Talk:Camas pocket gopher/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll review this, some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The sections seem a bit unconventional in structure. Distribution should be in the same section as habitat, and behaviour should be with ecology.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * "Description and morphology" is a pretty redundant name, description should be enough.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * Conservation could be a subsection of human interaction.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * Under ecology, you have a bulleted list, these are discouraged, should be written as prose.
 * Symbol question.svg I'm not sure, as per Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists, but we can try both and see which looks best. There are 14 animals of the list, with not a lost of text to support it. I might try a table. Let me look at a few other articles. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 04:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is what it looks like as a list with only common names. Not bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gaff/Camas_pocket_gopher_draft&oldid=635196892  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 05:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been done before, see for example dodo, which I wrote. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg I dropped the binomials and went with common names.


 * " This name was taken up by subsequent writers and is used in the gopher article of the 1879 edition of The American Cyclopædia." Needs citation.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Cited the wikisource. There is a mislabeled image/woodcut in that article, which might be of use. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 04:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You could make the synonym list be less intrusive by doing the same as seen on for example red rail.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * It's a bit hard to get an idea of how the animal looks from the taxobox image alone. Consider madding this one somewhere, as it shows the head in a different view.
 * Symbol question.svg Can I ask your advice on image use? Of the 14 images at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Thomomys_bulbivorus I have uploaded 12. The other two there before are the taxidermy in the Italian museum and the woodcut from the 1800s encyclopedia. Both incorrectly labeled as "California".  Do you think the article would benefit from having those images added, to highlight the complex taxonomy issues discussed in the article? Also, where/how best to incorporate the other image you mentioned? &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 04:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the layout so that most images are now in use. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Mis-lettered Diplostoma douglasii" How is it mislettered?
 * Will clarify. I just found this (valuable?) reference text yesterday. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 04:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Still seems a bit odd for a "mislettering", it is a completely different word.
 * Symbol voting keep.svg I think "mislettered" at the time may have meant more that the letters were laid out wrong at the printer or something along those lines. The reference here reads "The fourth (Diplostoma 1 bulbivorum) was based on the skin of a "Camas-rat," from the "banks of the Columbia," an animal said to be very common on the plains of the Multnomah River" (F. B.-A., I, p. 206, pl. xviii/>, wrongly lettered " Diplostoma douglasii")."  The reference F. B.-A. is the Fauna boreali-americana and the plate/image is the one here.  I think "mislabeled" is more appropriate than "mislettered." &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 04:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If the title is the common name, this should be used throughout the article. That is how most articles about extant mammals are written. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * "the only place on the Columbia from which" Too esoteric for non-Americans.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I have edited it and tried to clarify. The wikilink for Columbia River goes to the 1,243 mi (2,000 km) river.


 * "It was to have been in" Seems a bit awkward.
 * Symbol voting keep.svg better?


 * "Even prior to that, it seems that this specimen was not well preserved" What did it consist of?
 * The water is a bit murky. I'll read up more when I get a chance. Made some edits for now.
 * *Symbol voting keep.svg okay?


 * No word on the former genus it was classified in, Diplostoma? What is it?
 * Here's a start. I'll keep working on it. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. The "genus" never really amounted to much and was soon dispensed with, having been more a product of Richardson's (mis)-interpreations.  There is an account in Abstract of Results of a Study of the Genera Geomys and Thomomys  By Elliott Coues.  I have clarified this murkiness in the article.  Thoughts?  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "In 1855, Brandt first referred to the Camas pocket gopher as Thomomys bulbivorou" Seems like reclassification, should be stated and clarified.
 * Did some digging. The original reference is by Johann Friedrich von Brandt in German.  Here is a copy.  Here is a really nice (public domain) image from the work, with a much needed profile view.  If you can read German well enough to translate, it would be helpful. Or I can keep digging.  I'll get the image uploaded to commons soon.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 05:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it is going to be worthwhile to translate the Brandt text. I ran some through Google translate, without much information. I'm not sure how to go about getting more clarity on this point (not for lack of searching).  I'll keep in on the to-do list, but need to focus on bigger issues first.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There just is not much in the Brandt text about this. I;ve clarified a lot in the article. This again seems an "artifact" of the Diplostoma affair.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "what at the time as thought" Was thought?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * "at that time for the Camas pocket" Only for the?
 * That is my understanding. I've added the "alone." Its in the first paragraph of referenced article, under "Context and Content".  The rationale was questioned later by some other naturalists. I'll have to review references to get the full story & clarify.  Something about some minor concavities of the pterygoids, if I remember.  I'm not sure what prompted adding the others later.  I acutally cannot find anything about one of the species in the subgenus listed in ITIS http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=900156 : Thomomys atrovarius &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg -- this has been addressed.


