Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Olympic marmot/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Olympic marmot edit

Nominator(s): —innotata 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rodent endemic to the Olympic Mountains of Washington state. I helped a little with getting it to GA a couple years ago. Revisiting the page, I think it is comprehensive enough and otherwise meets the FA criteria, and any issues with it can be dealt with in this featured article candidacy. —innotata 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

  • Usual thorough work, just a few queries before I formally support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • terrestrial animals and avian raptors, x2—context suggests "mammals" would be more accurate than "animals"
  • Perhaps link coyotes, cougars, bobcats, black bears, golden eagle, Seattle
  • Colonies of burrows—Colonies refers to animals not structures; if this is a specialised use, as it appears to be from later in the article, needs to be explained at first occurrence
  • They are known for being very sociable—I'd lose "known for being"
  • large shape of its mandible—surely "size" rather than "shape"?
    • Both shape and large size, it seems. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Olympic marmot is a folivorous... They—Singular subject, but plural pronoun in rest of paragraph
  • dominant male if the existing dominant male dies—perhaps something like "incumbent" to avoid repetition.
  • answered legislators' questions to overcome bipartisan opposition—How did it get through if both parties were united in opposing?
    • Added 'initial'. Thanks for your comments! —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns, changed to support above, god luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth edit

Being currently in a rodent frame of mind, I propose to review this article. In general it looks well-written and comprehensive. Here are a few points I noticed:

  • "They enter hibernation in September, during which time they are in a deep sleep and do not eat" - "hibernation" is not a time but a state of inactivity.
  • "The significant difference of the Olympic marmot's jawbone from the typical Petramarmota is also evident in the Vancouver Island marmot (M. vancouverensis), which evolved separately, but also occurs in a restricted range with a small population. - I'm unclear what this sentence means.
  • I'm confused about the colour of adults. You mention various moults and various colours but I struggle to follow what colour the animal is at different ages and times of year.
  • The two parts of the sentence starting "In the fall" are mutually inconsistent. If the colour change is the result of a moult, the colour is unlikely to further fade after surfacing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Think I clarified this. —innotata 03:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Olympic marmots are folivorous (leaf-eaters) ..." - If they are folivores, should not their diet consist entirely of leaves?
    • Leaves are clearly stated to be the main part of their diet. Typically when people say an animal is an x-vore they don't mean it never eats anything else. I'll address the rest of the comments later. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing thought - If they emerge from hibernation in May, mate 10 to 20 days later and gestate for a month the pups are born in about late June. They are weaned 10 weeks later which brings us to early September, just about time for them to start hibernating. How can the pups have built up enough body reserves in this time to survive a nine month period without food?
  • Since writing the last comment I have read the Edelman source, #2, and see that the reproductive cycle is not as stated in the article, but is 10 weeks from mating to weaning and the juveniles enter into hibernation later than the adults. The National Park Service source, #12, to which some of this part of the article is referenced, is inaccessible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified when they enter hibernation, and corrected the part on weaning. I think this is resolved. —innotata 05:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment I am tending to oppose this candidacy. Looking specifically at the Description and Feeding sections I see too many instances of the article text not correctly summarising the source text. Here are some examples but there are many more and I think the article should be gone through carefully comparing its content to its sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully I can fix this, soon. (Note that while I'm responsible for fixing the article if I want to get it to featured status, I didn't write most of it.) —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The middle paragraph of the description section is confusing and still does not reflect the source in connection with the second moult. The part about the adult coat should be rewritten in a more coherent fashion. The final paragraph of the section needs to be consistent with the middle one.
  • The use of the word "folivorous". Neither source uses with this word and one of the sources states "The inflorescences and upper 6-10 cm of new growth are typically eaten." A folivore is a herbivore that specializes in eating leaves and this marmot does not.
  • Removed folivore; someone just added it to increase links to the article anyway… —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uses of the National Park Service source at #12 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg. " Marmots have a sharp, piercing whistle that warns others of intruders or potential predators, and notifies hikers that they are in marmot territory." has become "... in order both to alert other marmots and to tell the hiker that he or she is in the marmots' territory." The emphasized phrase is not the purpose of the call.)
