Talk:Olympic marmot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Naming capitalization

Does anyone know the capitalization rules for this animal? Olympic marmot or olympic marmot? --Theawesomestpersonyouwillevermeet (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's Olympic marmot as it appears to be named after Olympic Peninsula, would be nice if the article could show and confrm the history of its naming. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the American Society of Mammalogists account (A J Edelman) olympus refers to the Olympic Mountains, where the species is endemic. Now I look at it the taxonomy section of this article seems a little confused - if and when I can find time I will edit it - unless someone else has time first.Orenburg1 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good. I'd address it now, but I'm in the middle of dealing with pictures and adding more content to other sections. Thanks! --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

About the citation style with date thing in the taxobox, I'm not sure in what way it's true. I think that line was there when I started on this article, so the previous editor would have to explain it to you. Also, the work in those sections weren't referenced when I started on this article either, but I plan on getting to adding citations to them along with more content later this week. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source

The last thing I have to fix is where I've used Animal Diversity Web as my main source without realizing the disclaimer at the bottom. The site lists where they got all of their information, so I plan on going back through and verifying my information with the reliable sources they used so that I can correctly re-cite my work. It should be done by tomorrow night hopefully! --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Which specific bits do you need alternative sources for? Give me a list of facts-needing-sources on t his page, and I'll have a hunt around and see if I can find anything, too. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Actually, I think I'm finding them OK (I was just being lazy!) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Check this out :o). Looks good so far. Can you get hard copy of that one? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's open access here. —innotata 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoo-hooo! Brill :o) I'll trawl right through it for the facts which were sourced to Animal Diversity Web, and replace those refs. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Google Books has pretty extensive preview of Eisenburg, John; Barash, David (1989). Marmots: Social Behaviour and Ecology. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804715348. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) (and look how nice I am, I gave you a cite book almost all filled-in :o) ! ) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You guys are lifesavers! Thank you so, so much. I got rid of all the Animal Diversity Web citations and replaced them with other references that are more reliable. I think I'm going to submit this for teacher review now. Do you think it's ready? --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The article looks about ready for a good article nomination, though that still means it could use some work (Wikipedia articles always can!) like reorganisation, issues will be found by a good reviewer, and it must have some omissions (GAs only have to be "broad in coverage" and well-written) … so I sure think you can submit it for teacher review, for my part. (Note: said that not knowing for sure what teacher review was, now I see this was done on other articles before GAN.) —innotata 22:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's ready for GA review, I think I'm allowed to put it up before peer review and teacher review. There's not much time left in the project so I'd like to get to the Good Article step as soon as possible. Can you nominate it for me so I can get a reviewer? Or how does this process work? --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the article could use a more focused range map. Since the animal has a very limited range, we can't have it outlined on a full map. It makes it hard to see. Perhaps someone could outline its range on a map more focused on the state of Washington. LittleJerry (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a new range map based off of the IUCN Red List, uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons, and added it to the taxobox. This is much more close and focused on just Washington state. I hope it will do, if not, let me know so I can fix it :) --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would look better with if Washington wasn't on it's own. No need to cut out the connecting lands. LittleJerry (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Should I make it with the whole northwest region, or the whole United States? Or even a range map of all of North America? --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Northwest region. LittleJerry (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions of where to find templates to make range maps off of? The only one of the Northwest United states that I could find was this, which lacks detail in showing the water that comes between the Olympic Peninsula and the rest of Washington state. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean the entire northwest region. You could use this. It's your choice. If you can't find any others then I guess the current map is find. LittleJerry (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think regional maps are usually made by cropping maps of the continent. —innotata 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I made this! Is it to everyone's liking? I'd also like to add it to the external link that you placed, innotata, so I'll try to figure that out. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll probably want to crop it somewhat or it will take up a lot of extra space as a vertical image, and the satellite view is rather unnecessary. If you want to create a very good map: blank maps of North America are in commons:Category:Blank maps of North America, and directions for making good distribution maps are at WP:distribution maps (though it might be complicated and I haven't got around to figuring out how to do this yet; maybe I should get started with a map for this article since it looks like this is simpler than those I've wanted to make before). The link is to the Wikimedia Commons category for the species, which I've added your uploads to. —innotata 16:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem that I've found with those maps is that the Olympic Peninsula isn't very defined, but I guess since it's just a range map, it'll be alright if it's not extremely detailed. I'll get on that right now, and then I'll try to add whatever maps I make to the category that you made! Thanks again, Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

stuff to fix and change (Peer review?)

Lead

• This species is exclusively indigenous to alpine and subalpine meadows, fields, and montane talus slopes on the Olympic Peninsula in the U.S. state of Washington

exclusively is unneeded as indigenous already implies that

add the between to and alpine

change montane talus slopes to slopes of montane talus

The normal phrase is "talus slope" (or "scree slope"), and this phrasing seems very strange. Can this be changed back? —innotata 15:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It can! I'll get right on that. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• For this reason, the Olympic marmot was declared Washington State's state endemic mammal in 2009

are you trying to say that the Olympic marmot is the state animal of washington? if so make it clearer.

