Jump to content

Talk:Turkestan red pika

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Turkestan red pika/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well. I might as well get back into the reviewing side of things, and why not start with a nice little article like this. Would be nice to have more images :) but if this is all that we have it's acceptable. Time for some comments: IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for picking it up for a review. I hope you enjoy it! :D Yeah, it would be great to have more images on the species, but unfortunately we do not have any more on commons (just like Glover's pika)... Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice for the place names to be linked, none except the mountain ranges are currently.
  • There are a few small typos and punctuation errors (lack of space after the period of the first sentence)
  • As the lead is a summary, it might be good to use the generalist terms over the scientific ones (eg. pelage -> fur, dorsal -> back, sporadically -> occasionally)
  • The 5th lead sentence looks like it could be worded better so there are fewer sentence pauses.
  • I'm wondering what is behind the name "Turkestan". I'm aware that there is no country with that name, so what does it come from?
  • Perhaps you can add a sentence in Taxonomy saying "Turkestan is an informal region of Asia east of the Caspian Sea" and reference something from the Turkestan article? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is rated to be least concern ... , and it is considered to be near threatened." Odd sentence structure, maybe replace the "and" with "however" to explain the contrast in status?

That's all at this point, good luck :) IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IJReid Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a typo: diurnurnal → diurnal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explain or link "talus". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes Thanks for the input! :D scree is already linked, so I do not think talus has to be linked (there is no link to talus either, I guess). Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I linked it to scree. It's a bit confusing sans context. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Lythronaxargestes! Although, it is a dup link now that we have links to the same article twice. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm.... good observation. I think the better approach would be to add a parenthetical introduction of the "talus" term right after the "scree" link; can you do that? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes Looking better now? I also changed the wording "scree" to talus, so that it is easier to follow! While we are at it, would you like to pick up last one of my small GAs (the Thomas's pika) for review at GAN? Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could give it a shot! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes Thanks a ton! :D Also, what about the description of talus? It is looking nice or do you think it has to be tweaked? Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that looks fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on what Lythronax has said, I don't mind duplicate linking as long as it is on a different word going to the same source

I've crossed off finished querries. I think the lead section is good for now, I'll move onto the body of the article. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy
I'd like the naming and etymology to be included in the Taxonomy section, since it would have relevance there.
The sentence about a lack of current subspecies is more relevant after the discussion about subspecies
A list of authors like you give would be better placed in parentheses after something like "Multiple authors have since thought ... "("Author, year"; "Author, year" and "Author, year")
Looks better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be worthwhile to mention what skull features are different between the species
Zoogeography should be explained in parentheses
Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any cladograms to display species arangements? (If you know of some but don't know the syntax see WP:TREEREQ)
I have not used cladogram yet on any pika species, as the taxonomy is so uncertain that different sources do treat the taxonomy differently. So, I do not think it would be appropriate to use cladograms for pikas. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources more recent that 1990 on classification? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below, in the discussion with Harris! Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Typo in the paranthesis, "Zheng in 1988" not "Zheng in 198"
Fixed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real discussion on the convoluted classification (if that is the case)
I mean different authorities include have different taxonomies. For example, MSW might treat species A under species B, but Guide to mammals of China might treat species A under species C. However, it would be so ambiguous to draw the cladogram! This is because the cladogram will not only contain the Turkestan red pika, but also other species of pika which have high ambiguity. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the most recent authority on the subject? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chances are, for so many pika species, not one authority might be the most recent for all the species. If authority A is most recent for species B, then there are a lot of chances that the same authority A might not be the most recent for species C. I do not think we should link all the species based on any one authority and make a cladogram. What seems best is to just mention (as it currently is) that which authority assigns which species under which species. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any published cladograms that exist (based on molecular studies)? We aren't allowed to just make cladograms for any ideas, but if there is a molecular study that involved pikas we could use that. Plus molecular genetics for an animal wouldn't change, so it would be a reasonably secure bet. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
William Harris Any clue on this one? Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomic authority now cited - MSW3 2005 - the mammal "bible" according to WikiProject Mammals.
  • I believe that the first sentence of Taxonomy should be relocated under Range because it has nothing to do with taxonomy.
The sequencing was limited to only a small segment of DNA, so I assume that the researchers were only able to delineate 11 of them. I would be leaning towards waiting for someone using a much longer sequence length to map all of their species, so then we would know how they were all related. Given the new sequencing technology now more widely available, it should not be too long into the future. William Harris • (talk) • 21:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
William Harris Exactly what I thought. It would be best to wait for a much more detailed cladogram, as even the listing of subspecies might be susceptible to change in MSW given the high uncertainty of its taxonomy! Thanks a lot for the clarification, as always! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll strike this, but I advise revisiting the issue if you approach FA. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There will be MSW4 in the next year or so: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals#MSW4 to be released soon? I concur with IJR - if you progress towards FAC then something will need to be developed with what we have, even if it is an abridged phylotree. William Harris • (talk) • 08:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really inclined towards its FAC. There are many more species that I would love to go for FAC first, so probably we could have a tree then (also, MSW4 might be around)? In order to be coherent, we might need to add the phylotree on more pika species, which may not have the same taxonomy, thus contradicting with the text. Really interesting to see MSW4... it might change some taxonomy not only for pikas but also for other species! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, my beloved genus Canis, for which I have produced a phylotree that combines a number of studies together. Because each species is fully cited on the tree, I do not regard the tree as being a WP:SYNTHESIS. We can do the same for the Pikas at the appropriate time. William Harris • (talk) • 09:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
William Harris Yeah, we could have a tree in all pika articles! Just awaiting MSW4. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Description
"It has a tail ..." could be rewritten as "About ... of its body is tail" to make more relevance to readers
Tweaked slightly differently. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" ... and has a broad, and flat ..." there shouldn't be a comma
Removed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anterior should be linked
Linked! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alveolus is complex enough to deserve a parenthesesed explanation
Looks better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful to include comparisons to other taxa (the skull is ___ unlike in ___), these give relevance to the bone description (see RfC at Talk:Jianianhualong about this kind of stuff)
There is no comparison given in the sources, so choosing any one from more than 35 pika species would be odd... Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some short sentences can be merged ("It's summer dorsal pelage is rufous" and the following sentence)
Merged, looks better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as "pelage" is synonymous with "fur" you might as well use "fur" at all mentions, with "pelage" in brackets at the first mention
Replaced. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Measurements should bear context (comparisons to other regions, proportional size etc)
"O. a. cinereofusca" and "O. a. scorodumovi" are given no link and no common name, and aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article?
I do not think they have a common name yet, and we do not have a wikipedia article for them, so not link! Since they are subspecies of the alpine pika, and not related much to the Turkestan red pika, there are no more mentions of them (unable to find anything more that links those species together). Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about link to the Alpine pika and say " ... similar to that of the northern pika (...) and two subspecies of the alpine pika, O. a ... and O. a ..."
Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the "_ to _" specific measurements would be better as "up to _". This excludes the overall weight and overall body length
The range would be more accurate. :P For example, if I say that one has 10 to 12 apples, versus one has up to 12 apples. The range gives a more precise idea. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1st sentence grammar fix "in which __ of the length is tail" -> "of which __ is tail"
Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are long bracket contents following a word, maybe you should place the word in brackets following the laymen description of the term
eg. " ... broad and flat region of the skull between the eyes (interorbital region)"
eg. " ... has no hollow cavity of the circulatory system (alveolus) above it"
eg. " ... the sides of the body around the backmost ribs and the hips (flank)"
eg. " The funnel-shaped opening in the bony palate directly behind the incisors (anterior palatine foramen) is merged with the palatal foramen."
The term would be the most exact, so I think the explanation should be in brackets (like in other pika species, alpine pika, etc.) Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll let this pass, not really my general area of knowledge. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More will come. These are all relatively minor, but should be at least partially fixed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IJReid Addressed above comments! Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through almost all of them. Time for more :P IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should mention the vast number of species in the genus somewhere
  • An image of talus would be goods
  • "Adjacent family terriroty centers are generally ..., and can be as close as ..." probably good to change the "and" to a contradiction
  • What are "hayplies"
  • "fof" is a typo
  • Explain "affiliative"
  • "few, but not all," grammar issue? Maybe should be "most"
  • Any other predators?
  • Is "Sources" the general header name in mammal articles? I know its "References" in extinct articles

I will do a quick source review once the other issues are fixed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IJReid I have addressed the comments above! Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I use Provelt to standardize all the sources and formats? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IJReid Sure! I do not know how to use it, so could you do it? Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment:

  • MSW3 is cited twice, but one citation is for the Turkestan pika, and the other is for something else. Was there a mistake in these references, because there is no information on the other page that is relevant here. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IJReid Thanks a lot! It was repeating. Consolidated it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkestan_red_pika&oldid=1205786001"