Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Camas pocket gopher/archive2


 * 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2015.

Camas pocket gopher

 * Nominator(s): Gaff (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... the Camas pocket gopher, a rodent, the largest in its genus, endemic to a small valley in the US state of Oregon. The article went through a thorough GA review by FunkMonk, with copy-editing done by Miniapolis. An essential diagram was provided by Philg88. This is the second nomination to FA. The first was archived primarily due to lack of interest. Some helpful comments provided by Ucucha during that review have been addressed. In the interim, the taxonomy section has been expanded to include a cladogram (provided by User:IJReid), based on some recent phylogenetic studies. --Gaff (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Review by Mkativerata
Support as my comments below have been substantially addressed. The only qualification to my support is that I'm no expert in the subject area, so I can't fully gauge comprehensiveness and accuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)]
 * This is not too far off, in my view, subject to the qualification that I'm no expert in the field. The sourcing looks good (I did spot checks), as does the comprehensiveness. Just small issues, which I think will be fixable:
 * "However, contemporary naturalist H. M. Wight disagreed." With which of the two parts of the preceding sentence did he disagree? And why did he disagree with it?
 * fixed: I added a reference to Wight's exact statement in 1918 and why he made it, based on observations that they ate mostly dandelion greens. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is John Richardson? Without a wikilink, we need to know.
 * fixed. This got dropped in copyediting. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can a subgenus be established? (The answer may well be yes; just asking)
 * The source (Verts/Carraway Mammalian Species article, very first part of article in Context section) says it was "erected". Difference? Could also say "created"?  I'm not particular.  Thoughts? --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No biggie - mainly an existential question about whether subgenuses could be "established" as opposed to "discovered". --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You cite primary sources for saying that the 9th edition of the Britannica and the 1879 American Cyclopædia were "echoing confusion". I'd only make this claim with a secondary source. Or is Allen, 1893 the source?
 * I'll double check Allen. This may just be my observation, that these specific texts "echoed" the confusion.  I'm not sure Allen listed specifics.  We can change wording.--Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * maybe fixed? So the Allen reference, page 56, second paragraph reads that Richardson's "determination was accepted by Coues and generally adopted by subsequent writers.". This is a confusing piece of history and Allen's account is the most lucid that I have found.  It is a short paragraph and having a second set of eyes look at it would be helpful.--Gaff (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It just seems to me that linking the "confusion" to the 9th edition of the Britannica and the 1879 American Cyclopædia might be OR without a source that says that those two publications were victims of the confusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble with this. The sentence currently reads, "This confusion was echoed by subsequent authors;(Allen, 1893) the article on gophers in the 1879 edition of the American Cyclopædia has an illustration captioned "California Gopher (Thomomys bulbivorus)", and the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (published during the late 19th century) mistakenly reports Thomomys bulbivorus as abundant along the central California coast."  All 3 of these facts are sourced.  Allen wrote that confusion was echoed (or rather the false determination was "adopted").  I agree that we cannot assume that he was referring to these two publications specifically, but both of them published wrong information. If we drop the semicolon in favor of periods, does that break up any implied connection enough? Something like, "Allen said some folks got it wrong.(cite)  Publication A said wrong thing X.(cite)  Publication B said wring thing Y.(cite)"  --Gaff (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reckon that's good enough. I think we can be afforded latitude to get away with that. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed This 21st century encyclopedia built by a bunch of hacks is getting it right... --Gaff (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "In 2008, multilocus phylogenetic analysis results of the genus were published." By whom? This seems to be a critical moment in the gopher's history. Suggest active voice, as well.
 * fixed I can add more or less detail (names of reseachers, name of journal, UC Berkely, Harvard, etc). Don't want to overdo it since article is long already.  --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Carraway & Kennedy, currently footnote 27, has no page-number cites.
 * fixed


