Phodopus was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rodents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RodentsWikipedia:WikiProject RodentsTemplate:WikiProject RodentsRodent articles
This article was copy edited by Lhynard, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29 November 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Previous copyedits:
/
This article was copy edited by Stfg on 26 November 2011.
dwarf hamsters are nocturnal that means they sleep in day and there awake at night. they are very small and there are thousands of speiceis of them all of them i know are called chinese dwarf hamster, russian dwarf hamster, russian winter dwarf hamster,chinese winter dwarf hamster.
unsigned comment added by 75.186.65.3 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate you adding the section. The trouble is that the source is a Lycos $13 bucks a year, do-it-yourself site. I vaguely remember content in one of these hamster articles that was probably sourced from this site.
The material in the source looks like dubious original research to me, as does other diet section content. Stomach upset and diabetes? How can you tell? Tomatoes are okay, but acid is bad? They eat carrots and fruit in the wild? Really. But don't give them sugar. My original research conflicts with it:
Seem like they can eat pretty much anything and be very happy.
Giving rodents meat (except of bugs) prompts them to become canibalistic.
Some of my hamsters eat lots of sugar, and I haven't seen any tiny little bottles of insulin laying around. (Although three of my hamsters are like small whales.)
What we need a more credible source. I'm sorry to say that removing the section might be best for now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a book, but how can I list that as a source? PuffinLet's talk! 10:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found out how to list it as a source, is it fine now? PuffinLet's talk! 10:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to take on the copy edit requested of the GOCE, but the following issues need clearing up first:
Nomenclature: Phodopus should not be equated to "dwarf hamster". MSW3 and the IUCN Red list both equate dwarf hamster to genus Cricetus. Smith and Xie, in A Guide to the Mammals of China, list both genera as dwarf hamsters. My view is to note that Phodopus species are some, but not all, of the species referred to as dwarf hamsters, and have done with it, using Phodopus only from then on.
(less vital) In the case of P.campbelli, just "Campbell's hamster" seems the best name to use, as in the Red List. (MSW3 calls it Campbell's desert hamster.) (doesn't seem necessary after all) --Stfg (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Genera do not have IUCN Red List statuses. To combine the statuses of three species and deduce a status for their genus is WP:ORIGINALSYN. It is possible to mention the status of each individual species (separately) in the text, and I can do this during copy editing if you like, but all Red List stuff needs to be removed from the taxobox.
First, I think a Phodopus skeleton photo would be really cool here, although that alone would not clarify the technical language of the section. On the other hand, the article has only a single photo, and GA articles should have photos, according to criterion 6 of WP:GA?.
WP:TECHNICAL "in a nutshell" is: "Strive to make each part of every article as accessible as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material." It further suggests that we "should use language similar to what [we] would use in a conversation."
I think this section is probably fine for a WP:GA, but I think to make it a great article we should try to make this section understandable to a general audience. As it is, I have a PhD in chemistry, and I find this section a little hard to follow.
Here is a list of things I think could be clarified:
What is a "source area"? Is this the same as the attachment point of the muscle? Why is it significant that it is "well defined" or that it covers the "infraorbital canal"?
What does it mean for a supporting bone to be in the middle of a muscle extension? And why is this significant?
What does it mean for cusps to be opposite each other? First, how many cusps are there on a single molar? How could cusps on a single tooth not be opposite each other? Does this mean they are in rows and not in a line? Or does it mean that the cusps form a sort of rectangle instead of a parrallelogram? Basically, I know what a cusp is, and a I know what a molar is, and yet I don't follow the Teeth section.
None of these questions could be answered by visiting any wikilinks.
I would suggest that further statements of distinction and comparison be made in this section. (Some already are, and that is great.) For example, "Unlike in such and such a rodent, the cusps of the upper molars are...."
I'll go back in a bit and see if I can improve on things, but for now, I have mostly just copyedited and tagged the section. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
I can assure you, I am much younger than you and I am starting a GCSE in the sciences. I find it easy to understand and I do think that a general audience would fine it easy to understand too. It's a section about teeth, this is not the Simple English Wikipedia and I do review GA articles, you do not need several images that appear to be purely decorative, look at Fallen Angel (The X-Files) a GA, with only one image. I have the sources listed, they do not state all of the information that you are requesting, which makes it so the article could contain original research. PuffinLet's talk! 09:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course this is not Simple English Wikipedia, and whether or not you review or write GA articles really has little bearing on the policies I was referencing at WP:TECHNICAL or WP:GA. Almost EVERYTHING on Wikipedia is subjective. I happen to be of the opinion that the section is slightly too technical for an encyclopedia; you disagree. No big deal; we disagree; that's ok. I suggested feedback; it's totally up to the community to decide what to do with it.
