Talk:Campbell's dwarf hamster/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am interested here. My comments:

The lead should mention its binomial authority (Thomas here). Also, this article lacks a Taxonomy section, while all GAs I know necessarily have one. As you may be knowing, here you discuss about who first described the species and when, its nomenclature (the info you have of the hamster's first sighting can prove useful) and if possible its naming (I can help you here).

Good, you have created this section! You have put in good work, but you must clearly mention that this hamster is the type species of Phodopus. Write the first line or two as something like (I also add more lucid details): The scientific name of Campbell's dwarf hamster is Phodopus campbelli. This species is the type species of Phodopus, and is named after W. C. Campbell, who first described it on July 1, 1902.
The exact location was given as "Shaborte" (a Mongolian term for a dried up lake) and so the exact location is unknown. Sounds a bit awkward. Could you clarify it? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think you should keep all taxonomic details before physical details in the lead, for proper sequence.~~
~~In the second paragraph of lead, also add diet and habitat details.~~
Create a third paragraph as well, mentioning in which countries this hamster occurs, and what its conservation status is (Least Concern here). The IUCN site has all you need. And yes, it even has synonyms. Add these synonyms in the infobox as well as in the Taxonomy part.

You should write taxonomic synonyms in the synonyms part, not common names. You know, they are different concepts. Well, I have fixed them now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I do not think "Biology" a proper heading. You must have a section "Physical description", describing all physical details.~~ Then an "Ecology" (or "Behaviour") section, which is about the behaviour of the animal, under which Breeding and Diet are often subheadings.

Then comes Habitat, and then Conservation (again, use the IUCN details mostly). Do not worry, this article needs reworking, and I am willing to do much of it.

I do not believe that this should be done, as the breeding and habitat sections are long enough to have their own section. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to have Diet and Breeding as subheadings, it is as you like. I did not say to have Habitat as a subheading, I told you how the sequence of the sections is to be. But please create the "Status and Conservation" section soon. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The facts about lifespan - In a laboratory experiment, the average life span for a male Campbell's dwarf hamster in captivity was 278 days and the average life span for a female was 356 days.[11] ... life expectancy of captive hamsters to be greater than that of wild hamsters.[27] - are actually proper in "Physical description", probably under a subheading "Lifespan".
~~You do not use many images while there are some available here in Commons.~~

This article needs more work, but I am not failing it. Please reply, I wish to know what you think of my suggestions. Also, I have access to more journal articles online, which can provide literature to this article. Cheers, Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, I am currently writing the taxonomy section and I will do my best to fix the other issues whilst the article is on hold. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are working well. We must quickly rework this article, and I will see to the images, as I know you have the heavier load of rewriting the text as I tell you. Once done with this, I would give you the links of some useful scholarly articles I just spotted. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in, because I noticed a taxonomic oddity. The subspecies names do not conform to how such are formed, as trinomials, but are instead binomials, which would indicate full species are meant. Furthermore, the source is over a hundred years old. Are these subspecies even considered valid anymore? I think only a newer source could shed light on this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have written it as a trinomial, must be just a mistake. I could find a citation for P. c. crepidatus here, but none for P. c. campbelli. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I think this is now ready to be a GA. Congrats! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allium?

So garlic and onion are toxic to them, yet in the wild Allium species may constitute a significant part of the diet? What gives? Are some Allium nontoxic (I doubt that)? Or is it bulbs toxic, leaves nontoxic? (Are chives and leek greens nontoxic to them? What about Siberian spring onions? Which species are eaten in the wild?) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]