 * Thanks for the review! I can certainly take care of all of these concerns.  --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Very minor suggestion - in "Description" you're plugging a lot of dense information into the first and third paragraphs. I'd suggest breaking it up a bit more -subheadings, even? - but that's just a personal inclination.
 * I'll keep tinkering with this. Agree, some minor tweaks will help it flow better.  I did learn how to do this  with the teeth, which is kind of cool. --Gaff (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed.
 * The bit of information about the gray-tailed vole squatting in the Camas' tunnel seems a bit out of place - wouldn't it be better in the final para of the section, which deals with other mammals that share range and tunnels?
 * fixed agree.  Since that is another of "my" GA articles, maybe I was placing it too much in the foreground.  Sadly, most of the images that I had found for that article got deleted.  Long story...
 * "reportedly twittering" - any need for reportedly?
 * fixed
 * "Due to the economic impacts of crop damage and destruction of grazing surfaces". Do we need a sentence before this, establishing that the Camas damages crops and grazing surfaces before moving on to what the consequences of that are? As it is, the section on "Human interactions" just seems to jump right in about a sentence ahead of itself. More generally, the first four sentences of the section each involve the passive voice, which makes it quite difficult to follow.
 * I'll work on this. It would be good to quantify the cost of economic damage.
 * fixed I added some economic data as well. --Gaff (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is an "overall degree of threat impact"? This seems like a bit of jargon from somewhere else that might need to be put into plain English.
 * fixed
 * The final para shifts from the IUCN to Natureserve and then back to the IUCN. In between there is a sentence about "area of species distribution" directed to an unknown purpose. Maybe think about a restructure? Two paras? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed

Image review
 * "Ten day old" -> "Ten-day-old" in caption; otherwise all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  fixed thank you for the review --Gaff (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * * FYI: Additional image added File:Camassia quamash 6374.JPG.  Source is good and it is a valued image on commons.  --Gaff (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth
This looks to be a well-written, reasonably comprehensive article. A few points I noticed:
 * "... smooth-toothed" or "Western pocket" gophers." - Why capitalise the "Western"?
 * fixed Some call T. mazama the western pocket gopher. The source on this is unclear and colloquial names for the entire genus are not essential to this species' article.  So...drop the "western". --Gaff (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The word "Camas" is capitalised throughout the article. Why? It is not capitalised in the Camassia article.
 * Interesting. It is capitalized most everywhere that I have seen it.  Richardson's original text (which the article links to) calls it the Camas Rat.  I would prefer to call it Thomomys bulbivorus.  I'll do some more research. Camas the city is across the Columbia, in Washington, not in the gophers territory.  --Gaff (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed The definitive text on this animal in my opinion is Verts & Carraway Land Mammals of Oregon. I own a (signed) copy.  On pages 224 and 231 they refer to it as the camas pocket gopher.  Other sources are variable and in my opinion less trusted.  So, I have changed it in the article.--Gaff (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "During the mid-1800s James Audubon called to the species the "Camas rat" - The meaning of this sentence is unclear.
 * Fair enough. I need to do a bit to clarify and it will take a day or two.  Its all there in The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America.  They basically reject Richardson's assessment and reassign what was then a synonymous animal.  --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed I rewrote this paragraph.  --Gaff (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "The species' genetic diversity is similar to that other pocket gophers occupying a larger geographic range and diversity of habitat." - Missing word?
 * fixed


 * "The fur is a flat, dull brown with a dark, lead-gray underside." - What precisely does this mean?
 * Fixed It means that the sentence needed help.  --Gaff (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of "Description" starts off talking about a single individual but moves into the plural half way through.
 * fixed


 * In some places where there are two citations covering one fact, they are not arranged in numerical order.
 * fixed by a gnome. I wonder if we could have a bot made to do that for us? I'll ask around.--Gaff (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "... pull the pouches towards the opening" - It is not clear what opening is referred to here. Perhaps you could use "forward".
 * fixed


 * "Although the gopher's front claws are too weak to dig through the clay ..., its large incisors and strongly procumbent orientation are well-adapted for this purpose." - Some clarification needed here as to what is procumbent.
 * Agreed. It is used all over the place in the literature, but seems idiosynratic.  Protuberant likely captures the same meaning and that is the word I had used.  Procumbent may mean tht they stick out more directly forward.  I'm going with protuberant for now.  --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed.


 * "Androlaelaps fahrenholzi was reported is some studies" - This sentence needs attention.
 * fixed


 * That's all for now, while I consider whether the article is sufficiently comprehensive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing this & I'll get to work. The article will benefit from the attention of somebody with so much experience on rodent articles.--Gaff (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The alterations made to the article since I first studied it seem satisfactory and I now support this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Pete

 * Good points.
 * Capitalization: My understanding of relate MOS principles would say "western" should not be capitalized. "Camas" is the name of a city in the area the gopher inhabits; this suggests to me why it may have been capitalized to begin with. I'm not sure where the name originates, and whether or not it should be capitalized in this context.
 * I don't think the numerical order of references is something that should impede FA ratification. If this is important to you, I'd suggest you just fix it.
 * I suspect will be in a better position than I to address the remaining points. I have not worked on species-related FAs, and have yet to read this article closely, so I don't have a strong opinion about this; but in general, I am impressed with the quality, and am inclined to think it's ready for FA (with a little attention to some of these details). -Pete (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All good Thanks for the support & the fixes. --Gaff (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by bluerasberry
photo donated by an expert
 * As I recall, Gaff wrote to a gopher expert and asked if they would donate images to use in this Wikipedia article. This person was so generous and gave one of the best pictures I have seen anywhere on Wikipedia.

