Jump to content

Talk:Thomas's pika/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: Lythronaxargestes (talk · contribs) 19:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for picking it up for a review! I hope you enjoy the article. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of O. t. cilanica asides from it being synonymized. Can you get Bannikov (1960) to add some context? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to find anything on that... are you able to, 7&6=thirteen? Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what you wanted? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen Not exactly. Basically, if we can get something about O. t. cilanica from Bannikov (1960) (or even anywhere else? I was not able to find anything on that) if at all anything is available? There is one more comment below that I need your help with! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes I think there is no more information available on it... Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Looking at the taxobox, I see O. cilliana (properly spelt O. cilanica, seemingly) - how does this differ from O. t. cilanica? If they are different, O. ciliana also needs a mention in the text. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed O. t. cilianica. MSW citation is given priority, and according to it, there is only one synonym named o. ciliana. I think O. t. cilanica is different, as the authority year is 1960, and not 1940. In order to avoid clustering of different sources, retained the mention of MSW3. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that source, you should add type locality information. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking here, O. t. cilanica is a subsp of O. thibetana, which is why O. thomasi cilanica gave no results. You should keep it, and discuss it in the text. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retained it in the text! Looks better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try to get more info on the synonyms if you can. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more is available on it... I have checked it again! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:RX? You will need a citation, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well... if nothing is available in the first place, how are we supposed to request a source for it? :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search for O. thibetana cilanica would have yielded this thesis, which gives the reference as

Bannikov, A.G. 1960. Notes on the mammals in Nien-shan and South Gobi Area (China). Byall. Mosk. Obshch, Isp. Prir. Biol., 65:5-12.

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! :) I had searched that too, earlier, but we cannot use a thesis here as it is unsuitable (look at the comment below). Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with citing a reference in a thesis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, misread and thought you meant to add content from the thesis. Added the citation! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it might be worth asking for the paper as well. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes As asked on WP:RX, it is not available. Also, as discussed on Talk:Moupin pika/GA1, it seems comprehensive enough per the google scholar results. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate, but this is ok for now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, I have also found a phylogeny including O. thomasi, which you should incorporate; you should also look for additional phylogenies to include. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should also be avoiding phylotrees right now, as the phylogeny of pikas is very convoluted (look at the discussion we had here. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an image? Might be good to get one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would surely be good to have not one but many images! Unfortunately, we do not have any on commons... these pika species have so little known about them. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate... oh well. I guess we can't do too much in terms of images. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EOL has some nice (but NC, sadly) images... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NC? Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Non-commercial. NC images can't be used here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, dint know that earlier! Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De-italicize or capitalize rhododendron. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalized! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The skull is fragile".... clashes with the comparative statements in the rest of the sentence. Is it more fragile? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, great catch! Tweaked, does it look better? It is just fragile, and not meant to be compared. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is good now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Argyropulo mononymous? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I have tried, even for other pika GAs, I have been unsuccessful in finding a wikipedia article on Argyropulo, so it is unlinked currently. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This paper suggests that his name is A.I. Argyropulo. I have changed it accordingly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that is closer to his actual name! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest incorporating comparisons with other taxa in the discussion of foramina. It's a bit dry right now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I meant. What about the foramina sets the pika apart from other pikas? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, it would be better to add a comparison of the Thomas's pika's formina with the formina of the other species of pika? Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! :P Tried finding that a lot in the mean time... 7&6=thirteen can you come up with something on it? Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, nothing is available on that. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like Turkestan red pika, reduce jargon in lead. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the specific sentences I had quibbles with. You may want to take a look. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks amazing! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Notes should be elevated to a lv-2 section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As in ==Notes== instead of ===Notes===. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the number of equals determine the level of the heading? Changed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatted that and the references. Small change. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just occurred to me.... I don't think Thomas's is grammatically correct..... What does the literature use? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even I was perplexed earlier. Surprisingly, that is the name used for the species, and not Thomas' pika! :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see this paper uses "Thomas'", as does EOL. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The springer book uses both, and eol does use Thomas' pika. However, iucn and msw use Thomas's pika... I have also almost everywhere seen it as Thomas's pika. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, interesting. I suppose it's an open issue. No immediate concern then. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was really surprised too in the beginning... :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO,Thomas's is gramatically correct, as it is the possessive of Thomas. In any event, that is what it is called. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 05:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy section is quite repetitive after your latest edits. Can you do a copy-edit? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still feels repetitive. It's not immediately clear that there's a difference between skull width and zygomatic arch width... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it myself. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did a minor copyedit.

Looks great! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would be advisable to explain sympatric in brackets. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good catch! Done. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any information on which Thomas the name refers to? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found a little mention, added it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any secondary commentary on the Dinets report that can be incorporated? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have removed that source, as I do not see how it is reliable. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the use of Futuyma? There's no in-text citation for it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinterest link is a repeat of Dinets. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, removed pinterest, as dinets has few moree images of the species! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English citation for the Chinese book:

W.J. Huang, Y.X. Chen, and Y.X. Wen, Rodents of China, Fudan University Press, Shanghai, China, 1995.

