Talk:Idaho pocket gopher

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Idaho pocket gopher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 14:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• I've done some copyediting
• The range map shouldn't be the lead image, there's a separate field for it.

   Fixed

• 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

   Removed

• 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.

   Removed

• "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.

   Removed

• "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.

• 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.

   Fixed

• 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)