Regarding images, I was not remotely suggesting the addition of "several images that appear to be purely decorative." A Phodopsus skeleton would allow readers to see such things as the "small lower jaw" and the steep curve of the jaw bone. Such an image would be informative, not simply decorative. But while an asset, I never said it was a necessity.
Regarding sources and original research: I think you are mixing up what original research is. Original research is if I were to write articles about my own experiments or my own reading of primary sources. Translating what a technical secondary source is saying into non-technical, encyclopedic English is not original research.
As an aside, if you can follow the technical jargon better than I, could you at least help me undertand my questions in the bullets above, for the sake of my curiosity? Thanks!
whatever, its fine now. please agree PuffinLet's talk! 17:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes have helped things a tiny bit, yes. Thanks for making an effort. As I stated above, "I think this section is probably fine for a WP:GA, but I think to make it a great article" it could still use a little bit of work. Don't take it personally; you've done an excellent piece of work on this. Congrats. Besides, you don't need my approval before submitting for a GA. I've given my feedback; go for it. Good luck!
Just claiming this one now- the review will come later. Hopefully tomorrow. J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is by no means awful, but there are a few issues which would really need to be resolved. I do not believe that you are structuring this article in the best way.
First thing that hits me is the lack of pictures- there are three species here, so why not have one of each?
It does not refer to the genus, it refers to the sub-family.
So that's the type species of the sub-family? We need the type species of the genus in this article. J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait sorry, Miller found the Roborovski hamster and then gave it the type species of Cricetulus bedfordiae but then it was re named to Phodopus roborovskii after the Campbell's dwarf hamster and the Djungarian hamster were discovered. I am going to clarify this in the article. PuffinLet's talk! 09:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put the type species in the taxobox, citing MSW3 for the fact and following Template:Taxobox/doc#Type species for the presentation. @Puffin: In the article you added "However, G.T Miller later re named the genus to Phodopus after researching that Phodopus sungorus and Phodopus campbellii also had similar traits to Phodopus roborovskii and grouped the the three species together in the genus of Phodopus", citing MSW3, but MSW3 says none of that. Please don't make stuff up like that. The name P.roborovskii was actually first coined by Argyropoulo in 1933, as the Ross paper on this species (FN4) states. I am going to correct this now. --Stfg (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea how the previous ref msw3 disappeared, but I've restored it. For future reference, when citing MSW3, please use Template:MSW3, not {{cite book}}. --Stfg (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not sure what's going on here, but the type species cannot be in a different genus. That doesn't make any sense. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The type species is the species now known as Phodopus roborovskii. But in 1908 that same species was known as Cricetulus bedfordiae, and that is what Thomas declared. What's going on here is that things have been renamed over the past century. The article presents it as the scientific literature does (and conforms to the rules of taxoboxes, as linked above). --Stfg (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this phenomenon is very common. Two of the three featured articles by Ucucha that you mention below, Oryzomys and Transandinomys, also display it. --Stfg (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For an article of this length, I would really want to see a slightly longer lead- two paragraphs would be ideal.
"There are three extant species of Phodopus" Are there any extinct species? Or are these all of the known species?
I didn't write that, I don't even know what exatnt means. I am going to remove that because there are no extinct species. PuffinLet's talk! 22:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mention that there are fossils further down the article; are these fossils of these species, or of another species? J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it. At the time, I thought I remembered some mention of extinct species, but I've had a long look today and can't find it, so I'm probably mistaken. However, the "Fossil Records" section of this paper (FN2 of the article) says "Fossils referred to the genus are known from the Pleistocene" - to the genus, not to a species - which is suggestive, though not conclusive. I think it could be best to be explicit that there are three extant species, and agnostic about extinct ones unless there are good sources about that. Puffin, you cannot know there are no extinct species unless you can guarantee that all Phodopus fosils have been discovered already! But if J Milburn and/or Lhynard think "extant" should come out, I'll be OK with that.
The same section of the same paper continues "Some early Pleistocene fossils identified as Cricetulus from Somerset Cave in Britain ... were assigned to Phodopus by Schaub (1930)". [Schaub 1930 is our FN24]. Genus mentioned here, but not species. In the "Fossil Record" section of Ross's P.sungorus paper (our FN3) there are mentions of sungorus fossils (this time Late Pleistocene). But her P.roborovskii paper has nothing about robobovskii's fossil record, and doesn't cite Schaub. Also, Schaub published in 1930 and the robo only got the name Phodopus roborovskii in 1933.
