Talk:Eastern chipmunk/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Moonriddengirl in topic Delisted

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 06:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll be posting some comments later today. Ucucha 06:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • I'm unenthusiastic about some recent revisions: "solitary" is a widely used word and is clearer than "a loner". "Name origin" is little better than "etymology", and the section only deals with the word "chipmunk" anyhow. I'll probably make comments and minor improvements after Ucucha does. —innotata 14:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Could you add citations for the few parts of the description that don't have them?
  • The sentence about differences from Eutamias and Neotamias reads odd: "they differ by ... the penis bone". Is there some difference in the form of the baculum?
  • You first say that the second breeding season in the year may involve young born during the first, but then that young will not breed during their first year.
  • The louse Enderleinellus tamiasis may actually have come only from Eutamias sibiricus, it appears (Durden and Musser, 1994, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 218:13).

Ucucha 16:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll also wait for Innotata to leave some comments before closing the review. Ucucha 17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • I'm not sure this complete enough even for GA grade, but I'll mostly leave that to Ucucha. Some comments for now, some beyond the GA criteria:
    • I modelled the article on those already passed to GA and thought I "covered all the bases" here (diet, habitat, predators, etc.). What have I neglected? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • I don't think most current mammal featured and good articles are as complete as they should be. This article is certainly not anything like a featured article. But again, I'll leave this to Ucucha. —innotata 17:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • I don't think it's enough for an FA, but this is not an FA review and the standards for GAs are lower ("broad" instead of "comprehensive"). I think the current article is "broad". For a somewhat comparable FA, marsh rice rat, I tracked down virtually all scientific literature on the species to search for relevant material. Whether all that is necessary for an FA, I'm not sure, but it is the direction to go. Ucucha 17:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

innotata 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Delisted

edit

As this article has been reverted to prior to the first edit by Susanne2009NYC, a banned serial copyright infringer, it no longer meets the criteria of GA. Content added by this contributor closely paraphrased and may have outright copied inaccessible print sources. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime for more information on this user's patterns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply