to look around for the original papers in the library this Saturday. Ucucha 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix some jargon in the description section; let me know what you think. Usb10 ^Connected? 00:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The two of you have taken care of that instance. Alternatively, a "jargon; explanation" format (as was the original text) is a good structure for both technical precision and ease of understanding. It was the wording of the explanation that needed simplification. I probably was not exact enough in my comment. Wording is such a bitch.

The structural changes made are exactly what's needed. I would also merge the "Relations with Humans" section with the "Conservation" section. If a more suitable title can't be found for the combined section, then and simple combination would suffice: "Relations with Humans and Conservation". Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Opinioner: Joe Gazz84

I will give a second opinion on this as soon ask I return from vacation on September 5th. Thank you. So far I can see the first reviewer is doing an excellent job on formatting and facts. Thank you. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 03:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Already got a second opinion. Thanks for the offer though. Usb10 ^Connected? 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Closure?

There's been about a month without any updates. Are we close to finishing this? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I nominated the article and I've taken it as far as I can go without stepping into specialist areas. I regret we don't have a free image of the mouse but the mouse lives in a very, very restricted area and acquiring a free image may take some time. The article is broad in coverage and should satisfy the general reader. I urge that it be promoted to GA. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not wishing to tread on any toes, but I would personally hesitate to promote an article about an animal that does not have any significant illustrations. IMHO an image of the creature is essential, even if only a line drawing. Also a map of its habitat region would help to illustrate the article.--Kudpung (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But the GA criteria does not require illustrations for promotion. The criteria reads "Illustrated, if possible, with images". I agree that an image of the animal is desirable but in the case of some animals (and especially rare animals) free images are not always available. A distribution map is certainly desirable but if the article describes the animal's range, a map should not be required. This article meets the GA criteria: it's well written, cites reliable sources, follows MOS layout, is broad in coverage, is neutral and stable, and is illustrated with a free image. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much looks all okay to me. It is well-written, cites is sources, does not stray from the topic, isn't biased from what I see and meets all the MOS guidelines. BTW Kudpung, I acknowledge you expressing the fact that this article has no significant images but it clearly states in WP:GACR that the article should have images if possible. Since we could not find any free images(see the earlier discussion about needing a image) of just the species I think it is okay to let it slide. Better that then violate copyrights and get us all blocked ;) Usb10 ^Connected? 23:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that I'm the last person here who would advocate risking a copyvio. Two months however, is too long for a GAC review - some are failed by reviewers if the points are not addressed within seven days! If I followed the case correctly, it seems as if the original reviewer has abandoned. I'm looking into it more closely - hang on for a short while (like 24 hrs).--Kudpung (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has been in the queue for 2 months, it is now at the top of the queue, and is due to be promoted or failed. The snag here seems to be a picture but a free pic apparently is not available and I can't draw. This should not keep the article from promotion because a picture is not required for promotion to GA: "Illustrated, if possible, with images ... The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement." The reviewer of an article at GAN cannot fail an article because it lacks an image. Other objections to promotion should be listed here so I can deal with them. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we've found some illustrations. While some are appropriate, I have some qualms about the appropriateness of some others.

• The picture of the related mouse species is an acceptable substitute if a free pic of the mouse can't be found. But the caption should explicitly discuss this to make it clear it isn't a Florida mouse to those who just look at a glance.

Question Has anyone checked Flickr for a free pic of the Florida mouse?

• The pic of the tortoise's hole is appropriate as it illustrates the mouse's home.

• The pic of the scolex of the cestode is inappropriate because the scolex's action, especially on the Florida mouse isn't discussed in the article. And why would we?
• The pic of the Juniper Springs seems inappropriate because the mouse seems to live in drier regions. Is there any evidence or reason to expect that the Florida mouse lives at the springs?

Right now I wouldn't pass the article because some of the illustrations are inappropriate. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I can see that the above might be interpreted as me being the official reviewer. It is just me commenting. USB10 as of now is still the reviewer. But things need to conclude, so I just asked if they want me to finish the review or if they want to do it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to finish reviewing the article but thanks for the offer Diderot. Usb10 ^Connected? 23:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as the inappropriate images have been removed, I think it's okay to go ahead and pass the article assuming that the problems with the images that Diderot described above have been fixed. Cheers. Usb10 ^Connected? 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, all my issues with the pics are fixed. I have no more objections. Diderot's dreams (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I also concur with Diderot and see no reason why the review should not be closed as 'pass'. --Kudpung (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and pass it now. Cheers. Usb10 ^Connected? 01:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 19:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)