 * "In the 1920s, reference is made to the "Willamette Valley Gopher." Why shift of tense here?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg fixed


 * "In German is is known as "Camas-Taschenratte," in French, "Gaufre bulbivore," and in Italian, "Gopher gigante." Why do we need to know the name in countries where it doesn't even live?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg It's referenced and somewhat interesting in a trivial way. I moved it to the talk page.
 * Yeah, the thing is, one could write such lists for prettt much every6thing on Wikiedia, but its relevance would be questionable, especially when a species isn't native to the places these languages are spoken. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ::*Symbol confirmed.svg I get it. I had added that when the article was still a stub, because it seemed interesting in the moment.  It is obviously not essential.  That it is called Gopher Gigante in Italian is marginally relevant, since it is the largest in the group.  But I vote we leave it out. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "No subspecies of the Camas pocket gopher are described." Why present tense?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * "The patterning reflects a destructive event occurring across a broad expanse of the territory about 13,000 years ago." With what consequences for the animal?
 * I thought the sentence immediately prior helped clarify. A study was done in 1993 analysing genetic patterns and tracing patterns back to an event at that time. The two references I have listed in the article are a bit.  From IUCN http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/42594/0 : "This species exhibits a genetic pattern of limited inbreeding within populations and much differentiation among populations; pattern reflects a cataclysmic event affecting the entire geographic distribution of the species about 13,000 years ago (Carraway and Kennedy 1993)."  I will try to find the original paper, but need to avoid relying too much on primary sources. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've pulled the reference (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1382434) (found it through JSTOR at my local library) and will expand on this information. &mdash; Gaff <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 16:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, could be interesting to note what this event consisted of, if that is explained in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The floods have a stand-alone article here: Missoula Floods. (The map shows the Willamette Valley flooded (near the west coast).  I'm prepping the discussion section from the journal article in user space: User:Gaff/Camas pocket gopher draft and will add it to the article once polished.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The story of the floods. I put it in the biology section, with the map.  Will need to sort out the image layout later.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 21:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Diplostoma douglasii from Fauna boreali-americana, 1829" Is that a depiction of the type specimen?
 * This image is parked in the middle of the section of the book on the animal. Again, we are in murky water. I'll try and sort it out. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg I think this has been addressed as best as possible. Thoughts?  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "One of the four initial species of Richardson was Diplostoma ? bulbivorum." Add that this is an old name for the Camas pocket gopher. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * The taxonomy section is a wall of text, could be split into at least two or three more paragraphs.
 * Symbol voting keep.svg better now?


 * "now known as Thomomys bottae." You could mention the common name in parenthesis.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * "They most closely resemble Botta's pocket gopher.[citation needed]" All such tags should be dealt with prior to nomination in the future.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * Likewise with the second to last paragraph in the description section.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * "peculiar fur" That means little by itself.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg -- clarified


 * "This heavy rostrum" Should be the, it is only a part of the skull. But I wasn't aware that any mammals had anything referred to as such, does the source really say rostrum?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg. Here is the ref towards bottom of the page, section heading.  The Verts/Carrway Land Mammals of Oregon ref  on the page also uses this wording.  It is these skull features that differentiate subgenuses Megascapheus and "Thomomys''.  I'll fix the copy edit...  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 20:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That being said, "rostrum" seems like an awkward word. I may switch to Snout. &mdash; Gaff <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 20:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would at least make it more understandable to the average reader. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * After dividing paragraphs under taxonomy (which will create room), the museum specimen could maybe be moved there to illustrate mislabelling.
 * Symbol voting keep.svg. We now have the skull cross sections. I don't think we need both for the article.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 22:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe four skeleton images are a bit much? FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg I took down the skull cross section. Not sure if that one or the full skeleton pic from the Oklahoma museum needed to go.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe under conservation (for no particular reason), then you could right align the 1855 drawing... FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the skeleton in the conservation section. It's like a warning... &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 03:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "such as T. mazama" Always remember to provide common names as well.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * Good with the new flood stuff, though it leaves some stuff repeated in the taxonomy section, and perhaps it would make more sense under distribution? That is, after all, what it is about.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg -- fixed redundancies there. Need to go over the rest of the article as well.


 * It's certainly shaping up. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg We'll get there!


 * "They are probably set upon by carnivorous mammals." What does this sentence mean?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg rephrased. The source is page 3; says that no species are identified, but presumptively so.


