Talk:Idaho pocket gopher/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 14:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
- I've done some copyediting
- The range map shouldn't be the lead image, there's a separate field for it.
- In the lead, you mention "Many aspects...well understood." rather early, it would fit better after "Individuals...year-round"
- Done
- "The type locality...collected in 1890." Combine these two sentences, otherwise it reads excessively clipped.
- Done
- Overall, throughout the article, you use short sentences for statements, which in several places could probably be combined into longer sentences to improve the tone.
- I'e attempted to do this throughout
- "It has no...talpoides." It's unclear what this means; were only some subspecies considered part of talpoides or was the entire species considered part of talpoides?
- The source cited doesn't explain it very well, but another helped to clarify.
- "considered to be relatively small" Small for what?
- Removed to avoid confusion.
- Skull doesn't need a link
- Gloss procumbent and baculum.
- Done
- The note on Robertsonian translocation is confusing and unhelpful for most people.
- Glossed.
- Gloss bullae.
- Done
- Soil doesn't need a link.
- "store excavated...the winter" I don't get it; how does the soil staying after snowmelt indicate that the gophers were active through winter? It's soil, presumably it wouldn't go anywhere.
- Poor attempt at paraphrasing on my part. Reworded.
- "eats, however" The comma should probably be a semicolon.
- Changed the wording.
- Could you refer to talpoides and idahoensis by their common names only outside taxonomy? It's more accessible for lay readers and is also more consistent than switching back and forth.
- Done
- US state doesn't need a link.
- "as no threats are known" There's more reasons why: it has a large range and presumably stable population that isn't declining fast enough to qualify for a threatened listing.
- What source do you have that says this? According to IUCN, the population trend is unknown.
- The IUCN: "Listed as Least Concern because its extent of occurrence is much greater than 20,000 km², there are no major threats at present, and its population is not declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category "
- I don't know how I didn't notice. Done.
- The IUCN: "Listed as Least Concern because its extent of occurrence is much greater than 20,000 km², there are no major threats at present, and its population is not declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category "
- What source do you have that says this? According to IUCN, the population trend is unknown.
- For ref 2: You shouldn't be citing the book, but the specific journal article. In this case, it should be Descriptions of twenty-three new pocket gophers of the genus Thomomys.
- Specific and genus names in the ref titles should be italicized.
- Done
- An anonymous username, not my real name AryKun (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging An anonymous username, not my real name AryKun (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay, AryKun. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)