Talk:Alpine pika

Alpine pika received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Alpine pika has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 21, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by BroVic, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 10 October 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

A fact from Alpine pika appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 October 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the alpine pika can produce three different vocalizations: a long call during the mating season, a short call, and an alarm call when threatened? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alpine pika.

• ..."during the winter, in August." - doesn't seem to make that much sense having "in August" in the end, maybe it would be better if put elsewhere Adityavagarwal? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TheSandDoctor Yeah! Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: It does seem a bit better, however, still seems a bit "off". I will see if I can do anything with it shortly, your edit clarifies what was meant though (making it easier to improve) so I thank you for that . --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of it now? Moved some of the wording around, but otherwise kept it mostly the same. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly better TheSandDoctor! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, too many sections begin with the repeated formation of "The Alpine pika...." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen Did not see the comment until now! It must have slipped through the watchlist. Since, the goce has begun, I think it would be better to wait till it has finished. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add the link to wikidata for this animal but saw the template on the article that stated that the article was getting a going-over from our guild of copy editors. So if anyone is interested, a link to wikidata might be helpful. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS) I have no idea on how to add it. :P It would be fine to add even while it waits in the GOCE queue, so could you add it? Thanks a lot! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! No trouble at all. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, Barbara (WVS) :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a change of the section 'Status and conservation' to 'Conservation status'. Are there any objections? – BroVic (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with me.

However, this is undergoing a major overhaul and rewrite by WP:GOCE (they have a work-in-progress banner up) and we should see what they do first.7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that heading is, it is not just about conservation status (which is a sub part of "conservation"), but also about the population status which is the "Status" part of the current heading. So, I guess we should leave it as is. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, was just copyediting this article and ran into something that I found seemed to be lacking information. "Several authorities had included the northern pika as a subspecies of the alpine pika" - when? I see the note/comment reading: "such as Vinogradov and Argyropulo in 1941; Argyropulo in 1948; Gureev in 1964; Corbet in 1978; Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl in 1982; Weston in 1982; and Feng and Zheng in 1985" and was wondering if you agree as to if it would be appropriate to reword that sentence to include some of the years? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Does it look better now? Feel free to amend! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let us take it to an FA status? TheSandDoctor, User:7&6=thirteen Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan Adityavagarwal. Have now added Wikipedia:Peer review/Alpine pika/archive1 to my watchlist. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, TheSandDoctor, finding for new information now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]