Talk:Alpine pika

Suggestion for improvement

• ..."during the winter, in August." - doesn't seem to make that much sense having "in August" in the end, maybe it would be better if put elsewhere Adityavagarwal? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• TheSandDoctor Yeah! Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: It does seem a bit better, however, still seems a bit "off". I will see if I can do anything with it shortly, your edit clarifies what was meant though (making it easier to improve) so I thank you for that . --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of it now? Moved some of the wording around, but otherwise kept it mostly the same. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly better TheSandDoctor! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

a matter of form

Once again, too many sections begin with the repeated formation of "The Alpine pika...." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen Did not see the comment until now! It must have slipped through the watchlist. Since, the goce has begun, I think it would be better to wait till it has finished. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata

I was going to add the link to wikidata for this animal but saw the template on the article that stated that the article was getting a going-over from our guild of copy editors. So if anyone is interested, a link to wikidata might be helpful. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS) I have no idea on how to add it. :P It would be fine to add even while it waits in the GOCE queue, so could you add it? Thanks a lot! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing! No trouble at all. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, Barbara (WVS) :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Section name

I propose a change of the section 'Status and conservation' to 'Conservation status'. Are there any objections? – BroVic (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay with me.

However, this is undergoing a major overhaul and rewrite by WP:GOCE (they have a work-in-progress banner up) and we should see what they do first.7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that heading is, it is not just about conservation status (which is a sub part of "conservation"), but also about the population status which is the "Status" part of the current heading. So, I guess we should leave it as is. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement (Taxonomy)

Hi there, was just copyediting this article and ran into something that I found seemed to be lacking information. "Several authorities had included the northern pika as a subspecies of the alpine pika" - when? I see the note/comment reading: "such as Vinogradov and Argyropulo in 1941; Argyropulo in 1948; Gureev in 1964; Corbet in 1978; Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl in 1982; Weston in 1982; and Feng and Zheng in 1985" and was wondering if you agree as to if it would be appropriate to reword that sentence to include some of the years? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Does it look better now? Feel free to amend! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

FA

Alright, let us take it to an FA status? TheSandDoctor, User:7&6=thirteen Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan Adityavagarwal. Have now added Wikipedia:Peer review/Alpine pika/archive1 to my watchlist. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, TheSandDoctor, finding for new information now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)