[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Alpine 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: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is there a drawing shown in the taxobox rather than the photo? Photos of live animals are always preferred there. The drawing could be used in another section.
  • The article seems empty of images, so you could probably add this photo too somewhere.[1]
Oh, seems it was incorrectly categorised as the Alpine one on Commons. The photo in the Daurian pika article is also categorised as something else on Commons... Maybe this is due to recent taxonomic reshuffling? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: The Daurian pika was formerly a subspecies of the plateau pika and some others, and has nothing to do with the alpine pika. So that seemed to be a mistake on commons. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't write only species names under the synonyms, say O. ater, etc.
  • Looks thin on references. Have you searched Google Scholar?
  • You should add a source for the info shown on the range map on the file page.
  • This is the toughest part. "Base map derived from File:BlankMap-World.png. Distribution data from IUCN Red List" is mentioned in the "Source" section, so I think I am missing something there (have very less idea about such issues, so could you please guide me?).
Hmmm, looking again, that map seems to be for the Daurian pika, so doesn't belong here? And yeah, seems the source info was fine after all. I will add further comments soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The alpine pika range map? It is different from the Daurian's pika range map, and also it seems supported by the other sources present in the Distribution and habitat section. The Daurian pika has a different distribution and range map too. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, seems the categories on Commons are following a different classification system, so it is difficult to keep track. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains the mismatch I guess! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German zoologist and botanist Peter Simon Pallas first described the alpine pika in 1773, giving it the name Ochotona alpina. It was formerly included as a subspecies of the northern pika" This flows badly. "Formerly" makes it sound like it was before Pallas' description. You should state when it was first considered a subspecies, then when it was not, and then again when the new study that spli8t it again was published. Don't be too vague with dates and authorships.
What usually works when a source is needed is asking for it at the resource request page:[2] It would still be good to show when the northern pika was considered a subspecies and by who, as well as when and by who it was moved to its own species. FunkMonk (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Able to see it again! :D No idea why it does not show some times, and shows some other times. I have added that information now! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, give etymologies for all the taxonomic names, including subspecies. Also give date and authorship of the subspecies in-text.
  • You could give some constext of what "pika" even refers to in the taxonomy section. A family? A genus?
  • "The alpine pika is a large pika" This does not belong in the description section.
  • "(carapace in front of the eyes)" Rostrum just means snout, where did you get the "carapace" part from?
  • "and the bullae are deeper and much narrower" Define bullae.
  • "The parietal bone protrudes, at the front, and forms a sloping angle with the interparietal bone, at the back" Define these bones, say where they are.
  • "The summer pelage of different subspecies varies drastically but, in general, it is dark or cinnamon brown." But how does it vary?
  • "The latus is" Define.
  • "The incisive foramen are round, small, and are detached from the anterior palatal formuna" Two more terms here you need to define. Always define anatomical terms that would be unfamiliar to the general reader. It can be done in parenthesis.
  • Defined the incisive foramen. Replaced "anterior palatal formuna" with "palatine foramen" (was a mistake earlier). The source does not say if it is the greater palatine foramen or the lesser palatine foramen, so left it undefined. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You shoudl state what the exact differences are between the subspecies.
  • "and also distributes from the east and" This is not correct English. "And is also distributed".
  • "occupies talus piles" Define.
  • "although it was difficult to determine for that reason to have had affected such a large territory at the same time." Very strange structure.
  • "30 kg per hectare" Conversion for all.
  • "and Eugenuris schumakovitschi Schulz." Schulz seems to be the authority, not part of the name.
  • "Siberian pine (Pinus Sibirica)" You are inconsistent in whether you give bionomials after scientific names throughout the article. You should pick one way.
  • "nitrophilic vegetation" define.
  • "The female's fertility is less" Than what?
  • "snout (protruding portion of the face, consisting of nose, mouth, and jaw)" Now that you use a common word, you don't have to define it.
  • Any more general description? It seems to be round with short legs and almost no tail, but you wouldn't know from reading the article.
  • As for subspecies date and author in-text, just write them as prose, not as a list.
I see you listed it for copy-edit, which is definitely a good idea before nomination. Other than that, I would try to find more scholarly sources about the animal. These two sources seem a bit dubious, not sure if they would pass at FAC:[3][4] Anyhow, I will pass the article now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah! These sources, would remove them and search for more. Thanks FunkMonk. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Fixed the two sourcing issues! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk I would love to nominate it with you at FAC. As you can see, I am an inexperienced FAC editor, and having some veteran editor like you with me through the process would really be awesome! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, take a look at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC, that would be a good approach I think. While you wait for the copy-edit, I think a good idea would be to request articles at the resource request.[5] By googling Ochotona alpina on Google scholar, I saw many relevant scientific articles that haven't been cited here. Just to mention a few, I see "On the biology of Ochotona alpina Pallas", "Territoriality in the Altai pika (Ochotona alpina)", "Molecular systematics of pikas (genus Ochotona) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences", and "Systematic revision of the pika's species complex Ochotona alpina-Ochotona hyperborea. 1. Geographic variation in Ochotona alpina", just to name a few. Perhaps you could write a caption to the taxobox photo, stating where it was taken. FunkMonk (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alpine_pika/GA1&oldid=802450194"