 * "There are two parasitic worms, which were named after having been collected from the Camas pocket gopher." Which?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg done. I will probably wind up writing stubs on the red-links...  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 17:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The reproduction and growth stuff looks like it would be better of as a subsection under behaviour.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * Likewise, the last paragraph now under "biology" (about predators and parasites) seems like it would make more sense under ecology. Ecology could perhaps be its own section.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * After this, there would be no separate "biology" section, which doesn't make much sense anyway. Behaviour and ecology is biology.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg


 * "The cataclysmic Bretz Flood crashed through the Willamette Valley approximately 13,000 years ago in an almost perfect overlay of this distribution at an elevation of around 122 m (400 ft)." Much of this appears to be redundant, after you added the new text on floods.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg fixed.


 * "Before the floods, and since," Wouldn't "before and since" read better?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg done.


 * "It is uncertain if burrow systems of different gophers communicate." Communicate? What is meant by that? Interaction?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Exact quote from Verts :"Burrow systems of several pocket gophers may communicate although tunnels of adjacent individuals may be ..."  It means the systems of gophers liveing near each other may connect.  I fixed the odd phrasing.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Dandelions were found more often than other vegetation in the nests and burrows than other food sources." Repetition.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ceaned up and simplified throughout the article. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Their bones have been identified in the regurgitated material from predatory birds." This seems to overlap with a sentence in "biology", should be merged.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ceaned up and simplified throughout the article. &mdash; Gaff <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "The gopher is also reportedly "one of the most vicious animals known for its size." Attribute direct quotes in the text.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Placed in quotation block. &mdash; Gaff <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, what I meant was just that you need to name the person who stated it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I understood that, but thought the quote in its entirety may be interesting enough to stand alone. I'm not picky about the block quote being there or not.  Kind of fun, because I didn't know how to make that until yesterday... &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 22:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the intro seems to be short, abrupt sentences. Stuff that is related could be grouped together (morphology stuff, for example), to give a better flow.
 * "may become tame in captivity" This is not covered in the article. There should be no unique info in the intro.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg -- fixed and expanded. Added a new reference to plunder.


 * One last thing, which I'm unsure whether the article addresses: What does Camas mean?
 * Refers to Camassia. They were thought to be devouring the bulbs.  There is some controversy in the literature, but later authors say that they are not bulb eaters. Which makes bulbivorus a misnomer.  I will spell this all out better in the article. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll check this for accuracy and add the info from Camassia quamash page. Derives from Native American term... &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 22:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going into the origins of the word "Camas" too much, but linked to the article about the flower and clarified why it is the common name of the gopher.
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Good enough??


 * The intro seems long enough to be split into two paragraphs. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg done. Can still benefit from going over by an excellent copy editor.  Request was placed at Guild of Copy Editors a while ago.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 03:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments

 * Awesome work with the dodo. I will plan on incorporating some of the boxed quotes from naturalists of the era and some other features of "your" article.  Once this article passes GA, if you have additional ideas and want to help out, it would probably help me a lot in terms of developing my skills. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as for quotes, that was mainly done because the animal is long extinct and can't be observed by modern scientists, which means all we have are those old accounts, which should not really be interpreted, and are therefore left as they were. I'm not sure quotes are much relevant to extant taxa, and they could instead present outdated information. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There are problems with the citation style. I am fixing it, using Dodo and Rodrigues solitaire as templates.  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 15:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, though I can't help with that, since it was implemented there by someone who has since been blocked... FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For FAC, I'd recommend that you request a copyedit here: I always do that. But beware that it can take long before someone does it, as it is mostly done chronologically, so you could list it now already, this review will no doubt be done by that time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you are a copy editor! Well, the thing here is that it seems some of the sentences are a bit convoluted, and some complicated stuff could need explanations. You could re-read it once this review is over. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is still a work in progress. I'm not a great copy editor & actually haven't done anything since putting the userbox on my page!  I may have asked for a GA review sooner in the process than would be ideal, but your feedback has been extremely helpful. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 21:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you think, to break up the taxonomy section a bit?:


 * Alright, seems everything has been fixed appropriately. Now there is one last thing: a number of words are wikilinked twice in the article, they should only be so at first occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg I fixed them all except a few intentional exceptions. Where important names of people, or taxonomic classes are linked in the infobox, I left them linked on first mention in the text.  Additionally, in a very few instances, important concepts linked in the lead or early sections were also linked linked once more if they occurred at the very end of the article.  I think there is Manual of Style precedent for doing it this way.  I'm totally open to changing it if you think best. &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 14:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course, I only meant in the article itself. Intro and taxobox are exempt. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "posteriorly and dorsally" Most readers won't understand this, it would probably be better to just say "behind and above, or some such.
 * Symbol voting keep.svg done.


 * Alright, can't really think of anything more, so well, for FAC, I guess it would be ready after a copy edit, for clarity. Passed! FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)