For these reasons, I doubt the accuracy of our article's final paragraph before the references. Please, does anyone have access to copies of McKenna (FN20) and Schaub (FN24) and could quote some sentences, or at least do a citation check? --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I prefer the inclusion of "extant". It is technically more correct, even if we are "agnostic" about the fossil record. ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the book is horribly complicated and very hard to get hold of (the book is in a library very far away) and so I think that extant should just be included. PuffinLet's talk! 21:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth is "extant" more technically accurate? I'm really not following your argument. We want to cover all the species, not just the extant ones; if there are three extant species at least one undescribed extinct one, as seems to be the case, say so. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can only cover the species known to science, and we don't know if there are any extinct species, and if so how many. I did search quite hard yesterday, and found none, so I suspect there are none known to science, but I can't give a citation for that. So we don't know the total number of species. We do know the number of extant species. Explicitly saying "extant" is a way of making clear the limitations of our knowledge. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Genera are human constructions. If a species is not known to science, it's not in the genus. If you want to split hairs, say that there are three described members of the genus, with a link to somewhere appropriate. When you say "there are three extant members of the genus", you are implying (or, technically, implicating) that there are extinct species, which is not a claim you seem to be willing to make. (For comparison, if I say "John hasn't been in prison in the last year", I imply/implicate that he was in prison previously, despite the fact that I have not explicitly said so.) J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I'm cool if "extant" gets deleted. Puffin? Lhynard? --Stfg (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Webster's, "extant" means "currently or actually existing" or "not destroyed or lost". It is not a synonym of "surviving", as you seem to be treating it, J Milburn. Even if there only ever were three species, those three species are extant by the definition of the word. So it's not incorrect to use it. In fact it's more precise to use it, because otherwise "species" could imply both extinct and extant. (If we can find some extint ones to list, we should of course include them.) So I still vote to keep it in. But it's not something I'm about to get in an edit war over.~ Lhynard (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rememeber that this is not an article about three species, but an article about the genus. In the description, I'd ideally like to see a discussion of what defines the genus in addition to brief details about each of the species.
It'd be nice to have some more taxonomic info in the taxobox. Authorities? Years of description?
Please understand, it is much easier to get these for more specific species of Phodopus and so that's the maximum amount of information I can get! PuffinLet's talk! 23:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the authors and years of description for the genus and the species. J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is surely much more to be said in "History & Etymology"? (I'd rename it to "taxonomy", shift it up in the article and move the pest issue out- perhaps add that to a section that mentions their status as pets?) This is going to be a key feature in any decent article about a genus, as many of the other articles
I renamed that section per your suggestion. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that section titles should be in sentence case- rather than "Habitats & Conservation Status", go for "Habitat and conservation status" (not that the two subjects would normally be linked)
I did not write that! I am changing it right now. PuffinLet's talk! 23:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Re: caps: That was me, entirely by accident. I know better. Sorry.) ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some other things which will need to be fixed up, and I'm yet to delve into the sources, but I think this will give you enough to be working on.
Again, I think the structure here is a little wrong- To get an idea of the structure and style to aim for with an article like this, I'd recommend looking at featured content- luckily, Ucucha (talk·contribs) has written a lot of great articles in a similar area. For other extant rodent genera, take a look at Voalavo, Oryzomys and Transandinomys (all featured articles). I hope this review's been helpful, and I'm sorry if this is coming across as overly critical. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the continuing instability of the article and legitimate concerns raised on the article talk page (and flagged by cleanup templates on the article itself) are showing no signs of being resolved soon, and so I have no choice but to close this review at this time. I hope the concerns can be resolved; I urge you to renominate the article when they are. Good luck, and I'm available for a third opinion if necessary. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I think it is important to say somewhere in the article what distinguishes Phodopus from Cricetulus, even if it is just genetic comparisons. ~ Lhynard 19:14, 29 November 2011 J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This quote is from the newly revised Behavior section. This seems to conflict with everything I have ever seen or read about Roborovskis, which are always said to be the "smallest and fastest" hamsters. Is this information about Robos' speed simply urban legend then? Or are they exceptions to the rule for the rest of the genus? (They certainly look like they are fast when they run on their wheels — I can't even see their legs!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhynard (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 December 2011
I assume the source is comparing them to slow in relavence to humans, which seems a bit silly, as 4mph is classified as "slow" as a walking pace. I will clarify this. PuffinLet's talk! 16:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<ref name=wilson> needs converting to template MSW3. We don't {{cite book}} for MSW3. This is because the MSW3 template give on-line access for verification. --Stfg (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but that points to the entry for genus Phodopus, which is the same as FN1 and isn't on pages 1884-1886. If you let me know what entry you want to reference (e.g. is it subfamily Murinae?), I'll fix it for you.