Some states have more than one state animal that fall under different categories, such as state insects, birds, fish, etc. This is specifically the state endemic animal, because it is exclusively found in this state, and nowhere else. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Endemic mammal. —innotata 15:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, I meant endemic mammal, not endemic animal. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Colonies of burrows are spread out in various locations of the Olympic mountains and differ in size; some habitats can be home to as few animals as one marmot family, and some can have multiple groups of families with up to 40 marmots

rewrite are spread out in various locations of the Olympic mountains to are found(dispersed, your pick) across the Olympic mountains

change habitats to burrows or colonies

rewrite to as few animals to "'to as few

rewrite groups of families to families

• It can be identified by wide head

add a between by and wide

• These marmots are known for being very sociable animals which often engage in play fighting and vocalize four different whistles to communicate

add with between vocalize and four

I looked up a bunch of ways to use vocalize in a sentence, and none of them used with to connect it with the rest of the sentence, so I think I'm going to leave it as it is. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• These marmots are no longer hunted by humans like they were in the 1950s,but

change but to and

• in concern to the range map i would advise simply using a map of the U.S. as with the global range map its impossible to see the range until the picture is blown up which defeats the purpose of the range map for someone merely viewing the article

• sexual dimorphism is worthy of being mentioned in the lead and after that it shouldn't be wiki linked again in the article

• You mention that the Olympic marmot will eat insects and small dead animals, so shouldn't they be called omnivores instead of folivores?

They are considered folivores because they prefer to eat leafy foods, and that is the majority of their diet. The only time they resort to eating insects and small dead animals is when there is no flora for them to eat. It confused me too, but in every place I read it considered them folivores or herbivores. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well then i think that would be worth adding to the lead.--Dmanrulz180 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're right about that, but I don't know if maybe it's just too confusing and intricate to add, so I'll let my GA reviewer decide. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy

in differences of the dorsal region, what are the differences in the dorsal region?

The source didn't say. All I can find it saying is "differences in the dorsal region." --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

you mention sexual dimorphism in both taxonomy and description, i would advise only mentioning it in description

I think sexual dimorphism is related to the taxonomy so it should be there, and then I go into detail as to how it affects the description of the animal in the description section, so I'll leave it as is for now. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

History

in the lead you mention a difference in hunting between the 1950's and now but you don't extrapolate in this section. since you give the reasons for change why not mention the change since your lead shouldn't have info that isn't else where in your article

Description

the body is stocky with short, stubby legs and sharp

remove short,

are from 670 to 750 mm most people measure in cm

I know, but in the scientific journal that I got the information from, it measured in millimeters. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

is weight and size the only sexually dimorphic trait in the Olympic marmot? if so i wouldn't mention it as being very sexually dimorphic

It's described as "sexually dimorphic" in the sources because it fits the definition of sexual dimorphism: a phenotypic difference between males and females of the same species.--Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reproduction

• in alternate years.

change to every other year it reads better

That's how I initially had it written, but then one of those pro editor people came and changed it to "in alternate years." --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed this to "alternate years" as "every other year" is open to misconstruction by those unfamiliar with the idiom to mean "all other years". I encountered this and similar misconstructions of idiomatic origin surprisingly often when I was a full-time instructor - as native-speakers of a language, we can be very unaware of our own use of idiom. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay! So even more of a reason to keep it as "in alternate years," so that it's more friendly to people from other places who use the different idiom. I like it! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• both male and female Olympic marmots attempt to entice the opposite sex.

just say begin mating

They don't "begin mating" though. It's talking about attracting them to mate with them first. It's not like one marmot walks up to the other and just starts mating. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree; this is about courtship rituals prior to copulation. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Behavior

Olympic marmots are gregarious burrowing animals. wiki link gregarious

Marmots seldom move to other colonies with the exception of sub-adults of two to three years old, instead of sub-adult write juvenile

"Juvenile" makes them seem more youthful, whereas these "sub-adults" are just entering adulthood. I think I'm going to keep it this way, thanks though! --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, again; "juveniles" would technically include every non-adult marmot. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

in more reproductive greetings they may inter-lock teeth and nibble each others' ears and necks. shouldn't this be mentioned in reproduction?

I can mention it in both sections? But I think it does fit here because I was talking about greetings which falls under the behavior section. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing to "in courtship rituals" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Feeding and diet

At this time, during May and June just say During May and June

At this time is referring to "when other plants and flowers have not yet bloomed," mentioned in the previous sentence. It's necessary for the meaning. During May and June is specifying the first clause. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think feeding and diet could sensibly go as a sub-heading under Behavior; I'm doing that but have no major strong feelings about it, so feel free to revert. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We've figured all the organizing out for the most part I think! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ecosystem roles

not sure if this section is needed

--Dmanrulz180 (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I like it. It's a nice addition, in my opinion :) --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Orlady (talk · contribs) 19:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I have just started looking at this article. I am familiar with this animal from visits to the Olympic mountains, so I am happy to do this review.

