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.

I'm not sure, as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Long_sequences, but we can try both and see which looks best. There are 14 animals of the list, with not a lost of text to support it. I might try a table. Let me look at a few other articles. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what it looks like as a list with only common names. Not bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gaff/Camas_pocket_gopher_draft&oldid=635196892 —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been done before, see for example dodo, which I wrote. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped the binomials and went with common names.

" 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.

Cited the wikisource. There is a mislabeled image/woodcut in that article, which might be of use. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Can I ask your advice on image use? Of the 14 images at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Thomomys_bulbivorus I have uploaded 12. The other two there before are the taxidermy in the Italian museum and the woodcut from the 1800s encyclopedia. Both incorrectly labeled as "California". Do you think the article would benefit from having those images added, to highlight the complex taxonomy issues discussed in the article? Also, where/how best to incorporate the other image you mentioned? —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the layout so that most images are now in use. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mis-lettered Diplostoma douglasii" How is it mislettered?

Will clarify. I just found this (valuable?) reference text yesterday. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems a bit odd for a "mislettering", it is a completely different word.

I think "mislettered" at the time may have meant more that the letters were laid out wrong at the printer or something along those lines. The reference here reads "The fourth (Diplostoma 1 bulbivorum) was based on the skin of a "Camas-rat," from the "banks of the Columbia," an animal said to be very common on the plains of the Multnomah River" (F. B.-A., I, p. 206, pl. xviii/>, wrongly lettered " Diplostoma douglasii")." The reference F. B.-A. is the Fauna boreali-americana and the plate/image is the one here. I think "mislabeled" is more appropriate than "mislettered." —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the title is the common name, this should be used throughout the article. That is how most articles about extant mammals are written. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the only place on the Columbia from which" Too esoteric for non-Americans.

I have edited it and tried to clarify. The wikilink for Columbia River goes to the 1,243 mi (2,000 km) river.

"It was to have been in" Seems a bit awkward.

better?

"Even prior to that, it seems that this specimen was not well preserved" What did it consist of?

The water is a bit murky. I'll read up more when I get a chance. Made some edits for now.

No word on the former genus it was classified in, Diplostoma? What is it?

Here's a start. I'll keep working on it. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The "genus" never really amounted to much and was soon dispensed with, having been more a product of Richardson's (mis)-interpreations. There is an account in Abstract of Results of a Study of the Genera Geomys and Thomomys By Elliott Coues. I have clarified this murkiness in the article. Thoughts? —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1855, Brandt first referred to the Camas pocket gopher as Thomomys bulbivorou" Seems like reclassification, should be stated and clarified.

Did some digging. The original reference is by Johann Friedrich von Brandt in German. Here is a copy. Here is a really nice (public domain) image from the work, with a much needed profile view. If you can read German well enough to translate, it would be helpful. Or I can keep digging. I'll get the image uploaded to commons soon. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it is going to be worthwhile to translate the Brandt text. I ran some through Google translate, without much information. I'm not sure how to go about getting more clarity on this point (not for lack of searching). I'll keep in on the to-do list, but need to focus on bigger issues first. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There just is not much in the Brandt text about this. I;ve clarified a lot in the article. This again seems an "artifact" of the Diplostoma affair. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"what at the time as thought" Was thought?

"at that time for the Camas pocket" Only for the?

That is my understanding. I've added the "alone." Its in the first paragraph of referenced article, under "Context and Content". The rationale was questioned later by some other naturalists. I'll have to review references to get the full story & clarify. Something about some minor concavities of the pterygoids, if I remember. I'm not sure what prompted adding the others later. I acutally cannot find anything about one of the species in the subgenus listed in ITIS http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=900156 : Thomomys atrovarius —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 1920s, reference is made to the "Willamette Valley Gopher." Why shift of tense here?

"In German is is known as "Camas-Taschenratte," in French, "Gaufre bulbivore," and in Italian, "Gopher gigante." Why do we need to know the name in countries where it doesn't even live?

It's referenced and somewhat interesting in a trivial way. I moved it to the talk page.

"No subspecies of the Camas pocket gopher are described." Why present tense?

"The patterning reflects a destructive event occurring across a broad expanse of the territory about 13,000 years ago." With what consequences for the animal?

I thought the sentence immediately prior helped clarify. A study was done in 1993 analysing genetic patterns and tracing patterns back to an event at that time. The two references I have listed in the article are a bit. From IUCN http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/42594/0 : "This species exhibits a genetic pattern of limited inbreeding within populations and much differentiation among populations; pattern reflects a cataclysmic event affecting the entire geographic distribution of the species about 13,000 years ago (Carraway and Kennedy 1993)." I will try to find the original paper, but need to avoid relying too much on primary sources. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the reference (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1382434) (found it through JSTOR at my local library) and will expand on this information. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, could be interesting to note what this event consisted of, if that is explained in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Diplostoma douglasii from Fauna boreali-americana, 1829" Is that a depiction of the type specimen?

This image is parked in the middle of the section of the book on the animal. Again, we are in murky water. I'll try and sort it out. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been addressed as best as possible. Thoughts? —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the four initial species of Richardson was Diplostoma ? bulbivorum." Add that this is an old name for the Camas pocket gopher. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonomy section is a wall of text, could be split into at least two or three more paragraphs.

"now known as Thomomys bottae." You could mention the common name in parenthesis.

"They most closely resemble Botta's pocket gopher.[citation needed]" All such tags should be dealt with prior to nomination in the future.

Likewise with the second to last paragraph in the description section.

"peculiar fur" That means little by itself.

-- clarified

"This heavy rostrum" Should be the, it is only a part of the skull. But I wasn't aware that any mammals had anything referred to as such, does the source really say rostrum?

Yes. Here is the ref towards bottom of the page, section heading. The Verts/Carrway Land Mammals of Oregon ref on the page also uses this wording. It is these skull features that differentiate subgenuses Megascapheus and "Thomomys. I'll fix the copy edit... —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, "rostrum" seems like an awkward word. I may switch to Snout. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After dividing paragraphs under taxonomy (which will create room), the museum specimen could maybe be moved there to illustrate mislabelling.

Additional comments

Awesome work with the dodo. I will plan on incorporating some of the boxed quotes from naturalists of the era and some other features of "your" article. Once this article passes GA, if you have additional ideas and want to help out, it would probably help me a lot in terms of developing my skills.—Gaff ^ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as for quotes, that was mainly done because the animal is long extinct and can't be observed by modern scientists, which means all we have are those old accounts, which should not really be interpreted, and are therefore left as they were. I'm not sure quotes are much relevant to extant taxa, and they could instead present outdated information. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with the citation style. I am fixing it, using Dodo and Rodrigues solitaire as templates. —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, though I can't help with that, since it was implemented there by someone who has since been blocked... FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For FAC, I'd recommend that you request a copyedit here:[2] I always do that. But beware that it can take long before someone does it, as it is mostly done chronologically, so you could list it now already, this review will no doubt be done by that time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you are a copy editor! Well, the thing here is that it seems some of the sentences are a bit convoluted, and some complicated stuff could need explanations. You could re-read it once this review is over. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]