By the way, I've just noticed that sever of the reverences have page numbers in the wrong format. The right format is "1884–1886", using ndash, not hyphen, and with no space either side of the ndash. --Stfg (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Puffin, pages 1884-1886 of MSW3 don't contain an entry at all; they are slap bang in the middle of the list of "Cited literature"! The entry for Murinae is on page 1247, and is online here. It doesn't say anything about chromosomes, or splits. It doesn't even use the words "mouse" or "mice", though it does mention genus Mus, obviously. So what statement do you think you're supporting by citing MSW3 in FN6? Please don't just change the reference to something not on line as you've done before when I've challenged citations. No more of these wild goose chases! You've cited MSW3. Why? --Stfg (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was getting mixed up with the page numbers, I was supposed to include that statement in the "Phylogeny of muroid rodents: Relationships within and among major lineages as determined by IRBP gene sequences" journal but I wrote those page numbers because I have one of the books in that cited section and I was referring to it but then I entered the incorrect pages and so I know that the statement is in "Phylogeny of muroid rodents: Relationships within and among major lineages as determined by IRBP gene sequences" and so it should be cited with that instead. PuffinLet's talk! 14:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> What a waste of time! Well, I've corrected some details of the citation. Please view the diff and try not to do this again, because this really has wasted a lot of my time. Please also provide a page number for the citation. They are at the top of each page of the PDF.
I'm sorry! I will provide the page numbers. PuffinLet's talk! 17:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFL. Anyone else having difficulty locating page 186 in the source? --Stfg (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A clue, then: the cited article is on pages 256-276. --Stfg (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never put that link there, I have a copy of the journal at my library and the online preview only supplies that page range. PuffinLet's talk! 16:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Puffin, it doesn't matter whether it was you who put the link there; it was you who cited the paper! In fact, I was the one who put the link there, having found it in Google Scholar, because the paper is available online and we should include links when sources are available online. The exact reference you gave was
A. Jansa, Sharon; Marcelo Weksler (2004). "Phylogeny of muroid rodents: Relationships within and among major lineages as determined by IRBP gene sequences.". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution: 31. ISSN 1055-7903
and the article of that title by those authors with that ISSN is on pages 256-276 of that volume of that journal. In addition to the reference I inserted, here are some other listings that evidence this.
Please could you provide (here, not in the article) the link to the online preview you mention, so that we can clear up this mystery. You were originally looking at pages 1884-1886 of MSW3, which was not the source but a reference to the source, and I suspect you may be doing something similar now. It is essential that we resolve this if the article is to be credible as a properly sourced article. --Stfg (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've just checked the citation in MSW3, and it too lists the article as being on pages 256-276. --Stfg (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the concern at this point just the page numbers? Or whether the paper says something? ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...because I'm not seeing anything about 40 chromosomes or 15 splits in that article. In fact, the word Phodopus is only mentioned once in a chart, which simply places them in the hamster subfamily. ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - it just isn't there. The broader concern is the regularity of failed verifications here. I have been raising this for weeks - you might like to check out my comments in the recent peer review, which tackle the references in detail, and the subsequent progression of these comments. Much of this has never been resolved. Old citations that fail verifications just got chopped out and replaced by new ones that either definitely fail them or are inaccessible online. I've wasted hours on this by now. It's actually pretty obvious that ref 5 doesn't support the claim it's cited for. I just wanted to understand exactly what process is being followed here.
I'm sorry, but this has become ridiculous. I'm tagging the article for a citation check and expert attention. I've listed Wikiproject Mammals for the latter, but obviously Rodents, as a sub-project of Mammals, is one possibility. IMHO the article can hardly be considered suitable for GA when sources are being cited that obviously haven't even been read. --Stfg (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some details (such as hairy paws) can be verified even by looking at a picture! PuffinLet's talk! 21:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Fine, I just removed the statement if it's causing this much uproar. I do believe the references are fine, you can find these books in the library! That's how I got this information, I have checked the books again from the library, the sources are accurate, why do you not believe me just because they are not online? The older books may not be online but that doesn't mean that you question that they actually say the things. Most of the references are taken from the Ross papers which are obviously accurate as a field study was carried out and the journal was published and checked fro verification. I really don't see a need for a citation check as most of them have been checked a long time ago. The statement and reference have been removed because I do not want you to waste any more of your time researching because you do not believe it and so the rest of the references in the peer review that you mentioned were pet manuals which I replaced with better material and also you said there were some formatting issues which I resolved and there were some things not supported by Kryzlow and Schubin which I removed because the statements mentioned were true because they were mentioned inside the other sources. You say that I keep changing the references to offline sources which is fine because even though it's not online you can still find the sources in your library (which I did) and multiple sources support the same statement and so I read guidelines for good articles which said not to get carried away by putting multiple references for the same piece of information which I did but I decided to replace the sources because some of them (for example Kryzlow and Schubin) were not cited in the article and instead of using a German source, I used an English source which would be easy to understand because it is in this language. I do not think that the tag should be placed there because the references I replaced would have been much clearer than the ones that were there before (for example if they were in a different language) The part about the chromosomes was not made up, it is available in an offline version of that journal but the ISSN must have got mixed up as I was looking for different ISSN numbers for different sections of the journal. Also, I think that mentioning splits of chromosomes is going into too much detail according to the summary style and so it was best to remove it. As you can imagine, I also spent a lot of time extending this article and being questioned about the references is very annoying because I know that they are true and I want this article to get to GA status so I can begin working to bring Phodopus to a good topic along with Djungarian hamster, Roborovski hamster and Campbell's dwarf hamster. This is why I think that a citation check is not necessary. PuffinLet's talk! 20:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Puffin and I are in WP:RODENT, in the meantime can we change this to a B class article? It's certainly that by now, and its status as a GA is unrelated to its quality scale rating. How does this work; is it simply a matter of one of us in WP:RODENT changing the template at the top of this page? ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to C class because it was a stub when I first edited it. PuffinLet's talk! 09:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how does the policy work? Can someone else — i.e., me — bump it up to B? It's come a long way in the last week! ~ Lhynard (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "Further studies of the IRBP gene show that Phodopus may also be sister group of Calomyscus, which is a family of around 8 species that are also distributed mainly in Eurasia.[1]" because:
The IRBP study was not found in your R3 Mammal Species of the World"; it was reported by Jansa & Weksler (2004), whose reference you have deleted.