I wonder if we should contact this expert and ask for the further favor that they might read this article and comment on the extent to which it meets their own quality expectations. Gaff, would you feel comfortable doing this? I support the request being made, if it seems right to ask.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The photographer was more of a botanist working on the restoration site. We corresponded briefly and he was more interested in seeing what I came up with on this animal, so at this point it seems I am more the expert.  And me a simple country doctor... ;) --Gaff (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber
Right then, looking pretty good. Couple of minor flow issues.....

::: fixed elegant.
 * Link genera in body of text (I meant think the word "genera" but no biggie)
 * Already there, first sentence Taxonomy section: "There are six genera of North American pocket gophers: Cratogeomys, Geomys, Orthogeomys, Pappogeomys, Thomomys, and Zygogeomys."

support Otherwise I think we're there on comprehensiveness and prose. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and support! --Gaff (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Evad37
Notes: Spotchecks not done; footnote numbers as at this revision - Evad37 &#91;talk] 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * note re: spot checks Review above by Mkativerata included spot checks. --Gaff (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Subheadings should use heading code rather than pseudo-headings, per MOS:ACCESS
 * Please provide examples. A member of the GOC copyedited this and it has been reviewed by a number of other experienced editors.  For the sake of expediency, please just fix it if you see some obscure violation.  --Gaff (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Example: Use  instead of   – as per the "Heading use (and misuse) examples" on that MOS page, and explicitly stated as "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup" just above the examples. Fixed with this edit . - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Footnotes consistency
 * The footnotes seem to be a mixture of short citations (linked to sources further down the page) and full citations (with external links and wikilinkes to other articles). I would suggest using just short citations (and adjusting FNs 20, 21, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 7 (Integrated Taxonomic Information System), 58 (NatureServe) accordingly)
 * I am having trouble setting the Template:ITIS to accept a sfnref tag. I asked at help desk. --Gaff (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This reply was given to the query at the Help desk: "This reference has only 3 short bits of information (link, source, date). I don't see, how a harvard anchor would be beneficial here: the reader is forced to click once more to get to the online source, that could be conveniently reached with 1 click now. Harvard anchors are best suited for offline books and some citations with lengthy details. But online-sources with little additional bibliographic information don't need a harv anchor - mixing short sfn references and "direct" online citations to websites is commonly done in FA-articles. Note: if you really, really want to force a harv anchor here, check Template:Wikicite which can provide harvard anchors for "unusual" references (your idea with a cite web would work too). But I'd recommend against it in such cases. GermanJoe (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)" --Gaff (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * FN 1 uses title and year for the short cite, but other footnotes use author and year
 * fixed Gaff (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FNs 48, 50 are both short cites without a defined author, but one uses the publisher while the other uses the title
 * fixed --Gaff (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Footnote formatting
 * FNs 2, 55: use endash (–) for page range
 * fixed I think you meant FN3, since FN2 does not need any dash. --Gaff (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FNs 25, 43: use "pp." and an endash (–) for page range (unless these are single pages with a hyphen in the page number)
 * fixed--Gaff (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FNs 20, 21: The Wikisource logo is showing as part of the title (both as displayed and in the metadata). Wikisource is also being shown as the publisher; since it is just the content provider, it should be shown as "via Wikisource". I would suggest replacing cite wikisource with cite encyclopedia, setting s:Page on wikisource and Wikisource (linked to Wikisource for the first use)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand the problem or how to fix it. Please help.  --Gaff (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FN 58: page number(s)?
 * Page number for a website? --Gaff (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it (Nowak 1999, FN58 from the previous revision linked above) is a book with an ISBN, readers shouldn't have to go to Google books to find the page number
 * I tweaked the URL of Walker's Mammals of the World to point at a different Google Books version of the same book. The prior link does not contain the pages on pocket gopher. With that (assuming the sourced content comes from the pocket gophers section of the book), you should find it much easier to add the relevant page numbers in the two citations (currently citation 55).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like you fixed it. --Gaff (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Source errors CS1 errors in sources
 * Carraway... (November 1993) – |accessdate= requires |url= – suggesting removing accessdate, identifies are generally stable and do not need an access date
 * Whitaker... (24 July 2007) – |accessdate= requires |url=
 * Wight, H. M. (October 1922) – |accessdate= requires |url=