  • Removed these parts, will look through more of the article. —innotata 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uses of the National Park Service source at #20 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg "... a longer growing season may allow marmots to grow more quickly, mature earlier, and breed more often" has become "... a longer growing season in which marmots could grow quickly and mature earlier, and thus breed more frequently throughout the year.")
  • Removed "throughout the year" and rephrased a bit. —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find any more of the article that is inconsistent with this ref. (The section on young I changed somewhat, but it didn't have actual inaccuracies.) —innotata 17:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uses of the Edelman source at #2 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg The article states: "Olympic marmots also communicate through the sense of smell to mark their territory. A gland located in their cheek exudes chemicals which they rub on scenting points, such as shrubs and rocks, to indicate possession." This is not borne out by the source, in fact, as per this source, these marmots are not territorial within the colony, and the scent markings are social in nature.)
  • Removed the parts mentioned above, will look through more of the article. —innotata 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could not find any further inaccuracies. —innotata 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see this article was expanded/worked on as a class project which probably explains some of its deficiencies.
  • In the feeding section it states that the marmot may kill late-hibernating chipmunks, but as far as I can see in snippet view, the source states "On two different occasions in the spring, I saw an Olympic marmot carrying a dead chipmunk in its mouth." I couldn't see the rest of the page, but it doesn't seem likely that it stated that the marmot had killed the chipmunks.
    • Well, a number of the article's other sources simply say that Olympic marmots kill chipmunks; I think an earlier paper mentions this behavior, so I'll see if I can find it. If I can't find any more specific information, I suppose I should change the text to reflect that Barash only provided anecdotal accounts of them carrying dead chipmunks. As for whether they killed the chipmunks, Barash says marmots can't kill chipmunks above ground, but probably do kill them while they are hibernating. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed it: they definitely scavenge for carrion, as many marmots do, and possibly they kill hibernating chipmunks as well. —innotata 06:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph in the lead has the animal's weight mentioned at both the beginning and end. This duplication seems excessive.
    • Eh? There's no duplication, as it mentions the typical weight, and then sexual dimorphism. I brought these sentences together. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph in the lead mentions dried grasses, but these are not mentioned in the same way in the feeding section.
  • "During a study in the Olympic Mountains, 36 droppings were compiled and two of them contained marmot hairs." - I don't think "compiled" is the right word here.
    • Collected is better. Done. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bears probably rarely prey on marmots, as their presence close to colonies generally does not raise alarm calls unless the bear advances up to 6 m (20 ft) from the colony." - The first part of this statement is borne out by the source but not the second part, as far as I can see.
    • Specified the ref for that. —innotata 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cestodes and fleas use the Olympic marmot as a host, showing a secondary role for the marmot within its ecosystem." - It is difficult to view having parasites as a "role" and this is certainly not mentioned in the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a role, eh… but that does not need to be included in this article. Removed. —innotata 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've resolved all the issues raised, apart from the chipmunk-eating one (and see my response; will get around to looking presently). —innotata 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's looking better. I did a little copyediting. A few more points:
    • Thanks. Fixed one of your copyedits. —innotata 14:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph of the Colonies section does not read very smoothly.
    • Improved it, somewhat, anyway. —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... because they have more weight to gain." --> "because they need to gain more weight.
  • The sentences in the first paragraph of the section Hibernation are a bit disordered and could benefit from being re-ordered chronologically.
  • "... when colonies stabilized and survival rates rose to around 4,000." - A survival rate is a percentage figure. Do you mean the total population increased to 4,000? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. —innotata 15:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've addressed all your points, at least somewhat. Let me know what you think, and what more I could do. —innotata 06:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am having another look through the article and in general I think it much improved: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One image caption states "Clinton Hart Merriam, the discoverer of the Olympic marmot". He didn't discover it (I'm sure the native Americans knew it was there), he was the first to describe it.
  • I think you can still say he discovered it, but sure, changed it. —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bears probably rarely prey on marmots" - Are these the black bears mentioned earlier in this paragraph? If they are grizzly bears you could mention that and wikilink them.
  • No they're black bears, so I tweaked the section. —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good! I am now supporting this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK edit

