Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Camas pocket gopher/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Camas pocket gopher

 * Nominator(s): Gaff (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Camas pocket gopher is a rodent endemic to the US State of Oregon. The article was a two sentence stub with a mislabeled image until the recent overhaul, started in November. The text has been expanded with reliable sources to provide comprehensive detail. The article went through a thorough GA review done by a very experienced reviewer. It also went through Peer Review. The text has been copy-edited by a member of the WP:GOCE. Images provided are appropriately sourced (some required emails and added legwork through OTRS). The images have all been cleaned up by the Illustration or Map lab. Everything about the animal is here, so it should be ready. Gaff (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you please state whether this is a Wikicup entry or not. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * * I'm not going to compete in Wikicup, so no. --Gaff (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * Burrow diagram could stand to be larger
 * How much larger? I'm not particular, since anyone interested can just follow the link. Unless you mean the diagram itself needs to be larger? Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed? better? Gaff (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is something missing from the 1879 caption?
 * fixed Copyeditor may have truncated. Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Map_of_Oregon_highlighting_Columbia_County.svg (the original source of your map) has dead links for sources
 * * Interesting, since this set of maps by this uploader is used for locator maps all across the US and on the template for most Oregon locations and the List of counties in Oregon.  I think it will just be easier and better (and fun) if I redraw the map from trusted PD sources, to also show more of N America west coast, for perspective.  I can certainly accomplish that and have made other similar maps.  Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * * fixed see new map and clarified source. Gaff (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Wpdms_nasa_topo_missoula_floods.jpg: what is the source of the data underlying this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This may be a problem, since the licensing looks weird and the creator (an en:WP ADMIN) may not still be active User:Decumanus. The uploader is still active on Commons.  I will contact them or get a new map made.  This map is not essential to the article, but is helpful. Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The uploader at commons did not make this map and the user who did (the WP admin) is no longer active. There is a similar, better looking, map here File:Map missoula floods.gif.  I'm asking for more info as to the data used to create the color coded regions, but it looks promising.  If this fails and if you/we feel that a map is needed to illustrate where these floods swept through, it is a trivial matter to have one made, even based only on descriptive text of what regions were affected by the floods. --Gaff (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed I changed to the better sourced map.  This map is sourced from USGS and is PD.  The text derives from the original uncropped version of the file and can be seen in the edit history here.  The user at Commons who uploaed the map has commented here .  This should be adequate to clarify sourcing and is a nice looking map. --Gaff (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha
Thanks for working on this and bringing it up to FAC! I have a few comments:
 * "First collected in 1829" This is inconsistent with the body, which talks of a complicated series of articles by Richardson from 1828 to 1839. Do we actually know when the type specimen was collected?
 * * It was described in 1829 (article text now changed). Richardson does not state in Fauna boreali-americana when it was collected.  The comment about Richardon's writings during the period 1828-1839 were made by Allen in 1893.  (They are rather critical of Richardson's work). They pertain to the entire genus.  The Allen citation provided is a pdf.  The section of interest is entitled "Questions of Nomenclature" on page 53.  Allen later states on pages 54 and 55 that Richardson described four members of the genus in 1828 and 1829.  He does not specify when T. bulbivorus was described.  However, the type specimen of T. bulbivorus is in the 1829 publication Fauna boreali-americana (I have provided a link to an online version of that text).  All subsequent and modern authorities encountered state the the type was described in 1829 (see Verts&Carraway).  Even exactly where the specimen was collected is vague (as the article notes).  As far as time of year or more specific date, I don't think more is known.  Does that clear it up or do I need to rewrite those parts of that paragraph?  --Gaff (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "There are three genera of North American pocket gophers". Others occur in Mexico, which is commonly considered part of North America.