 * Disputed: I do not see how it is a "source error" that the citation template was filled out to completion, including the date upon which an editor accessed the cited information.  If you object to the template being filled out completely, take it up on the talk page for the template.  This is not an acceptable reason to hold up FAC articles.  --Gaff (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Its the templates themselves that are marking it as an error, categorising the page into Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL, and showing red error messages (currently only if users have some CSS to show all such error messages, but this might not always be the case) – see Help:CS1 errors § |accessdate= requires |url=. It is not up to me to "take it up on the talk page for the template", as I am not proposing any changes to the template or its documentation (which states "access-date: Full date when the contents pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires url") – and much discussion has already occurred on the accessdate issue, see e.g. discussions linked from Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed "Source errors" above to "CS1 errors in sources" for clarity - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed Carraway 1993 links to a valid correct URL via the JSTOR feature in the template. Do I need to have two URLs?  Seems like a WP:BROKE issue.  Not important.  In any case, I took your advice and simply removed the accessdates.  --Gaff (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Source formatting
 * Some titles are in title case, others are in sentence case – suggest using title case for all, per MOS:TITLE
 * Is that for book titles only or journal articles? Looking at references on another FA (Dodo) for comparison, I'm not sure... --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been told at previous FAC that all titles should have a consistent case style, both for individual works like books and for items within other works like newspaper stories. Is there a reason why titles for books and journal articles should be treated differently? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that book names should always be title case but articles can (or even "should") be sentence case -- the main thing would be for all article titles to be in a consistent case w/i the WP article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed --Gaff (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will get to this and the remaining housekeeping tasks in the next day or so. Hopefully the FAC doesn't get archived in the meantime.  Busy with work right now...  --Gaff (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * When an author has two initials, some instances have space between them while others have no space between (example: "Verts, B. J" right above "Verts, B.J.")
 * Which is correct in MOS? I'll look around, but if you know, it will save some time, so we can work on other things.  --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure - it may even be the case that either style is acceptable as long as it is consistent within an article. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Both have been accepted at FAC -- as you say, consistency within the WP article would be the main thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed --Gaff (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There are sources missing publisher details, and there are others missing the publisher location
 * Not all sources found via online resources provide these details. I am continuing to review, but several Google books don't have publisher location.  --Gaff (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If those details aren't provided, then that's okay. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Brandt, Johann Friedrich (1855) – language should be indicated
 * fixed --Gaff (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Elliot, Daniel Giraud (1905). – The publisher parameter contains "Series 6:1–761" after the publisher, breaking the CS1 style of separating fields with periods. Suggest separating these into series and pages
 * Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nowak, Ronald M. (1999) – " / : Ronald M. Nowak." doesn't appear to be part of the title
 * Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Patton, J. L. (2005) – page range should use an endash (–)
 * It looks to me like it does already. ?? --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, its been fixed between when I initially looked and now... - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Verts, B.J.; Carraway, Leslie N (1998) – missing a period after N
 * Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Whitaker, John O; Walters, Brianne L.; Castor, Linda K; Ritzi, Christopher M.; Wilson, Nixon (24 July 2007) – missing periods after O and K
 * Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And something I noticed in the external links section: the UniProt link shouldn't specify HTML as the format. Per documentation for CS1 templates (eg cite web), "HTML is implied and should not be specified."
 * That's a template issue that I don't know how to fix. * --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed in the template code - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have struck the resolved issues above - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Source reliability issues:
 * FN57 (Willamette Valley Agriculture) appears to be an open wiki where anyone can create an account and add or change information. I would suggest following up the references provided there, and then citing those directly.
 * FN56 (Dollar times) – is this particularly reliable? I would have suggested using Inflation and Inflation-fn, except that template specifies that using CPI data to inflate non-CPI-type values "would constitute original research".
 * fixed Neither of these facts/figures are especially relevant or essential and since the sourcing is weak, I just removed them.  There are currently no identified sources for economic impact of Camas pocket gopher damages, but we cankeep the 1918 data.  --Gaff (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I have gotten to everything but the ITIS footnote issue, which I have asked for help on. Anything else missing?  Thank you for reviewing!  --Gaff (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That was everything I could see, and I'm happy to take GermanJoe's point about the citation already being pretty short. Sources now look good re consistency, formatting, and reliability. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 10:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.