If you can get additional info, that would of course be welcome. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, changed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I changed the citation to use the {{cite book}} template. Generally advisable to maintain consistency of citation style. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any English translation for the name of "Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta"? Also, this should probably be italicized. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, italicized now! I think we should leave the name as is, as it is the exact journal name. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine by me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Chinese name in "A Guide to the Mammals of China" - include? Should also discuss how it was nearly classified as vulnerable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • P Err, I don't think so... It probably might just be the Chinese translation. Not include for other pika articles either. It was near-threatened, and nearly vulnerable, but not actually warranted a vulnerable rating. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add more information about how it failed to meet the "Vulnerable" criteria? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes Added! Let me know if there is anything more to improve on the article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the stuff about almost being vulnerable is mentioned twice in that paragraph? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes Yeah, the Red List of China's Vertebrates is different from iucn! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should combine those statements somehow, it's quite awkward... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the relevance of the Encyclopedia of Mammals source. It discusses pikas in general only, from what I can see. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider mentioning the several species of fleas which are associated with O. thomasi: [1] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This paper is about extinct pikas primarily but it has several measurements of O. thomasi: [2] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comments

[edit]

After the issues flagged at FAC, I felt compelled to perform some spot-checks here. Luckily things don't see too far out of order, but there are still some issues.

  • The IUCN source says "Ochotona thomasi is endemic to China, occurring on isolated mountains of the east Qilian mountain range in Gansu, Qinghai, and northwest Sichuan". The article says "It occurs on the isolated eastern Qilian Mountains in Qinghai, Gansu, and northwestern Sichuan." This is a subtle difference, but it is a difference; it is the mountains the Pika is found on that are isolated, not the range.
  • The Alves source does not actually say that only six Pika species are endemic to central China. The source says that the six species listed there are endemic to central China. It goes on to imply that they were listed in the source because they might be threatened or are classified as such.
  • You've presented it as synonymous to O. ciliana based on the Bucknell source, but the Chapman source says it is synonymous with O. thibetana cilianica.
    Vanamonde93, if you scroll up, I have raised this issue already. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lythronaxargestes:: yes, I just realized that, I missed it at first glace as the point appeared to have been addressed. In any case, this isn't meant to be a commentary on your review at all; my comments were the result of having found similar issues elsewhere, and except for the two general suggestions below, I will restrict myself to pointing out errors vis-a-vis source material. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the comments; I'm relatively new to reviewing GANs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. If you're new at reviewing, one suggestion I would have would be to use one of the GA review templates, which provide a handy guide to checking all of the sub-criteria individually. The article has to pass all of them, remember, not most of them; it's why I still use the templates, though I've reviewed 30 nominations and have 20-some GAs. Vanamonde (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The willow" should probably be "willow species"
  • In 1996, the status was changed to "Lower Risk/near threatened (LR/nt)", which is not identical to just "near threatened", as far as I know.
  • "It is thought to be affected by killing due to pest control measures in its range although its effects to the species is unknown. " This is a contradiction. IUCN says it may be affected by pest control measures, not Is thought to be".

Okay, so I've been intentionally nitpicky here. The purpose of this is not to show that this article is terrible; it's not. No article is perfect. My intent is to show that if due care had been taken, I would not have been able to find as many issues with the source use as I did. The points about the Alves source, and the pest control measures, in particular, should have definitely been caught before this. Two more general comments:

  • The article is very short. This is barely start class, and I would certainly not pass this. That said, I will leave the judgement of that to the reviewer.
  • There is no minimum length required for an article to be a GA. Also, I think almost everything one might find about this species, is mentioned in the article. So, it is comprehensive too! 05:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No, there is no length requirement. The requirement is that an article be broad in its coverage. For a 600-word article to pass GA, I would expect that every bit of available information is in the article, and even then I would hesitate. Most of my creations are larger than this, and yet I haven't sent them to GAN; because sometimes even "all available information" is not enough. Furthermore, if you want to justify nominating this given the length, it's fair to expect that every substantive source is used. Vanamonde (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, given the length, I'm surprised that the source in which the original description was provided is not being used, nor are the sources describing synonyms and such.
You could try WP:RX. Of course, no guarantee that it will be in English. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is in Russian as i see here:"ARGYROPULO A. I. 1948. A review of Recent species of the family Lagomyidae LILLJEB., 1886 (Lagomorpha, Mammalia). Trudy Zoolgicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSR (Proceedings of the Zoological Institute of the USSR]. Leningrad, 7: 124-128. (In Russian)." link