(Copying comments to editor) I would consider the review, but I think you need to give it a once over first. It seems to have very sparse interwiki links. Terms like Colony (biology) and Olympic Mountains should be linked. Meanwhile, you use redundant links in places like Vancouver Island marmot, when each term should generally only be linked once. See WP:OVERLINK. Terms should be linked on first usage rather than later (e.g. grasses, leaves, flowers). It will have more of a GA feel when correct the linked terms, IMO. Once you have gotten your linking corrected, I will review the article. However, I warn you that for a subject outside of my area of expertise, I am a slow reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments Good luck with this review. On the face of it, the article looks fine, and I hope to see it as a future Featured Article Candidate. It is outside my area of expertise, so I will leave it to the others to review, but I do have one comment. The bit about the number of chromosomes makes me wince because while I know that there are schools of zoology in North America that believe that the number of chromosomes defines a species, this is rejected by scientists here, because marsupials are not so fussy about their chromosomes, and it would greatly multiply the number of species to no purpose. Good luck with the review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not the reason the species is separated, it's just a notable difference, and the article doesn't make it seem otherwise. Without any specific reference saying it doesn't matter, and since regardless of whether chromosome numbers define a species this is a difference, I don't see how anything should be changed. —innotata 23:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. That's fine then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• File Spot Check (6a) This normally comes at a FA review, but I feel like it might be best to look over this now. Every image looks great. Checking back at the sources of the files, all but one check out. (Props to you for the successful relicense requests) I can not find any signs of flickr washing. The odd file out's license was locked in by a reviewer in 2005. Since several reviewers have stamped the file as good since, we can assume that it is under a free license. From my side of the project, everything looks in order. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yay! I'm glad everything checked out now, rather than later. Thanks for taking the time to look everything over. We've added two more pictures though, so if you'd like to look over those too, that'd be great! :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I have an issue with is File:Clinton Hart Merriam.jpg. There is no source information and there is no way to tell when the photo was taken or who took it. The copyright tag is 70 years PMA, there is no way to prove it per the information that I can get right now. I would suggest leaving the image out of the article. sorry. I also cleaned up File:Olympicmarmot.jpg. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

70 years PMA probably doesn't even apply, since it probably is from the U.S. But there is a definitely OK image if one is wanted, File:PSM V66 D390 Clinton Hart Merriam.png. —innotata 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed the image to the one you suggested, innotata. I noticed that there had been some issues with that picture, but I wasn't sure what to do! Haha, but now hopefully it's taken care of. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion: The section order feels a little weird. For instance, why is Predators a level 2 header but Feeding a level 3? I suggest changing "Behavior" to "Ecology" and making Predators a level 3 heading at its present location. Steven Walling • talk 00:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The most common practice is to have Ecology for diet and predators (what it eats and eats it) and then Behavior for behavior. I think this is about half what you asked for. Will change it to that!TCO (Reviews needed) 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks TCO. Steven Walling • talk 19:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Support GA after author makes any changes needed from ORL.. Article has lots of good content and such. I gave a long nitpicky review cause that is just how I do FAC, Peer review, etc. But I think the article is good.TCO (Reviews needed) 20:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lead section (also Conservation section):

Overall, the lead section is good in highlighting the main points of the article. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement "These marmots are no longer hunted by humans like they were in the 1950s" is not supported by the body of the article, and it appears to misrepresent the actual situation as described in sources. Also the article states (in the Conservation section): "in the 1950s; marmots were eaten, collected for museums, and shot by hikers, explorers, and scientists." The NPS factsheet does state "Through the 1950s, explorers, hikers, and scientists shot marmots for sport, food, and museum collections." I believe that the wording in the source is being seriously misinterpreted. In that context, "through the 1950s" means, in effect, "from the time of discovery until as late as some time in the decade of the 1950s." It does not mean "throughout the decade of the 1950s, but at no other time." Additionally, the wording does not connote the kind of widespread hunting that is implied by the wording "hunted by humans like they were..." or the wording "marmots were eaten, collected for museums, and shot by hikers, explorers, and scientists." The reference to "hikers, explorers, and scientists" indicates a fairly limited group of people and uses like "museum collections" indicate a fairly limited amount of collection. It seems to me that the salient information regarding humans killing marmots is that about 90% of the range is in the national park and that they are protected from human predation in the national park. Apparently, this protection has been in place since either 1960 or some time in the 1950s (the source is vague on this point), but the fact that some were killed prior to 1960 seems to me to be fairly inconsequential to the species' conservation status. Thus, the lead and the article give undue emphasis to a relatively minor point. I recommend deleting this statement from the lead and trimming/revising the statement in the Conservation section.--Orlady (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The related statement in the lead, "but are preyed on mainly by coyotes" does not necessarily convey the right information about predators. It could be misread to indicate that coyotes are almost the only predator. However, in the "Predation" section, we learn that the animals are subject to predation by coyotes, cougars, bobcats, black bears, and avian raptors, but that coyotes are the primary predators. Particularly considering that coyotes were not found in the marmot's range until the 20th century, it seems important to indicate that it is not the only animal that preys on the marmot. IMO, the lead ought to indicate that marmots are prey for multiple predators, with coyotes being their most important predator. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it is Washington's state mammal needs to be mentioned in the body of the article--Guerillero | My Talk 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned, currently under Distribution. —innotata 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I addressed both of your concerns in the lead and the one in Interaction with humans! If these fixes still aren't suitable, let me know so I can re-do them :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the lead section now. I still have concerns regarding "Interaction with humans", which I'll address below in a subsequent posting. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Outstanding concerns on representation/interpretation of sources (item 2 of the review template)

1. See comments on "lead section" above. --Done. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
2. The last sentence in "Taxonomy" (These disparities are also evident in the Vancouver Island marmot (M. vancouverensis), which evolved separately, but also occurs in a restricted range) is difficult to interpret and does not appear to be fully consistent with the source. The reference to "disparities" is puzzling -- isn't this about similar characteristics, not differences? As for the rest of the sentence, the source does indicate that the two species evolved separately and that both have very restricted ranges; those points are important, but the inclusion of the word "but" before the "restricted range" point erroneously suggests that it is because of the restricted range of the Vancouver Island marmot that the two species are considered to be separate, in spite of some morphological similarities. Please reconsider what this sentence is trying to say, and make sure that whatever it says is consistent with the source.