Even if R3 does in fact discuss IRBP studies, Jansa & Weksler (2004) is more recent and would correct the so-called fact.
Jansa & Weksler's IRBP study, which I have in front of me at this moment, makes no connection between Calomyscus and Phodopus.
In fact, Jansa & Wekler's thorough phylogeny charts show that Calomyscus and Phodopus aren't even in the same clade, let alone being sister groups.
The only sister groups to Phodopus listed in Jansa & Wekler are Cricetulus (obviously) and Mesocricotus
Ok, that was a mistake, but one reference being incorrect is no reason to request a thorough citation check. PuffinLet's talk! 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a case of "one reference being incorrect". In this article, you have accumulated a track record of citing sources for statements when your sources don't actually support those statements. Let me know if you want me to list some examples here, and I'll find time to do so on Friday. You also might, though, like to bear in mind that if all the remaining citations are fine, as you claim, then you have no need to resist a citation check, since it will vindicate you. But if they aren't, then we need the check done, don't we? --Stfg (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't mind, I just don't like waiting. Also, I do not want to waste any more of your time and so I do not want you to list anything, but whenever those sources have been cited, I have corrected them, are you mainly requesting the check because you spent so much time trying to get to the bottom of what's happening? Also there is a HUGE backlog, it could take 2 years to be reviewed!!! PuffinLet's talk! 17:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC) PuffinLet's talk! 17:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly, I think that you are taking the citation check tag too personally. (I request citations constanly whenever I brose Wikipedia, and oftentimes I see the issue fixed shortly on the watchlist. That's a good thing.) Both Stfg and I have run into similar problems now with facts and citations with you. I believe that you want to cite things properly, but there have been a lot of mistakes, and when we have questioned you about them, you get defensive or just delete what may be very useful facts.
A citation check is going to essentially be the same as a WP:RFC anyhow, as it will require a third party to comment. It's not like it's the end of the world if a GAN is placed on hold. You still can be proud that you have improved the article as much as you have.
@Lhynard: Very well put. @Puffin: I don't mind spending time - why do you think I took on the copy edit and helped you in other ways? But I do mind wasting time. When you say that books and journal articles say things they actually don't say, or when a request for a page number gets no reply from you but instead a change of reference, then you send people on wild goose chases, and in doing so you waste their time. In many cases, you have not corrected the suspect citations, merely replaced them with new ones. I'm not requesting the check in order to discover what's happening - I already know what's happening, though I'm curious as to the exact procedure you're following that makes it happen. I asked for it because this article has such a bad track record of false citations that we need a way to get it to the point where we can be sure it no longer has any.
I know how big the cleanup backlog is, but I also know for a fact that there are still false citations in the article. I have been wondering what process we can follow to get the article to the point where it faithfully represents what it sources say and where we can all be confident of this. But I can't think of one. Unless someone can, the citation check it will have to be. --Stfg (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only other alternative will be seeking someone out who is willing to do the necessary checking, preferably someone who knows what they are talking about. In that regard, the request for attention from an expert seems appropriate. I'm afraid I cannot offer my services in that regard at this time, and, regardless, I'm no rodent expert. Clearly, if information is cited to sources that do not contain that information, that is a problem, and that has to be dealt with before the article can be ready to progress to the next level (be that GAR or simply the removal of the cleanup templates). J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have obtained a number of recent references on Phodopus and have begun integrating the information in these into the article. I see the problems mentioned here about references not supporting the material they are appended to. Some of the facts in this article seem particularly suspect to me, and some of the references are difficult to check, as they appear to be in German. I will attempt to check these. I also think there is too much emphasis on discussion of individual species when the article is about the genus. Particular facts about the species might be put in the article about each species, keeping this article for a general treatment of the genus.Michaplot (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is good news indeed. Thank you for taking it on. I can see improvment already in what you've done so far. Here are some of the citation worries I had before:
FN8 (Walker's): it would be a 3-hour round trip for me to see the nearest copy in a library, so I haven't done it, but volume 2 is online and includes a contents list for volume 1. The page range is suspect.
