Talk:Idaho pocket gopher/GA1

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 14:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I've done some copyediting
 * The range map shouldn't be the lead image, there's a separate field for it.
 * In the lead, you mention "Many aspects...well understood." rather early, it would fit better after "Individuals...year-round"
 * "The type locality...collected in 1890." Combine these two sentences, otherwise it reads excessively clipped.
 * Overall, throughout the article, you use short sentences for statements, which in several places could probably be combined into longer sentences to improve the tone.
 * I'e attempted to do this throughout
 * "It has no...talpoides." It's unclear what this means; were only some subspecies considered part of talpoides or was the entire species considered part of talpoides?
 * The source cited doesn't explain it very well, but another helped to clarify.
 * "considered to be relatively small" Small for what?
 * Removed to avoid confusion.
 * Skull doesn't need a link
 * Gloss procumbent and baculum.
 * The note on Robertsonian translocation is confusing and unhelpful for most people.
 * Glossed.
 * Gloss bullae.
 * Soil doesn't need a link.
 * "store excavated...the winter" I don't get it; how does the soil staying after snowmelt indicate that the gophers were active through winter? It's soil, presumably it wouldn't go anywhere.
 * Poor attempt at paraphrasing on my part. Reworded.
 * "eats, however" The comma should probably be a semicolon.
 * Changed the wording.
 * Could you refer to talpoides and idahoensis by their common names only outside taxonomy? It's more accessible for lay readers and is also more consistent than switching back and forth.
 * US state doesn't need a link.
 * "as no threats are known" There's more reasons why: it has a large range and presumably stable population that isn't declining fast enough to qualify for a threatened listing.
 * What source do you have that says this? According to IUCN, the population trend is unknown.
 * The IUCN: "Listed as Least Concern because its extent of occurrence is much greater than 20,000 km², there are no major threats at present, and its population is not declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category "
 * I don't know how I didn't notice. ✅.
 * For ref 2: You shouldn't be citing the book, but the specific journal article. In this case, it should be Descriptions of twenty-three new pocket gophers of the genus Thomomys.
 * Specific and genus names in the ref titles should be italicized.
 * AryKun (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * US state doesn't need a link.
 * "as no threats are known" There's more reasons why: it has a large range and presumably stable population that isn't declining fast enough to qualify for a threatened listing.
 * What source do you have that says this? According to IUCN, the population trend is unknown.
 * The IUCN: "Listed as Least Concern because its extent of occurrence is much greater than 20,000 km², there are no major threats at present, and its population is not declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category "
 * I don't know how I didn't notice. ✅.
 * For ref 2: You shouldn't be citing the book, but the specific journal article. In this case, it should be Descriptions of twenty-three new pocket gophers of the genus Thomomys.
 * Specific and genus names in the ref titles should be italicized.
 * AryKun (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Specific and genus names in the ref titles should be italicized.
 * AryKun (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * AryKun (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging AryKun (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay, . An anonymous username, not my real name  16:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)