   The second to last sentence, it's talking about the Olympic marmot's differences from the typical Petromarmota marmots, which is the subgenus it is classified with. The V. Island marmot is also a member of Petromarmota that slightly differs from the typical classification from having a differently shaped jawbone. The part that was incorrect was that the V. Island marmot also differs in dorsal region, and has 40 chromosomes rather than 42. That part is not in the article and must have mistakenly been put there. It's slightly confusing to try to explain because it's differences from their subgenus that both species share.

   Exact excerpt from the source that covers what is now listed in the article is as follows:

   "Marmota vancouverensis and M. olympus mandibles do not resemble those of the typical Petromarmota species. Both of these atypical Petromarmota species survive with small populations in extremely restricted ranges (Fig. 2), and they are considered relict populations that differentiated in isolation during the Pleistocene (Hoffmann et al., 1979; Steppan et al., 1999). In this respect, the Vancouver Island marmot is of great interest. Marmota vancouverensis is believed to have originated between 100,000 and 10,000 years ago from a population that colonized the Vancouver Island via land bridges present during the glaciations (Bryant, 1997)." --Is this okay now? Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

   • Those changes make sense. They resolve the concern. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

3. I can't determine the intended meaning of the last sentence in "Distribution and habitat" (The habitats of the Olympic marmots stay at well-conditioned ecological levels owing to the marmots' diet and feeding habits; since the flora in these meadows is so healthy, there is an increase in the population of marmots) and I cannot figure out what content in the source this is based on. (The source does have some interesting information on the impact of marmots on vegetation in the alpine meadows; this would be a good addition to the "Ecology" section, but it is not necessary for GA.)

   To be honest, I'm not really sure what it means either and I can't figure out what content in the source it's based on either. What happened was earlier in the process of writing this article, I used Animal Diversity Web as a source without realizing the disclaimer at the bottom of the page and then had to re-cite large amounts of information. Some more experienced editors came on and helped me re-cite all of those, and most of them have checked out to be reliable, but I think this is the exception, because this was mentioned on the ADW page and not in Edelman's work. Would it be unacceptable for me to delete this short part, and then add to Ecology like you suggested later when I push for FA? Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

   • Your fix works for me. Thanks for explaining the history of those words. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

4. The last sentence in "Colonies" (Later on in the season after more time has passed since the end of hibernation, these two males will become more familiar with each other, resulting in more friendliness towards each other and less avoidance and chasing) does not accord with my reading of the source. Recheck the source and look carefully at the distinction between causes and effects. (If you can't figure this out, I'll try to explain what I'm getting at.)

   I re-read the source too, and I'm very confused with how they don't accord. "It is conceivable that such increased social tolerance between satellite and colony males is attributable to familiarity per se," When studied, as the two males had just met in June, there were .30 chases per observation-hour, then it lowered to .16 in early July (as they became more familiar with one another), and then to no chasing at all in mid July. "By the first week of August, signs of avoidance behavior generally disappear, and the two males often greet each other." "As the season progresses, relations between satellite and colony males becomes more amicable."

   All of these tidbits seem to support what I wrote, but maybe I'm mistaken about what you're asking. Sorry! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

   It is true that the sources state that the colony male and the satellite male display amicable interactions in late summer, and you correctly quote the beginning parts of a long paragraph about the interactions of colony males and satellite males. However, you need to re-read the whole paragraph more carefully (or even just skip to the end of that paragraph for its conclusion), and read the subsequent paragraphs, too. These sections report on studies done to investigate why the two males become friendlier in the course of a season. A study of Marmota caligata found that when two males occupy the same colony for two or three years in a row, the chasing and other negative interactions resume at their old rate the second and third year in the spring (which is not what would be expected if the social tolerance of late summer were due to familiarity), but wane by late summer. The source states, "It therefore seems safe to conclude, at least for M. caligata, that the progressive seasonal diminution in colony/satellite chasing is due to seasonal changes per se rather than to familiarity." In the next paragraph, the author describes observations on Olympic marmots, concluding that "the easing of colony male/satellite male roles is always temporary -- the satellite is relegated to a distinctly subordinate status the following spring." In the first paragraph of the chapter, on page 141, the author makes the point that male-male competition is all about reproductive success. The paragraphs about seasonality in male-male interactions do not seem to explicitly make the point that the yearly competition for females is all over by late summer, which is when the males interact amicably, but in the context of the whole chapter about male-male competition for sexual success, it's pretty clear that's what it's all about. The hypothesis that it's a matter of increasing familiarity is presented but firmly rejected. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   Okay, I tried to add in information about how it connects with reproductive success rather than familiarity, and specify that the chasing and such between the two males occurs every season for this reason. If I'm still misunderstanding you, I'm sorry! Hahah, I'll try again until I get it right. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Erm... Your revision inserted your speculation about the interaction -- not all of it was directly supported by the source. Wikipedia doesn't like that sort of thing -- see WP:SYNTH for details. Rather than go through another round of explaining my concerns, I simply deleted the problematic content, which was just a couple of sentences or sentence fragments. It's good now. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

