Jump to content

Talk:Least weasel/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) 09:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there, I'll review this. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the info under subspecies needs sources (including the hidden part). I know the source for all of it is probably included in the first sentence of the section, but every free standing sentence should preferably have a citation following it, just to leave out ambiguity.
I do not have access to detailed descriptions of subspecies. I can find references for synonyms such as this, and for some ranges such as this. Would you like me to add these? As for uncited descriptions, it would seem a pity to remove them when they are probably accurate. I will ask Mariomassone if he has any sources for this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should all be sourced as well as you can. If I let it go now, someone else will probably bring it up in the future. Perhaps Mariomassone should take part in this GAN? FunkMonk (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He knows about the GAN. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Perhaps move the Alaskan weasel photo to distribution, and move the subspecies skin to the right? Now it's a bit crammed there. I'll try it, and move the rabbit photo to diet, revert if you disagree. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under subspecies, various sizes are mentioned, with no accompanying measurements. Would it be possible to add some? "Large", "larger than", "medium", etc. means little, when there is nothing to compare to.
Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Physical description" section you will see that there is great variability in the size of the least weasel, even the size of subspecies, so I think generalisations are necessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some subspecies have no descriptions or ranges in the hidden box, is that because none could be found? Would be nice to make this consistent.
See answer above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking on this review. I have been away for a few days and will get to work tomorrow on the points you raise. The history of the article is that ‎Mariomassone expanded the article back in 2011 and left it in good shape. I have added a bit more information in the last three months, expanded the lead and tidied the article up a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I haven't reviewed the entire article yet anyway. Also, you can always change whatever you want in an already fleshed out article, if it is an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make a more inclusive "taxonomy and evolution" section, because there is no info about scientific naming and taxonomic history.
I will work on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(16 to 20 mm (0.6 to 0.8 in))" Why this double parenthesis? You don't use it for any other measurements.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colouring of this individual seems a bit aberrant[1], anything special going on there?
I guess it is one of the Russian subspecies. There seems to be variability in the colour of several subspecies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Predators and competitors" This is here a separate section, but wouldn't it make more sense as a subsection under behaviour/ecology?
Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status > Conservation status.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any info on whether some subspecies are more threatened than others?
No, but I have added a little more information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The folkore section seems to be about "weasels" in general. Any indication that these references are especially about this particular species? If not, I'm not sure if it belongs here. I can see that "weasel" is used for the species in the UK, but how do we know that references to "weasels" in for example Greece refer to the least weasel, and why is the name "least weasel" not used for the Indian legends?
In the article Weasel, it states "The English word "weasel" was originally applied to one species of the genus, the European form of the least weasel (Mustela nivalis). This usage is retained in British English." I would think the first two paragraphs would be likely to be about the least weasel. What if I were to remove the last three short paragraphs to the "Cultural meanings" section of the article Weasel? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, either that, or delete it. I assume none of us understand the source languages, so there's no way to really check them properly. FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in the Senboku District, especially in Obonai village (生保内村?), they are called "okojo".[39]" This seems so marginal and obscure as to be irrelevant... I'm sure the animal has hundreds of local names, listing one is a bit weird.
If I move the last 3 paragraphs of this section, it will be gone! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weasel should be changed to least weasel in the culture section then.
I have done this, but I don't think it is an improvement. If I see a fox or badger I don't say "Look, there's a red fox, and there's a European badger", I just use the unadorned terms "fox" and "badger" because they are the only species present in the UK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is, none of the references in the section are about UK myths, and the animal is not called just weasel anywhere else in the article (or in any other country, for that matter, where equivalent words exist, they refer to a broader group, "væsel" where I live). So why only there?
I wouldn't willingly have a culture section in any article I was writing from scratch. I am quite happy to remove the whole In folklore and mythology section (adding it to the Weasel article). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done a taxonomy paragraph. Rather than have the article fail because of the unreferenced stuff in the subspecies table, I would remove it, but I think that would be a pity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not sure what to do... Maybe we could ask someone? FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found some references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know the individual in the taxobox is the Middle European weasel subspecies? The Commons page does not specify this, and it seems this subspecies is not found in the UK? Wouldn't it rather be the Common weasel?
Changed the caption. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Middle-European image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I did some research with JSTOR and have added references to the descriptions of three of the subspecies. Difficult to find though. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Least_weasel/GA1&oldid=624005763"