Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guinea pig


 * 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 00:11, 12 May 2007.

Guinea pig
Reached GA status a few weeks ago. Almost completely rewritten/sourced/expanded by a team of dedicated editors, who transformed it from a pet owner's list of do's and dont's into its current form, including much better coverage of the animal's place in science and medicine and its use in the culture of the Andes. Self BITCH-nom. Chubbles 03:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With, I might add, 117 inline citations from reliable published sources. VanTucky 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Need a source for the entire business of "Because the guinea pig has a stout, compact body, the animal more easily tolerates excessive cold than excessive heat ... "  Last month, when my niece accused me of murdering her darling pig, I, of course, went first to Wikipedia to find temperature info.  Your information disagrees with everything she stuck in my face, as she accused me of freezing her rat to death (60 degrees, power outage, snowstorm - my fault?).  The pet store, and every book and website we checked agreed with her.  Please clarify and provide a source.  They ALL said the rodent froze at 60 degrees.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the Wikipedia ref is correct in my understanding. Mine (who is not unique in any fashion, i.e. size) has been in my room when the heat was at least 10-15 degrees below 60 many times and was completely fine. Of course, cold temps can be much more serious for very young/small guinea pigs. Think of it logically as well...not only did they come from the Andean region they were first imported to Western Europe (Netherlands, England) where it isnt exactly tropical. VanTucky 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote from The Biology of the Guinea Pig (Academic Press, 1976): "The compact body of the guinea pig conserves heat well but dissipates it poorly. Thus the guinea pig is more likely to tolerate cold than heat." The temp ranges cited in the article then follow. I've added an inline cite directly to the sentence questioned above; I can add this quotation to the footnote, if that is desired. Chubbles 04:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, 11-yo wiz-kid got on the internet to make me feel bad, and found a lot of 65-75 info, like, , and , so it would be good for your article to address the whole issue of temperature changes, drafts, etc. The pet store told her any change (I made her take it out of the room where I was sleeping, *and* then we lost power in an ice storm) or draft could have killed it, and she found several books at the pet store that said same.  I'd love for your article to let me off the rat-killer hook :-)  Several sources said they don't tolerate change or drafts.  Otherwise, the article looks quite sound, and is greatly improved since my murderous days last month.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But you might keep in mind that resources for pet owners (especially those with a financial interest) tend to play it safe when it comes to that sort of advice. They sometimes advise more conseratively than is supported by evidence. That is one of the reasons one or our goals in improving the article was shying away from using websites by/for pet owners for citations. VanTucky 04:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but do you have any well-sourced info on temperature changes or drafts, since that was the direction other sources took? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A sentence has been added on this. Chubbles 04:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good structurally. I'll be a support after some of the animal folks have been through (you might check with KPBotany, Joelr31, PDH, or Yomangani).  Nice work!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, structure and prose look good, and none of the Wiki "animal experts" have weighed in. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;nice. There are a few (mostly subjective) microissues remaining, but not enough to oppose. Some examples include hyphens: I think there are a few instances where they are unnecessary, based on what I've seen from other copy-editors (hyphens aren't really my forte). Not a big issue. I left a couple random queries, but again, nothing to oppose over. Please write more featured articles. &mdash; Deckiller 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The sourcing is to be admired. the_undertow talk  21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Thorough, well written and sourced. Better than most of the crappy books I got from the pet store when I had a GP. -Ravedave 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - I'm sorry I didn't notice this nomination a week ago but I have some issues. On its own I would give this article a support, though I think it is borderline on 2 (b) Hierarchical headings. However there are quite a few Featured animals whose headings and heading order/hierarchy differ substantially to this one. Obviously there are different emphases in each case but I still get an overall sense you can see the origins of this article from a 'pet' view. I get a sense the subject material is not well categorised, eg material on domestication is spread thourgh several sections from history, domestic habitat onwards.

I would recommend:


 * Rename Name, Taxonomy (plus/minus name) as per the FA whale articles.
 * Move History and place under a domestication section as a subsection.
 * Remove Traits and environment as a section - para one should be beginning of a Description' section (which I can't actually find and seems to be a necessary part of many bio articles)
 * Para 2 of Traits and environment should go into taxonomy'
 * Breeding and Diet go as subesctions under Behaviour
 * Domestic habitat goes under '''Domestication as a subesction.
 * GP as pets froms intro to Domestication section, GP as food''' is subsection.

To sum up, I really believe you've done a great job with the article so far, but I do like to see some sort of order or conformity in the bio articles. You've got strong support so far and I'll alert some other wiki-animal buffs. They may all disagree with me. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree most emphatically on one point: the name section should more technically be Etymology and Taxonomy. The history of the colloquial name Guinea pig is of vital importance to the article (even more so than taxonomy in my opinion) and is a distinct subject from simple scientific categorization. Otherwise, absolutely. We've been muddling over sectioning work for quite some time. so thanks! VanTucky 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, how about a name section (for common name and variants) that has a 'taxonomy subsection and this to go under the lead..cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: I have left some messages on a few other wiki-biology buffs in the hope that they will weigh in. I might be a bit busy later this weekend but will get back when I get the chance. Good luckcheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi, a, uh, wiki-biology buff here, recruited by Cas to come have a look. The layout Casliber suggested is perhaps desirable but not to my mind required, particularly as this is about the domesticated species only, not the domesticated species and the wild ancestor. I do agree that some work needs to be done on the hierarchies though - you could have a Human uses section with pets, science and food as subheadings, for example. I am also puzzled that the wild ancestor is not known, given its importance to science this is in fact mystifying. I am also really really concerned by the line Wild cavies are found on grassy plains and occupy an ecological niche similar to that of the cow. I very much doubt that an animal you can fit in the hand and one that weighs more than several grown men occupy anything like similar niches. They might both graze on grass but that isn't the same as saying they have the same niche. As for the rest of the article at first glance it looks good and I'll review it later. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely understand the nervousness about that statement, but here's a couple points of clarification: Remember it's referring to wild cavy species, and only is included to put in context what is surmised about the animal according to study of it's domestic social interaction and dietary/behaviorial similarity to wild cousins. It may sound a little silly to the reader at first, but it's not suggesting there are feral herds of domestic guinea pigs roving the pampas like mini cows. It's just a good comparison for context. You're right that the niche involves more than just diet, but just dismissing it bc of size comparison (however funny) is a little hasty. They are both herd-forming, grazing species that naturally inhabit similar environments and have a similar impact on that environment. Of course, the measurable amount of that impact is vastly different, and there are differences related to size (erosion for example). If to be in the ecological niche requires a comparable impact/importance as far as vegetation and predation goes, then feel free to edit away. But if only what the animals do is considered, then in my opinion they are without a doubt in the same niche. On the whole however they are extremely similar in terms of the ecological role they play. As far as the sectioning goes, that seems just perfect Cas. I'm not nit-picky about how it's structured, but ignoring that etymology is the central subject (or at least the more debated one) seemed odd. VanTucky 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;article has been promoted. Just figured I'd save everyone time :) &mdash; Deckiller 00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * D'oh! cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 00:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.