  • File:OlympicMarmotImageFromNPSFlipped.jpg - added archive links (make sure, images have valid, active source links) - OK.
  • File:Olympic_Marmot_Range_Map.svg - needs a source for the depicted distribution range. Unfortunately the original map lacks this info too.
  • (optional) the map has 2 SVG-internal errors. If you know someone fluent in SVG, it would be nice to fix those.
  • Flickr-images show no signs of problems or Flickr-washing - OK.

Except 1 minor point (#2) all files have sufficient source and author information, and are CC. GermanJoe (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The range map was based on information in the IUCN Red List. It would be easier for me to me to make new maps, so I'll do that if I get the time. —innotata 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added the related IUCN-page (for now) - all OK. You can still improve it later, when you like (no need to hold up the review for a minor nitpick). GermanJoe (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

I'll give this a read soon. I overlooked this nomination because it started with "olympic", and I hate sports articles, so only noticed it was about an animal today... FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article doens't have any image that shows the entire animal. The ones that are available are not very good,but I think we should have at least one until a replacement can be found. Here are the "best" ones:[2][3][4][5][6] FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, these images are probably on par with, if not better, than what's in the article: [7][8] Here's a pretty bad one showing dark parts:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, replaced a couple images. —innotata 07:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "treated as a distinct species, a treatment" Sounds a bit repetitive, could the last treatment become "position" or some such?
    • Changed to 'classification'. —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't hoary marmot and other species (as well as everything else linked in the lead) be linked at first mention after the lead?
  • A cladogram could perhaps be nice under taxonomy?
    • I don't think so. There's not much confidence to branching within Petramarmota, so all that can be said is that the species could be the most basal Petramarmota (ie, it is the sister taxa to all the others). —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if no good ones have been published. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do they identify predators, by smell, sight, or both?
    • Definitely mostly sight, in common with other ground-dwelling squirrels. —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and interact with other marmots only in the morning and evening. In between these times, Olympic marmots can sometimes be found lying on rocks where they sun themselves for warmth, grooming each other, playing, chirping, and feeding together." Doesn't this contradict itself?
    • I removed the first part, since it seems like that's the mistake. —innotata 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On some occasions, the other marmots in the colony will make a trip over to the satellite male's burrow since he cannot leave that area, often about two times an hour." For what purposes?
    • The source doesn't explicity say, so I hesitate to change this. To keep tabs on him in some way, for the respective reasons of the dominant male and the females. —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 2006, numbers had dropped to 1,000 individuals" From what? The earlier estimate is explained as inaccurate.
    • Some unknown number higher than 2,000; as stated in the article, conservationists knew the old counts were underestimates, but that more accurate new ones were even lower. That's how it looks, at least. —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to overcome initial bipartisan opposition to a new state symbol" What was the former?
    • No, the opposition was to adding a state symbol, a "state endemic mammal" as well as a "state bird" and "state flower" and so on. This is a common thing here, some states have a couple dozen symbols, and mine has a state photograph and state muffin. I think this makes sense in context, but I suppose it could be changed to "another" or "an additional". —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that addition would be nice, confusing for a non American. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one issue to be addressed before I support. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - everything addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

taking a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 consecutive paras in Description section all begin ,"The Olympic marnot..." - mix it up a little?
About 90% of Olympic marmots' total habitat is located.. --> would change to "their" - alot of "Olympic's in this segment of prose...

Otherwise looking good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Was there a source review for formatting and reliability above? Pls seek one on WT:FAC if not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dudley Miles edit

  • "with adult males weighing on average 2.2 kg (4.9 lb) more than females". Sexual dimorphism is the proportional difference, and I think it should be stated here as percentage or ratio rather than absolute difference.
  • I would expect average life expentancy in the lead.
    • I don't think any is known… —innotata 22:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zoologist R. L. Rausch classified the Olympic marmot and other North American species as subspecies olympus of Marmota marmota (which now only includes the Eurasian Alpine marmot)" It might be my ignorance of taxonomic classification, but I cannot make sense of this. North American marmots are sub-species of a genus of which the only member is a Eurasian marmot?
  • "Continuing alarm calls indicate that a predator is close, and thus increase vigilance in the marmots; a single alarm call results in the marmots still curiously looking around for the predator." This appears to say that the single call is the first when a predator is distant, so why "still" looking around, not "start" looking?
  • " a burrow is often home to a newly born litter and a year-old litter." Presumably as a female gives birth every second year, these would have different mothers?
    • two-year-old. Done. —innotata 06:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they have four different types of whistles,[26] differing in this from their close relatives, the hoary marmot and the Vancouver Island marmot." What is the difference?
    • Different number, not specified whether there's more or less than in particular other species. —innotata 06:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia edit

I tried my hardest to find nitpicks, but it looks like the animal reviewers still have it. I did find a WP:NUMERAL issue ("until they reach 2 years of age" should be two). And since the long citations end in a period, would it be more visually pleasing for the short citations to also end in a period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good; fixed your numeral issue. As for citations, I don't care. It's using a pretty standard style, that's used in probably thousands of articles… —innotata 21:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I copyedited the lead section; as always, feel free to revert. I'm not watching at the moment, but if you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist the page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha edit

The taxonomy section says that M. olympus is the most basal member of Petromarmota, but a more recent study (doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2003.09.015) recovered it in a more nested position, sister to M. vancouverensis. I'm not sure anyone has provided a biogeographic interpretation of that result though. The claim that the species originated during the LGM is sourced only to a 1948 publication, and should ideally be supported by a more recent source. After writing this I found another study with even better data (doi:10.1644/10-MAMM-A-272.1) that again places this species sister to all of Petromarmota except flaviventris, and claims that it diverged about 2.6 Ma (long before the LGM). This study should definitely be cited. Ucucha (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update the article soon. —innotata 21:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been done yet? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That brings me back to the cladogram. If it is more complicated than "it's just basal", a cladogram could show this well. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, a single cladogram would not help explain any of the above, as you'd see if you read Ucucha's comment in full. Only one study supported it not being most basal, and it didn't really provide an interpretation of this result. All the information a cladogram would show would be branching in the rest of Petromarmota, which isn't really of interest here in addition to having low confidence. —innotata 21:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
    • Not sure what you're referring to. —innotata 01:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some refs include locations, others don't
  • FN26 has a doubled period
  • The Griffin and Mitczuk refs are formatted quite differently
  • How does the Mitczuk work meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been reviewed, it has been cited. —innotata 06:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Innotata: pls respond to Nikki's source review, and I think some of Dudley's comments still need acknowledgement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll try to get to it today and tomorrow. Sorry, I didn't expect the FAC to take this long when I nominated the article, though. —innotata 01:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it wouldn't be complete without the source review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Olympic_marmot/archive1&oldid=1077422759"