Talk:Eastern chipmunk/GA1

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

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]
  • In the lead, it might be good to put it in a little more taxonomic context than just "rodent"—perhaps say it's a squirrel, and the only living member of the genus Tamias, one of three genera of chipmunks.
  • Could the Merriam 1886 citation get a title and page numbers? Also, it's presumably available online because of its age; could you add a link?
  • The subspecies are never mentioned in the body of the article.
  • 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?
  • I don't like the "Biological statistics" table, especially in its current layout, as it is interrupting the flow of the article. There are also some problems within the table: neither a "diploid number" nor a "tooth formula" is clear to a nonspecialist. I would put it in the text and say "The eastern chipmunk has 38 chromosomes (2n = 38)." and "The tooth formula is 1.0.1.31.0.1.3 × 2 = 20 (one incisor, one premolar, and three molars on each side of both the upper and lower jaws)." Furthermore, the value for body mass under "Metabolism" is outside the range reported a few lines up.
  • "adult dentition is attained at 3 months"—does that mean that the 3rd molars erupt then? If so, it may be clearer to say that.
  • 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.
    • I can't find this passage in the article. Where is it? The young would not be sexually mature during the spring and summer mating seasons of their birth year. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I misread; the first part talks about young from the previous year. Ucucha 05:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).
    • My source is dated 1998. I'm wondering if it supercedes the 1994? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whitaker and Hamilton? They may instead have missed it. Durden and Musser are online here, if you wish to check it. I actually found another source [1], from 1999, which definitively states the chipmunk E. tamiasis was first found on was misidentified. That's also consistent with the fact that the species has been found several more times on the Siberian chipmunk, but never on the eastern [2]. Ucucha 21:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 16:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • We still have the point about subspecies open. I'm not quite sure you'll need that to have the article meet the GA criteria ("broad in its coverage").
    • Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you actually deleted the paragraph about its relationships, which I do think we need. Ucucha 15:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just restored that section: why does a lack of stuff in the text on subspecies mean info on relations should be removed? —innotata 17:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't find the passage in the main body of the text about the subspecies. I'll read the article through once again. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is that there is no such passage at the moment. Ucucha 08:02, 4 July 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]
  • "most formidable enemy is the weasel": besides "enemy" being a bit problematic, weasels are a group of animals like hawks or foxes, not a species.
  • Words such as "hypopial" (I didn't know what it meant) should be avoided, especially in the lead.
  • Having only one breeding season in some regions is mentioned in the lead, but not the text.
  • What is the survival rate of younger chipmunks? A few more words on survival would be good; I'd think more information would be available.
  • The table in the reproduction section probably should be removed, as it disrupts the text flow and everything in it is in the text.
  • Aspects of the eastern chipmunk's relations with humans beyond conservation status are in the lead but not the text.

—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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_chipmunk/GA1&oldid=398807091"