FN10 (Allen): following links from the citation eventually leads to this copy of p.621. It supports neither statement cited to it.
FN26 (Schaub): The nearest library copy to me would be a day's round trip away, so I haven't checked it, but I suspect it because it's citing a statement about discoveries of P. robovskii. According to Ross (FN2), robo was so named in 1933. But Schaub published in 1930!
I hope this helps, and thanks again for your work on this. --Stfg (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement! I will look into those refs when I get a chance. In the meantime, I have put up some new material, but I have been lazy about sourcing it all thoroughly. I will eventually put in the sources, unless someone else beats me to it. The cladogram I made myself, but it is taken from the Neumann et al. paper, which should be cited. I still have to go through some of the papers in more detail. Onward and upward!Michaplot (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, should I put in the sources? 90.196.139.48 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had major problems with citations for a couple of months. Michaplot is a professional in this field and gives us the prospect of this being resolved. I think we should stand aside and let him do it, unless you are a professional in the field too. --Stfg (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have done some work on the article. I have removed large portions that either lacked or had dubious sources. I have also removed portions that seemed inappropriate (e.g. the details about the teeth and skeleton) for a WP article. People can go to the sources if they want such arcane knowledge. If anyone disagrees we can talk about reinstating these bits. Some questions to consider:
what should we do about common names in light of the confusion in the literature? I am inclined to follow Ross and Wynne-Edwards, but this will require changing the species pages as well as this article.
What do people think of the key to species I added? Is is unnecessary? If it is good to include in the article, do you think it should have the couplets numbered or left with bullet hyphens, or something else?
Are there enough citations to remove the warning tags yet? I will be adding more, but I think we have fairly solid sources.
What sections do we want to include. I am thinking that some of the info in this article would be more appropriate on the pages devoted to individual species. I think we need a distribution or biogeography section, but I am not sure how to create appropriate maps. I changed some of the section titles and this can be discussed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaplot (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this wonderful work, Michaplot. My view on your numbered questions:
If we get into changing the names of the species articles, we'll have to carefully change their texts to match. I certainly don't object to this, and Ross and Wynne-Edwards are fine, but we need to be sure that we want to do the work. The most important thing is to explain the variey of naming, which you do very well.
I like it. If you don't mind, I'd like to do a copy edit of the article to clear up matters like italics, wikification, Manual of Style compliance, etc, and I can put it into an accepted bullet format at that stage if you like. The idea of using indented bullets is fine, anyway.
Almost, but I think you have left the sub-sections of the species section -- Phodopus#Campbell's dwarf hamster and the next two -- largely untouched, and I'm still uncomfortable with some of the citations there. (Do we need these sub-sections at all, given that we have we now have the key and it links to the main articles?) Also, the first sentence of Phodopus#Habitats and conservation status is cited to McKenna (FN24) and the listed page numbers are strange. Are you in a position to check this one? (I don't have access to it). Lastly, I think we need a citation for the Diet section. Then I'd be happy.
I agree about the species, and will try to discover where maps can be got.
Best, --Stfg (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see some work being done on this article; good luck! A few points:
I had P. sungorus moved to "Dzungarian hamster" some time ago, but I'm not sure now whether that was a good idea, given that the name is also used for P. campbelli. Given the confusion, it may even be best to use the scientific names.
McKenna and Bell (1997) does not say anything of what it is cited to it in ref. 21; the book merely gives the range of Phodopus as "Pleist.; Eu. M. and/or L. Pleist., R.; As." (Pleistocene of Europe, and Middle and/or Late Pleistocene to Recent of Asia). You'll have to find a different source for the precise range of living Phodopus.
You'll generally have to draw maps yourself, but people at WP:GL/M may be able to help. The data for the IUCN Red List range maps have been released, so those could be used.
Contrary to what the article says, there is no doubt that Cansumys canus belongs in Cricetinae. There has been some disagreement over whether it should go in its own genus, but as far as I know that is over now.
You're missing the name of an (extremely obscure) species of Phodopus: the Late Pliocene fossils from Kazakhstan were named as Phodopus minutus.
I've done a copy edit today. Regarding Ucucha's points above: for the moment I've marked the citation of McKenna & Bell as a failed verification, since there may be other sources giving the range. (I suppose I could instead have removed the ref and put citation-needed.) I have removed the expression of doubt about Cansumys canus. (The source (MSW3) supports the 7-genus view.) I haven't attempted to bring in P. minutus as that requires expertise greater than mine. However, a google search reveals the species authority to be "Tjutkova 1992". Is that our FN11?