I hope, as always, that you take these in the spirit in which they are intended, Adityavagarwal. You have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia; let your record not be marred by carelessness, which has a way of catching up with you. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Result 6 (Alves) and 9 (conservation action plan) have already been used! Result 10 is a master's thesis which is not suitable (see Aa77zz's comment in the FAC).
  • You're right, they're cited differently, hence my confusion. In which case this is less of a problem, but I'd still suggest looking at the other results. When you have so few, it's often worth checking most of them. Vanamonde (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want me to dig into the sources I can do so, but it would likely take until at least early next week, as I'm quite busy, and traveling in between. Since I imagine you want to wrap this up quickly, I suggested you look yourself. I'm happy to look for any information I can find. Vanamonde (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a good journey! Actually, I am going to take a hiatus too, due to hectic college admissions process (coupled with exams :(). Really did not expect it to be so hectic. After getting a parakeet (also more extinct species, as it is really interesting) and the alpine pika to FAC, I would really love to get a BLP article to FAC with you (have meant to ask you for a while!). As for more data on this, I would ask FunkMonk to verify it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • College admissions are a strenuous process, and I wish you the best of luck with them. I took a very brief first look, and there does seem to be more data available. A lot of it is in chinese, which is no help to me, but I will be able to get some material in English as well. Cheers. Vanamonde (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd also like to point out (as I have mentioned elsewhere) that Google scholar and WP:RX should always be used to identify and obtain sources before nominating an article. Comprehensiveness is less of an issue at GAN than FAC, but there really is no reason not to use these. But it is simply a requirement if you go for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

[edit]

There hasn't been any action on this review or the article itself in over a month. Pinging Adityavagarwal, Lythronaxargestes, Vanamonde, and FunkMonk to see where the review stands, and whether it is likely to be wrapped up any time soon. Thanks to you all! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adityavagarwal was getting some resources from WP:RX last time I checked on this review. I don't know what became of that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think he planned on coming back, he had some real life issue. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am coming back. Just a few more days is all, and I will start like before again! :D One of the sources was in Russian, and the other had very little information available, as I remember, but would complete it and start on more articles in a few days. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a bit busy, I'm afraid, but I think some of the stuff I would have dug up has already been found. For what it's worth, I think it's helpful to include whatever phylogenetic information there is presently, rather than waiting for any new classification that comes out. Any phylogeny that has not been agreed upon should be attributed in the text; but once this is done, there's no harm and some good done by including it. Especially in an article that is otherwise a bit sparse. Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adityavagarwal, you haven't made an edit to the article since the end of October. Please be advised that if you still wish to pursue this nomination—a new reviewer will be found in that case—you will need to make significant progress on the article within seven days (by the end of this month). Otherwise, the review will be closed. Thank you for your understanding. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset If another reviewer is found I can complete the improvement started by Adityavagarwal, this article is good enough to pass (plus I have experience taking over for abandoned GANs). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IJReid, we will have a reviewer if you're willing to take on the task of addressing the issues that have already been raised plus any additional ones found in the course of a full review. I'm happy to hold off closing this while you start work. How long do you think it will take you to work on what's mentioned above, including locating the necessary sources? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing issues, in my opinion, have been addressed. The one point is on the mention of phylogenic information that is highly ambiguous, which according to other pike articles, I have not mentioned. I do not think we should rely on one phylogenic theory more than the other. Let me know what you think. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well it looks like the nominator is back so I think completing the review is the task that requires work. If you already have another possible reviewer they can go ahead. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adityavagarwal, back in December you were going to be finding more sources, yet nothing has been done in that regard; what has changed since then? It seems odd that it should no longer be necessary. Vanamonde, you seemed to think more was needed; is that still true? FunkMonk, under the circumstances, do you want to take over the review and proceed? I don't believe I can adequately judge where this nomination stands at the moment, though if the sourcing issues had been addressed, I would have thought that the review would have been approved long since, unless there are other issues outstanding. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is because I am unable to find anything more. The only issue I think that is remaining is the phylogenic information, which I am unsure as to which one to include due to the high uncertainty in that aspect. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If every outstanding issue has been fixed, then I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the ping above: While acknowledging that I'm a more demanding reviewer than average, I would not be comfortable saying that an article this short meets the "broad in coverage" criterion when available information has been left out. If there is uncertainty about that information, then in-text attribution is the way to go: "A study in YYYY found that Thomas's Pika was related..." etc. Vanamonde (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, would be adding that in a while. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been over a month since the above, and Adityavagarwal has not edited on Wikipedia since. I think it is time to conclude this nomination and review as not listed—it's been open for five and a half months at this point. I'd like to suggest that, when Adityavagarwal returns and prior to any new GAN, an expansion is made along the lines suggested by Vanamonde, and then a peer review be done, requesting the participation of FunkMonk to make sure there aren't any remaining issues for the eventual nomination. Or perhaps instead of a peer review, FunkMonk would be willing to take on the eventual GA nomination when it's made so it doesn't languish waiting for a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll close it after this weekend if nothing further is done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas%27s_pika/GA1&oldid=836125375"