5. The "Interaction with humans" section begins with the statement "The Olympic marmot is the second-rarest North American marmot." Not only doesn't this fit well with what follows, but it begs the question of "which is the rarest?" The answer clearly is the Vancouver Island marmot. That fact is significant to this article because several sources indicate that the threats to the population of the V.I. marmot have led to much interest in studying the Olympic marmot. The section might be easier to write if some of this were acknowledged.

   The inserted statement takes care of the main concern. It still would be good to have some content about the relationships between the two species' conservation status, including how conservation worries over decline of the V.I. marmot led to concern about the status of the Olympic marmot. However, we can save that for the FA. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

6. Make sure that the "Interaction" section clearly distinguishes between the protection afforded by the park and the protection afforded by state law.

1. This is OK now. Here, also, I made a small amendment to your text to eliminate a bit of WP:SYNTH. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

1. The sentence "Living in such a small geographic range is to their advantage as they are protected by law in Olympic National Park" is not consistent with the reference (nor with logic), and the word "advantage" is a bit anthropomorphic. Reconsider this one, reading the sources and remembering to differentiate causes and effects. --Orlady (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

   The quoted statement is not based on content in the cited source, as noted above. Additionally, it's illogical -- having a small range is almost invariably disadvantageous to survival, as a fairly local catastrophe could wipe out the whole population (as seems to be the case for the Vancouver Island marmot), and it's not at all obvious that the Olympic marmot's small range is the reason why the national park protects the marmot. Try rewriting this part without the anthropomorphic comments about what's advantageous to the animal, instead just describing what's sourced -- loosely stated, that would be that its range is small, but the fact that 90% of its habitat (emphasis added for a reason) is protected due to being in the national park greatly reduces the level of conservation concern for this animal. --Orlady (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   Done! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Good now! --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Under "Interaction with humans" the article says:

   Marmots were first sighted in the Olympic Peninsula in the 1880s, when biologists began research expeditions in the Olympic mountain area. Marmots became the victims of hikers, explorers, and scientists who ate, shot them for sport, and collected them for museums until they became protected by National Olympic Park law in the late 1950s-1960s.

   For comparison, the only source cited for this passage indicates:

   ...expeditions began recording the fauna of these mountains in the 1880s. Through the 1950s, explorers, hikers, and scientists shot marmots for sport, food, and museum collections. Yet the animals remained numerous in the 1960s...

   I see the statement in the article as an excessive elaboration on the information in the source (in effect, this is original research), as well as a bit of undue emphasis. First, I believe it is incorrect to say that biologists were making research expeditions to the mountains in the 1880s. The source mentions the "Press" and "O'Neil" expeditions visiting in the 1880s. According to this other source, O'Neil was a "lieutenant" and was, in 1885, the first to lead a group into the interior of the mountains (including Hurricane Ridge), and "the "Press" expedition o 1889-1890 was an adventure organized to respond to a challenge from a newspaper named the Seattle Press. The visitors in the 1880s were adventurers, not biologists, but it's hardly surprising that they observed marmots and "recorded" them (they probably also brought out a couple of dead marmots as specimens for study, but the source doesn't say that, so the Wikipedia article should not say that, either). Next, the wording "marmots became the victims of hikers, explorers, and scientists who ate, shot them for sport, and collected them for museums until they became protected" suggests that marmots were subject to the kind of intensive hunting that once nearly extirpated animals like beaver, but the source says nothing of the sort. That one sentence in the source does not so much as suggest that there was widespread hunting of marmots from the 1880s (during which decade only two expeditions entered the Olympic interior) to the 1950s, nor at any time during that period, and the statement that they were abundant in the 1960s does not suggest that they had been under severe hunting pressure shortly before that time. I have not seen hunting pressure on this marmot mentioned in any other source, which tends to suggest that it was never a very big deal. Indeed, since the source that mentions it is a National Park Service public information document, I have to suspect that it's mentioned there because it's something that visitors ask about, and because younger generations might not be aware that attitudes have changed in recent decades, before which time field biologists would routinely "sample" the animals they were studying by killing them. A third concern/error is the assertion that marmots "became protected by National Olympic Park law in the late 1950s-1960s." The cited source does not say anything about what happened in the 1950s to end the taking of marmots, so this is just an educated guess (more original research). Anyway, the National Park was established in 1938, not the 1950s, and this cited source (among others) states (page 4, top of second column) that the Olympic marmot is now protected under state law. I have not seen any source that documents when various levels of protection were put in place (but you may know more about this). Regardless, the important points to be made (IMO) relate to current status: that marmots are protected by state law and that both marmots and their habitat are protected in the national park. Verify the details of the protection and cite sources. Don't embroider a story about past hunting based on one sentence in a National Park Service handout. There is no indication that human killing of marmots ever occurred at more than an incidental level -- and no basis for saying how much such killing occurred. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   Done! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Good now. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Review template