Ucucha on his talk page mentioned that "further searching turned up another Late Pliocene record, from China; see Li Q., Zheng S.-H. and Cai B.-Q. 2008. Pliocene biostratigraphic sequence in the Nihewan Basin, Hebei, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 46(3):210–232.)." I haven't tried to incorporate this. --Stfg (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's from the Tyutkova (or Tjutkova—different transliteraions) piece already cited. I don't know whether any of you has access to that in a library; I do, if necessary. Ucucha (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. It would be great if you do edit the article! There are lots of things to clean up throughout. Bulleting the key would be great too, or even replacing the hyphens with some other symbols. What if at each level of indent we had a different bullet symbol?
I will continue to add refs as I work on this. I like your idea of removing the individual species treatments since we can link that section. We could also keep the entry, but rather than the info that is there now, we could put something more relevant and brief. I think I will go ahead and remove the dubious or irrelevant stuff, but leave the major headings for now.
As for the maps, if we can get a map of the general area, it might be possible to use a graphics program to draw the ranges.
I think the article is really coming together. Thanks!Michaplot (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Thanks for all your work on it. I'm not sure about the different bullet symbols; I think that may not conform to the MoS. But the nesting can be as you have done it, anyway. OK about keeping individual species sections and making them briefer. I've asked User:Ucucha for advice about maps, and for any comments he may like to make here otherwise. --Stfg (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for all of your work! The article is really improving! PuffinLet's talk! 09:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So exactly what species are my hamsters? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science can help you. By the way, trying to run the video leads to an attempt to run an add-on called "apple", from Apple, Inc. --Stfg (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion. I must contest the removal of the video. As a taxobox image conveys a great deal of information, so does a video, but more so. It conveys vastly more anatomical information, plus shows their manner. I did not add the video to amuse visitors. Please consider restoring it. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Anna. A video of pets in captivity does not show natural behaviour. Neither is such a video a reliable source of anatomical information -- for this one needs scholarly sources. A video can only show superficial features in any case, not anatomy. I would contest the idea that a taxobox image conveys much information either, beyond a general impression of what the animal looks like. I have, very reluctantly, clicked on the run button and allowed the Apple add-on to run, but it doesn't play the video, it just asks for yet another component, one I've never heard of. That is further than I'm prepared to go. From the still image it appears to be too low-res to carry much information anyway. If we don't know what species it is, how do we even know that it's a Phodopus? There are other dwarf hamster species. I am unwilling to restore a file that behaves like this. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. By anatomy, I meant the structure of its body. A film of a pig, whether in a pen or in the forest, it still shows its manner, and conveys a great deal of information. I did not replace a high-resolution image with this video, I added something new to the article.
The vast majority of users operate with Windows, not Mac, and so can either view, or download the video with no issues. Perhaps you are biased due to your problem with viewing the video. Also, you are unable to judge the content, as you have not seen it.
As we are both likely biased in our views, perhaps the community can judge. I can accept whatever they decide. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am using Windows, not Mac. As I had that difficulty, so presumably may others. I am not biased by it, and I do not think that you are entitled to accuse me of bias. I am, of course, happy to accede to the community's ruling on the video. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me. I didn't mean my statement "...As we are both likely biased..." as an accusation. I am puzzled by the add-on issue you experience. I thought everything went okay with the conversion from mpg and upoading.
Thank you. There was also the previous paragraph: "Perhaps you are biased ...". In addition to the personal nature of that comment, it focuses attention on one of my points. There are also those about in-captivity behaviour, poor anatomical information and unidentified species. --Stfg (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me again. You're absolutely right. Formally: I didn't mean my statement "...Perhaps you are biased..." as an accusation. :) I'm also very sorry for any other rudeness on my part. I am not myself today. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I'm not myself most days, so it's OK :) By the way, if you have a higher-res version, why not upload it somewhere and link to it from the External links? Or link to one the existing ones of identified species from here? Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the resolution isn't as bad as it looks from the displayed image. Try to download it and then view it with the wonderful VLC. I can't view Youtube videos because I'm in China which is blocked, as are most video hosting sites. I thought it would be most useful at commons. Perhaps an external link to the commons video would be appropriate for now. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(←) My suggestion of linking from External links was only to make it possible to make use of a video from outside Wikimedia, not to kick videos in general into the long grass. If we're going to use a video from Commons, it can just as well be inline with the article as in External links. But I'm not happy with this video being here. I wonder if you've seen the history of this article and previous threads on this talk page? It has been a long and very hard slog to get the article to something like a sound scientific one, avoiding pet manuals as sources and dealing with citations that don't verify. I do feel that a video of an unidentified species, in captivity, eating baked beans that have been cooked and frozen is, if I may so put it, rather whimsical, and a retrograde step. I'm also wondering if there's a colour cast -- to me, even on the full-size picture frame on the commons, they look very blue. --Stfg (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As was said in the Great Pasta Debate of 1855, "Allow me to retortellini":
When explorers returned to England with the first drawings of the elephant, people were informed. When explorers returned with the first moving pictures, people were astonished!
