Talk:Camas pocket gopher/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

Hi, I'll review this, some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sections seem a bit unconventional in structure. Distribution should be in the same section as habitat, and behaviour should be with ecology.
"Description and morphology" is a pretty redundant name, description should be enough.
Conservation could be a subsection of human interaction.
Under ecology, you have a bulleted list, these are discouraged, should be written as prose.
" 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.
You could make the synonym list be less intrusive by doing the same as seen on for example red rail.
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.[1]