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Interesting article about an interesting animal. Review is still in progress, but article passes on most items as of now.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Generally well-written. Article structure is good (talk-page discussion resulted in big improvements in this category). I did not see symptoms of plagiarism. I found and fixed two issues with WP:Words to avoid, both in the "Hibernation" section of the article: one "supposedly" and one "said to be." For the "supposedly", I found that the source used "presumably"; these words don't mean the same thing, and I couldn't think of an appropriate synonym for "presumably", so that's the word I put in the article text. For "said to be", I deleted it. The term "deep hibernator" is well-defined in the science, so there was no need for this additional locution. However, the discussion of "deep hibernator" could be improved (but this is not necessary for GA) by adding sourced content relating to the characteristics of deep hibernation. This classic paper from 1955 looks like one good candidate for use in expanding on that topic (but please note that I don't have expertise on this -- that's merely one that turned up in my literature search). See above comment regarding the lead section -- that's the one outstanding concern for this part of the review.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is well-supplied with citations to sources that are, for the most part, of excellent quality. The links in the article work properly, too. I'm withholding final judgment on this set of items until a few specific (and rather minor) concerns about accuracy of reflection of the sources are resolved satisfactorily.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article creator deserves to be commended on making an appropriate selection of content for inclusion in the article -- from an abundance of information available in the cited sources.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Not only do the images illustrate the article well, but the author has managed not to overdo the images (a common temptation when dealing with cute animals).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Almost there! Passed. :-)

Organisation

As I mentioned earlier, maybe this article could do with a little reorganisation of sections: at least making "Reproduction" and "Feeding" subsections of behavior (since these are aspects of behavior).

Otherwise, the "History" section is all about status, so maybe it could be merged with conservation, and perhaps the section on the effects of climate change could also be moved there, since it discusses these threats generally rather than just the effects on habitat. Almost all of the current behavior section is about in the first part social behavior, and then communication, so names like these could be used as subsections. Thoughts? —innotata 01:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I 100% agree that something needs to be done about the history section; it is a mixed bag of information. I will let you know my thoughts on behavior when I get there.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the history section is in need of some major work. I'll get on it as soon as I'm done with the list left below. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking pretty good now! —innotata 15:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yay, thanks! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

I'll drop a few notes here, and ask some others to do so. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

..., and is a close relative of the hoary marmot. - looks funny just sorta tacked on there. I'd try and rework into a different sentence. I might get some ideas after reading more.

I'm not asked to do so, but I have a few comments to make, starting with:

• The description starts off with two statements unrelated to the section and each other: "The Olympic marmot is the second-rarest of North American marmots, and individuals can live into their teens."
• Animal Diversity Web is not the most reliable source, as it points out itself in the disclaimer at the bottom of pages, so it should be replaced. —innotata 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate both of your feedback! I fixed your concern Casliber. You're right, it did sound funny. And innotata, I didn't realize that disclaimer, so I'll use the sources they have listed to go back and check the validity of the article. As for the first sentence of the description section, where should those facts be placed? I thought they didn't seem right there, but I didn't know whether to put them into the paragraph at the very beginning or just to leave them out completely. Thank you so much! --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, more to come Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The bits on it being the second-rarest and longevity should go with related matters in the text (nothing much should only be in the lead section, eventually), perhaps the first in conservation and the second with some discussion of survival in general. —innotata 21:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Olympic marmots were first sighted in the Olympic Peninsula in the 1880s, when biologists began to mount research expeditions in the Olympic mountain area. - any particular reason they were mounting these expeditions? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite this, David P. Barash reported after his 3-year study of Olympic marmots that there was still an abundance of marmots in the mountains. - could do with a time - as it reads it looks like he did this study in the 1950s, when he'd have been pretty young.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Note this sentence - the average female does not reproduce [for the first time] until she is four and a half years old - note that no meaning is lost if you lose the bracketed bit, which indicates it can be discarded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In the Reproduction section you have two different numbers of young produced (1-6 vs 3-5 later in para...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I am trying to describe what I am doing in my edit summaries so to explain changes as I go (well, most of the time anyway) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed your first concern, innotata, about moving content to the appropriate sections. I'm working on the rest of them! About the mounting expeditions, I think that was simply a typo because that makes no sense to me either! haha. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"It is about a month before the young Olympic marmots leave the burrow for the first time; even after they are allowed to emerge, the mother stays within a few meters of her young and prevents them from roaming far from the burrow." Would it make sense to take for the first time out of this sentence too? I don't think it would change the meaning of the sentence if I took it out. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I tightened that up to first leave the burrow, which should be ok. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I figured out how I messed that up in the reproduction section. 1-6 is the range of how many pups an Olympic marmot CAN have, but the average number a female will produce in a litter is 3-5. I think that's where the confusion was. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done some general re-wording, re-ordering, concatenating, de-choppifying, and tightening-up of the prose; hope this meets with your approval. Fascinating creatures! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking over your edits as you made them, and they're all great! Thanks for taking the time to help me out :) --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been enjoying it! It's something I can do little dribs and drabs of, now and then, without my neck seizing up too much! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I know the feeling! This project can get stressful enough just over adding content, trying to figure out all the Wikipedia formatting, and citations, so proofreading just tops it off. But it's awesome when great editors jump in and help, so thanks again! :) --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome :o) I'm waiting for neurosurgery at the moment, so can't do any concentrated computer work - this kind of thing is just what I need. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh gosh, well I hope your neurosurgery goes well! :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So do I! Fortunately, my neuro chap is one of the UK's best; his last effort (on the right side of my neck a few years ago) was almost 100% successful. This next batch is a bit more complicated, but I have faith in his expertise. And doing random bits of copy-editing helps keep my mind off stuff, while I'm waiting. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

