Talk:Olympic marmot/GA1

GA Review

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

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. :-)