 * "described by Rafinesque-Schmaltz" This is Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. I've never seen him referred to as "Rafinesque-Schmaltz", but our article does give that name, so maybe I'm wrong.
 * * You are right, but also, so is Richardson?! The mother's family name is Schmaltz.  (see the article on Constantine Samuel Rafinesque for more detail)  Richardson is inconsistent in useage and spells it incorrectly as Smaltz.  If you look at p 206 of Fauna boreali-americana, he refers to him first as "Rafinesque-Smaltz" but then simply "Rafinesque" in the very next sentence and the next page.  I like having the block quote in the article.  What we could do is to truncate the last sentence of the quote, so that it ends with an ellipsis (i.e "The scull is wanting, and the animal, therefore, cannot be with certainty referred to a genus ...").  Then just dropped the Schmaltz elsewhere in the article.  Still, seems a minor point that is fine either way --Gaff (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "still the gopher's archaic name" I don't know what this means.
 * * fixed Reverted this sentence to an older version. It was changed when the article went through GOCE editing.  --Gaff (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "a set of previously collected specimens later known as the California Gopher" Do later reports identify this gopher? Sounds like it would be some form of Thomomys bottae.
 * * Yes, that is correct from what I have read. The Allen pdf reference outlines this and on page 57, where he writes that these specimens "pass in future under the hitherto little known name bottae".  --Gaff (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "It is one of five species in the subgenus Megascapheus". Seven according to more recent listings; ITIS is missing Thomomys nayarensis and Thomomys sheldoni. In general I wouldn't consider ITIS a reliable source for current taxonomy.
 * You mention in passing that a vole species is also endemic to the Willamette Valley. Is there any discussion in the sources of why certain small mammal species are endemic to this valley? That sounds like an interesting piece of biogeography.
 * * That is the gray-tailed vole, which is an article I wrote and promoted to GA status, hopefully eventually also FA. It has also been found across the Columbia River in Clark County Washington, so I need to fix that statement about endemic to Willamette Valley only.  The best book I have seen on biogeography of the region is by Bailey, Vernon (1936): The Mammals and Life Zones of Oregon.  I'll have to sort out how to incorporate species specific information on how this pertains to the Camas gopher, but it is an interesting topic.  Oregon geography is fascinating.  --Gaff (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

References:
 * "Allen, Joel Asaph (1893). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History (PDF). The Museum. Retrieved 27 November 2014." This should be cited as a journal article (with the article title and volume number).
 * * fixed.  --Gaff (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Similarly for Coues (1875).
 * Elliot (1905) was published by the Field Columbian Museum (=Field Museum of Natural History), not the AMNH. Also, it should probably cite a serial title. My own database cites it as "Elliot, D.G. 1905. A checklist of mammals of the North American continent, the West Indies, and the neighboring seas. Field Columbian Museum, Zoölogical Series 6:1–761."
 * Merriam (1895) is a North American Fauna article and should be cited similar to Bailey (1915).

Possible additional sources: Ucucha (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * http://biostor.org/reference/82822 is interesting historically but doesn't seem to add to the account given in the article.
 * Elftman, H.O. 1931. Pleistocene mammals of Fossil Lake, Oregon. American Museum Novitates 481:1–21. Writes that the fossil Thomomys from Fossil Lake, Oregon, was identified as T. bulbivorus by Cope in 1883 and 1889. That identification was overturned by 1902 though.
 * Whitaker, J.O., Jr., Walters, B.L., Castor, L.K., Ritzi, C.M. and Wilson, N. 2007. Host and distribution lists of mites (Acari), parasitic and phoretic, in the hair or on the skin of North American wild mammals north of Mexico: records since 1974. Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology 1:1–173. Lists mites of T. bulbivorus as Androlaelaps geomys (but not A. fahrenholzi, contra your source) and Echinonyssus femoralis (p. 15 and p. 16 respectively).
 * http://www.jstor.org/stable/1380397 is the only information I've been able to find so far on the species's phylogenetic relationships. It claims that it is sister to a group of T. bottae, T. townsendii, and T. umbrinus, which would make this a relatively ancient species. It would be nice to confirm this with more recent genetic data.

-- Laser brain  (talk)  19:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Coordinator note: This has been open for over 3 weeks without any support, so I will be archiving it shortly. It looks like you have a good list of things to consider, so I'd advise taking some time to work on the article and maybe build some capital by reviewing some other FAC nominations. You are welcome to re-nominate after two weeks. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.