more org stuff

(are you sick of "help" yet?)

Cut the section headers for both History AND Global warming, but move the two paras and put them down within Conservation. (put the red toys with the red toys.  ;-) )

Cut the section header for Ecological role and just leave it as a para within Distribution and habitat. (Avoid very short sections unless the content is just dramaticaly different...and this content is very related.)

Move Distribution and habitat to be higher up (above Behavior). (Is more important content, less detailed and more vital and connects with the taxonomy discussion also).

TCO (Reviews needed) 19:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahah, no! I'm not sick of it yet. I appreciate it a lot. The article is looking better and better, in my opinion. When you say Global warming, do you mean the Effects of climate change section? Or what exactly? Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I moved it. Take a look at the first and second paragraph in Conservation and eliminate any duplication.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I combined the first two paragraphs as another reviewer had suggested. If it's not to your liking, let me know so I can fix it some other way! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good solution. Seems a little long, but then it all fits as one narrative paragraph. Like the construction with opening and ending sentences.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good! Do you think the section from climate change sounds/looks weird on its own just tacked onto the section at the end there? Or is it okay? Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fine. The para break signals a slight change in topic, but it still fits under that header. MHO. TCO (Reviews needed) 20:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that works for me! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

I didn't want to put this with the GA review, so I will just leave my comments here.

• In the first sentence, several more terms should be wikilinked: Family (biology) and Sciuridae. Now, I'm not sure if it's against wikipedia's manual of style or not, but you may not be able to put two different blue links back-to-back. Let me check...
• "...like they were in the 1950s, and are preyed on by..."--Maybe 'and' could be changed to 'but.' - I had it like this, but another reviewer suggested that I changed it. I agree with it this way though! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• If you want, you could put a picture of Clinton Hart Merriam in the taxonomy section, might be something to play with.
• "...olympus of Marmota marmota by Rausch in 1953..."--Who's this guy? (Just add his first name if you are able to find it)
  • R. L., added.
    • That works for me. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Hoffmann"--This guy's first name too if you can find it
  • Hoffmann et al. changed to Robert S. Hoffmann and colleagues. Both are zoologists of course, if you want to add it. —innotata 21:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

    I added it! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• 'History' is sort of an odd name for a section heading, maybe this information could be bunched with Taxonomy in a section called "Taxonomy and classification." Or "Taxonomy and history" or something...
• "population status; Rangers and frequent"--Unless you're talking about the New York Rangers or the Texas Rangers, I believe the R should be lowercase

I am through the lead, Taxonomy, and History and I have some broad things to say. First off, the article is very well written, I'm having a hard time finding grammatical errors, kudos. However, I'm in agreement with what innonata says above, the article appears to need structural reorganization. The "History" section is what caught my eye first, it has information on distribution, habitat, and conservation. Maybe the sentences should be divided up and incorporated into those sections, but we can talk this out. Good luck with the GA review (I'm still debating if I should do it or not) and if you have any questions about what I've listed above, just ask.

NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I wl-ed Sciuridae. That's the one that really needs it (hardest word, most particular concept). Anyone going there will get a wl for the concept of family. And squirrel is kinda already covered by the Sciuridae link.TCO (Reviews needed) 17:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good fix, I'm satisfied. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with moving global warming down to conservation (just as another para, don't think you need a section header).

Once, you get org stabilized, I would like to sneak this pic in somewhere (I can figure out a way to get around text wrap limitations) to show the geography a little better.

TCO (Reviews needed) 18:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I put that picture down with conservation because I feel like everything is much more organized now. I also put in the Clinton Hart Merriam picture up in the taxonomy, and I found a picture of younger Olympic marmots than any of the other ones in the article, so if I could get the guy on Flickr to release the correct rights, maybe we could put it in the Reproduction section. Just an idea, if we don't already have too many pictures! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Demography

If half die in their first year how can most make it into their teens? ϢereSpielChequers 23:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I worded that wrong. I looked back into my source and it said that they CAN live into their teens, not that most do. I must have messed it up when I was trying to avoid plagiarizing. I'll fix it though. Thanks for pointing it out! :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. By the way I removed the birth weight, it wasn't in the relevant reference and frankly it seemed implausible. Could that have been the weight when they first leave the burrow? ϢereSpielChequers 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Another person in my class that is working on this article as a project with me is the one who added that information. If it really seemed wrong, it's a good thing you removed it though! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the source for the age? It's not the one given, the NPS article on ecology. Are you sure the age isn't say, that which most that survive the first year live to? —innotata 16:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, which age? I'm sorry, I'm not following you. Just a bit confused :( Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I meant the statement on marmots living into their teens. —innotata 21:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It states in the 3rd paragraph of the NPS article on ecology, in the 2nd sentence, "Olympic marmots can live into their teens but do not reach reproductive maturity until at least age 3." Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is saying they die of old age when in their teens (about like a cat). Not saying what the average life expectancy is (given some random events like predation and the like).TCO (Reviews needed) 01:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, agreed. Do you suggest I reword it, or take out the fact altogether? Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is fine how you have it worded now. However, I would move it to reproduction (it's an aspect of the life cycle) and remove the comment about "if they survive predation". BTW, I would also move the comment about climate change down to conservation and integrate it down there. Not have it under predation.TCO (Reviews needed) 01:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Odd of me not to have noticed, must have been the "while … reproductive maturity" that made me ignore while skimming. Maybe you could also create some sort of section on survival, broaden predation or whatever: reproduction as TCO suggests is a better section, but this doesn't fit perfectly under either. —innotata 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You can rename it life cycle and that will cover mating, birth, growth, and death.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I renamed Reproduction to Life cycle and moved the content that you suggested to Life cycle and conservation. Let me know if you have any problems with what changes I've made! As for changing Predation to Survival, I'm not quite there yet. The only marmot survival technique that I have written about so far is how they use alarm calls to know when to run to their burrows, and once inside them, they can use their alarm calls to force the predator to run around, get frustrated, and leave. If that's enough, I can change it now, but I wasn't sure. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Predators" is the most common title for this section wrt animal articles. Support your decision. Let's think of the readers...they all want to know what coyotes and stuff like to munch our poor little guys. It's a draw. So, let's use the most clear word.TCO (Reviews needed) 03:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally like "Predation" for the section instead of "Predators," because it discusses defense mechanisms of the marmot, and not just the predators that like to eat them. Predation just seems like it covers more of the content in the paragraphs, so I'm changing it to that. If you disagree, you're clearly more experienced at this than I am, so feel free to change it back! Haha, Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Predation is fine, for the rationale you gave. I generally like simpler, clearer, punchier words. But in this case, very much agree that you cover more about predation than just who eats them. Kudos! TCO (Reviews needed) 07:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Images

I don't think needed for GA, but I would make the following changes for FAC:

1. Upload a mirror image (flipped) version of the current lead pic (looking into the page...actually I don't think this really matters, but Wiki is big on it).

2. Add a cutout showing the larger geographic picture (where Washington state is). I can send you to someone who will help or there is a general respource (graphics lab). This will make it more useful for non-USAians.

TCO (Reviews needed) 17:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to upload the mirrored image as a newer version of the file on Wikimedia Commons, but it didn't work. It just uploaded the same non-flipped version for some reason. Then I tried to upload it as a new file, but it wouldn't let me because it said it had already been uploaded to Wiki. Help please!

Then for the cutout, please do send me to the person who can help me! I have multiple range maps of the Olympic marmot on the Wiki Commons external link at the bottom of the article, but I don't know if any of those are what you're looking for. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Upload it as a whole new file name. Avoids conflicts in case image is used in other articles.

User Fallshirmjaeger (spelling may be off). or WP: Graphics lab.

TCO (Reviews needed) 20:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Some graphics progs are bloody stupid like that. To avoid having to remember which ones are and which ones aren't, the quick-fix option is to use any graphics program to mirror-flip it, then either take a screen-dump of the flipped image, or copy almost all the flipped image (select all bar a pixel or so around the outside), make new file from clipboard, and re-save it; then upload as new image (i.e. not replacing the old one). Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the flip Imthebombliketicktick made to File:OlympicMarmotImageFromNPSFlipped.jpg. Anyhow, maybe a different image would be better, a crop of the full resolutions of the images from Flickr. —innotata 21:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed the taxobox picture to the flipped version of the one that's already there, for now. If you look here, I've uploaded all of these from Flickr, too. Maybe we could work one of these in as the lead picture? If you don't think any of those are suitable, I'm working on getting more people on Flickr to release the rights to other Olympic marmot pictures so we have more to choose from. I'll let you know when I've got them on the external link for you to see :) I'll look into the graphic cutout now! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see you beavering away (err...marmoting away!)

A. Would also flip the basking one (make a new file name copy, that way you have it if needed).

B. In terms of other pictures, I advise just starting a new thread here for discussion and post the various images. People can advise on trading one for the other. Or if there are some very useful ones, there are some tricks to fitting more pics into the article when you don't have enough text. See "Painted turtle".

TCO (Reviews needed) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, good one. Flipping the basking picture: done! I'll start the new thread with the other pictures shortly. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Image inclusion is always wishy-washy, but you do want the article to be as visually appealing as possible. My advice would be to pick out all the images you definitely want to include (for instance, if you find ten really captivating images, use those over others), then worry about flipping/left vs. right/location/all that stuff. I think a gallery on the talk page for all of us to see would be great. Keep trucking ticktick. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been putting all the images in the Commons gallery (minus the flips and extra range maps), at commons:Marmota olympus. You can copy that over if you want all the current images here. —innotata 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)