| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a fascinating rodent, only found in Oregon. I've built this page up from a stub and eventually would like to propose for FA status. I've worked with the maproom to get the distribution map. I also had to do some major leg work to get suitable images, obtained by permission from an ecological non-profit organization in Oregon. Questions that I have include whether to stick with the common name (Camas pocket gopher) or the scientific (Thomomys bulbivorus). Since most of the literature refers to the scientific, that is what I have stuck with. I have done my best to avoid close paraphrasing and stick to WP:MOS, but I am still not the most experienced editor. Copyedits and even comments on how the sections are named and the article is structured would be appreciated.
Thanks, —Gaff ταλκ 22:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comments from Tonystewart14
- It looks like you've waited quite a while for a peer review, so why not one on Christmas? Hope you're doing well.
- Since you already have GA, most of it looks good. I noticed in the references section that you cite the same page of some sources extensively; for example, two pages (1 and 3) of Verts & Carroway are used a total of 48 times. This source is also cited several more times, so you might be over-reliant on this source. This might come up in FAC, so I wanted to mention it.
- We can certainly mix up the references. However, many of the subsequent sources, including much of what the IUCN and NatureServe report, derive from this Verts/Carraway paper. I also have a copy of the book that they published in 1998, which covers most of the same material. At least for the sake of appearances, I can spread out the references and try to add more independent sources. Gaff (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here's my copyediting remarks:
- Lead:
- Link to Foraging for the word 'forages' in "The herbivorous gopher forages..."
Done
- Remove comma in "The dull brown to lead-gray coat, changes color and texture over the year."
- Done
- Taxonomy:
- Remove comma in "The name Thomomys, derives from..."
- Done
- Remove comma in "The early confusion arises from writings by John Richardson, during the years 1828 to 1839."
- Done
- Change "all the specimen" to "all specimens" in "...he was not familiar with all the specimen."
- Done
- Change "Richardson describes the type specimen in his work of 1829, Fauna boreali-americana." and part of the next sentence to be something like, "In his 1829 work, Richardson describes Fauna boreali-americana, a specimen obtained...". The first sentence sounds awkward, and it's unclear if the next sentence refers to this same specimen.
better?
- It is better; I would recommend taking the comma out after 'work' since the work's title is immediately after, and add a space before Richardson.
- Link to Confluence when this word is used.
- Done
- Remove 'the' in "Errors with labeling of illustrations in the Richardson's book..."
- "Error" fixed. Done
- Remove comma in "...The American Cyclopædia, provides..."
- Done
- Description:
- Remove comma in "...to the premaxilla, pull the pouches..."
- better? I think its grammatically correct with the newly added comma...
- Yes, I think it's fine.
- Distribution and habitat:
- Remove comma in "...subsequent study, as of 1987."
Cleaned up
- Change "with estimated" to "with an estimated" in "This was a massive flood, with estimated 1,693 km3..."
- Done
- Behavior:
- Remove comma in "The large incisors of the gopher, and their..."
- Done
- For "There are variable reports...", you might say "varying" or "conflicting" instead of "variable." This phrase is also used in the Ecology section, so you might consider changing it there as well.
- Done
- Lead:
- Hope this helps. Good luck with FAC and have a happy new year. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is all good stuff. Thanks for the review.
- You're very welcome. I've added a couple comments above where you asked if it was better. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)