A scientist in Indonesia would glean infinitely more information from film of a wolverine than a photo. This is true regardless of what they were eating or what bed of sand then were standing on.
As for natural habitat, almost all documentaries film animals in some form of captivity. Very, very few, bring cameras into the wild. Film of a seal swimming in any setting will still make a kid in Ghana say "Oh. So that's how they swim. I'd only seen a photo before."Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think, perhaps, maybe, it is possible that, and this is not an "accusation", your edits might show a teeny bit of Western-centricity. We know hamsters. Kids in Uganda do not. If an article on an Indonesian spider has video of it in action, I would find that an asset to the article. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said, I'm not arguing against the inclusion of videos, only this video. That answers your first two bullets and the second half of your fourth bullet. The third bullet is false in general -- apart from professional documentaries, there's lots of amateur in-the-wild footage out there these days. But admittedly there's probably not much footage of hamsters in the wild, so I'll concede the third bullet. I will reply to the "teeny bit" of a personal attack on your talk page, since it doesn't affect the decision.
Thank you for placing the video on Commons, but I don't understand why you are so keen to include it in a scientific article about a genus when the animals in the video are not established to be of that genus. Even if they are dwarf hamsters (q.v., please) they may or may not be Phodopus species. If you are very keen to put the video in an article, why not in Hamster, where the species question is less an issue? It doesn't have any videos yet.
This is my last post on this thread. The community can decide. --Stfg (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I shall place it at Hamster and see if it remains there. Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The video of dwarf hamsters in action.
Hello community. Please comment of whether or not the video is suitable for inclusion in the article. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've been here before, Anna. This is an article about a genus, not pets' corner. Suggest you see whether it's wanted at Hamster, as last time. --Stfg (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And please sign. --Stfg (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. I didn't notice. I was editing fast. I will see over at Hamster. And pet's corner? Really, it's like a mini-documentary. It shows how hamsters run. You're mistaking cute for trivial. I think footage of how a lizard runs would be taken more seriously. As for signing, I remember 99.99% of the time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, I wouldn't know about mini-documentary, because I can't view it. For the reason, please see the video at Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Video usage and its caption. What you've done is to upload a hi-res video (4x the recommended area) and told it to display as a thumb. That doesn't compress, so it still tries to come in at 7.12Mbps. Took several hours and some unnecessary software downloads/installs to discover this. Could you clarify the lizard comment please? I don't understand what you mean. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry that you wasted your time. I am really lost when it comes to the video thing. I just drag-n-dropped the video into Miro Video Converter 2.5 and selected Theora format and let it do its thing. It doesn't seem to have options. I can't make heads or tails for the help page you gave me. Should I remove the "thumb" thing from the image? Sorry for the trouble.
Lizard: I meant that adding a video to Lizard showing how it runs wouldn't be referred to as a "Pets' corner" addition. It would be considered valuable footage showing how the animal moves. Because hamster footage is cute, it doesn't mean it's dumb. Hamsters are dumb. Mind-numbingly dumb. There's no question about that. But footage of them running is valuable. People think they are docile and slow. But they can really rip. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Thanks. On the first, I don't upload videos so I'm no expert. Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Limitations and Implementation Issues says, "Very high bitrates near or over 1,000 kilobits/sec may outstrip the ability of Wikipedia or the Commons to deliver the streaming data fast enough." (their italics) Your video uses 7,120 Kbps. However, some of the videos at Commons:Media of the day, which I imagine are supposed to be good, don't comply with that advice either. Some I can view, some I can't, and my connection is faster than your bitrate, so I assume it's Wikipedia that's limiting things. If so, I'd suggest hitting the technical help desk. I don't know enough to say more.
As to cuteness and lizards and things. I assure you I'm not confused about cuteness versus triviality or anything like that. My point is that videos need to support the article's content and purpose, just as pics and quotations and references and external links do. So ... your hamsters-on-a-wheel video is also used in Hamster wheel and (bitrate issues aside) that's great; I don't criticize its presence there, because it's spot on topic. But here, I think it isn't. And it would be the same with lizards. I would find a video of a lizard running up a cardboard tube (making do for a log, say) under a sun lamp in someone's living room to be a very disappointing contribution to an article about a lizard genus, but a useful one in an article about keeping lizards as pets. That's all. --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Puffin Let's talk! 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolved