Talk:Forrest's pika

Critically endangered?

The Critically Endangered page lists this as, well, critically endangered. The information bar on the right says otherwise. Any experts know any more on this animal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffreyGomez (talk • contribs) 09:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Prey and interaction with environment and other species (haypiles as food)

See the Wildpro cite "Forrest's pika — Ochotona forresti". Wild Pro.. This would be a good addition to the text. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It has reliability issues... On one of my earlier GANs, I found out that the website was to be replaced. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Wilson citations missing

We don't seem to have in this article the citations to books by Wilson. These are common in the other Pika articles we have been working on. There are lots of relevant sources listed here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied here Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Forrest's pika/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 05:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

GA criteria

Well-written:

With a number of grammatical tweaks, the article complies with grammar as well as general layout policies. While you're doing that... (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article makes frequent use of each of a number of reputable sources, and does not appear to contain any original research. While you're doing that... (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article adequately covers all the standard areas of its topic. While you're doing that... (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article discusses its topic in a completely unbiased manner. While you're doing that... (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article has not suffered any disruptive editing since 2008, according to the revision history. While you're doing that... (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The sole image used in the article at present is freely licensed, and serves a relevant illustrative purpose by visually conveying the species' habitat range. While you're doing that... (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article meets the GA criteria, and is passed. Congratulations! While you're doing that... (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

How is it both endemic to central China and found in other countries?

If I'm reading this right, the distribution section contradicts itself. Is it endemic to Central China, or is it found in four different countries? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Black pika into Forrest's pika

Neither IUCN nor ASM's MDD list this as a species. Merge to its containing taxa. UtherSRG (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)