Talk:Eastern mole
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eastern mole article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Eastern mole was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 1, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the eastern mole (pictured) is the most widely distributed mole in North America? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Common=important
editAs the species bearing the name "common", I'd say this goes toward the higher-priority end of the scale. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
~~The above comment was accidentally left on a page some time ago with an incorrect title, which has now been listed as mfd~~ Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Eastern mole/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
References
editTwo problems with the references:
1. There are far too many parenthetical references (stuff like: (Johnson, 1967)) amid the footnotes. These should be converted to footnotes. Which brings us to the second problem.
2. The parenthetical references don't refer to items in the reference list. This prevents the reader from making meaningful use of the references, but it also makes a reader wonder if the text was lifted, parenthetical references and all, from some other work.
Either way, this is not up to the level of a GA. Reviewer: Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- The text doesn't seem to be copied or closely paraphrased from those sources which are online; many of the sources cited parenthetically can be found easily. —innotata 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the GA criteria—or in the Manual of Style as a whole—that says articles cannot use parenthetical referencing. Ucucha 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- And as a matter of fact, there is only one such reference in the entire article. Ucucha 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The references issue has been significantly improved (see the revision history). Still, "can be found easily" isn't a criterion for Wikipedia, and while parentheticals are OK, they're NOT OK if they don't refer to something in the biblio.
Is this review still going, or does someone else need to jump in here? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly not; I'll review this tonight then and pass/hold/fail it based on what I see. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is being "Reviewed". Isn't the template supposed to be replaced if it is? If there are problems with the article, list them here so I can take care of them then put the article "On Hold". I think editors are typically given a week to make revisions and corrections. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I've noticed that in some reviews; all that needs to be done is the article reviewed, it put on hold, and it should be done within a week or two, rather than arguing on one point for weeks then finally getting to the actual article. Anyway, here's the issues I found:
- The citation needed tag needs to be addressed.
- Deleted. This was in the article when I took it on and I never found a source for it. It's not critical to understanding the subject. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- "0.74 ha" what does the ha abbreviation mean? might need a link so those not used to that know.
- "ha" is the abbr. for "hectare", a land measurement. This is retained in the article but converted to acres. Both hectares and acres are displayed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
These are the only issues I found; it's a solid article. I'll put it on hold and pass ti when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Plants in diet?
editIn the introduction, there's a statement that moles do not eat vegetation. In the diet section (5.1) it states plant matter is commonly consumed in large quantities and found in the stomachs of moles. Which is it? Evaunit511 (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
edit This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 17:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)