Wikipedia:Peer review/Phodopus/archive1

Phodopus[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for GA status and I want to know how to improve it before I do this.

Thanks, Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

Lead could be longer to better summarize the article
I think I have expanded it enough, if you disagree, please tell me. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"They inhabit the forests, steppes and semi-deserts of Mongolia and Siberia and also in adjacent areas" - grammar
I don't really understand what's wrong with that, but I've changed it and hopefully the issue is resolved. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"They also inhabit the adjacent areas of Mongolia such as China and Kazakhstan" - since China and Kazakhstan aren't areas of Mongolia, suggest "They also inhabit areas adjacent to Mongolia such as China and Kazakhstan>"
"They have a short tail, which is approximately 4 millimetres (0.16 in) in length" - suggest replacing ", which is" with "of"
Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what source were those hamster drawings based?
I believe they are someones own work. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 09:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but presumably he/she didn't invent them? Are they based on a source description of the differences between the hamsters? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Campbell's dwarf hamster (Phodopus campbelli), the Roborovski hamster (Phodopus roborovskii) and the Djungarian hamster (Phodopus sungorus)." - this is not a complete sentence. Suggest replacing preceding period with colon
Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the length of the tail ranges from 4 millimetres (0.16 in) to 14 millimetres (0.55 in)" - but in the previous section you said they all had a 4-millimetre tail
Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest submitting this article for copy-editing by the WP:GOCE, as there are a number of grammatical problems
Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 08:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The neck is relatively weak and short and the ears are thin and hairy" - you say this twice in the single Biology paragraph
Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest wikilinking potentially unfamiliar terms like "ilium" and "tubercle"
Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More could be done - for example "ulna" or "tibia". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the wild, what predators or ecological threats (if any) do they face? Do humans try to trap them?
Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 08:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any data on sales, numbers in captivity versus wild, etc?

Sadly not, only on chromosomes which I think is going into too much detail, but I have extended the article with new sections. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 08:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiversity: your captions establish the Campbell's and Djungarian almost entirely in terms of how they are different from each other, and give little information on the Roborovski (which should be capitalized)
Done ? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 08:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Book citations: all titles should be italicized, should include page number(s) and publishers (and authors where available)
All of the book citations have the maximum amount of information I can get at this time from my local library. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 08:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN 6 needs to be translated, and you seem to be missing the full bibliography info for Ross 1998. Same for FN 10
FN 15: this is a book source and should be formatted as such
FN 19 needs to be formatted and completed
These books are in German, I speak a little German but I am un able to complete any more of the source, I think the Ross implies that it is quoted in a Walkers Mammals of the world/Miller book. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 09:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't include books under External links because they're not links. If you want to include it, make a Further reading section.
Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This link doesn't go where you want it to.
Done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 08:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Stfg

~~I'm doing the copy edit requested of GOCE, and also addressing several errors in the article. Please could you pause for a day or so while I do this? TIA.~~ --Stfg (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished copy editing now, at least for the moment. Thanks for giving me the space. Some comments on the article follow.
General: the article rather falls between two stools as to whether it's trying to be about dwarf hamsters as pets or a scientific one about a genus in the Linnaean hierarchy. The Chinese hamster is a dwarf hamster, and is talked about in dwarf hamster pet owners' manuals, but it isn't a Phodopus, so it had to go. Before doing much more, you need to decide whether you want to take the article in one direction or the other.
References: are in a very poor state. I have become convinced - you will shortly see why - that you must have copied several from the equivalent section in the German Wikipedia and not checked them. This led to failed verifications, and I believe there will be more.
As and when you revise the references, remember the following details from the Manual of Style: book titles are given in italics and not in quotes; article titles are given in quotes and not in italics; page ranges are given using ndash, not hyphen.
In general, scientific articles and books tend to be about species rather than genera. It's only OK to use German ones for things you can't source from English-language ones. Some really superb scientific articles about Phodopus species species follow. I don't see how one can justify sourcing statements about anatomy and physiology from pet manuals when there are these:
1. Ross, Patricia D. (2 June 1994). "Phodopus roborovskii" (PDF). Mammalian Species (459). The American Society of Mammalogists. Retrieved 28 October 2011. - (already included as ref 14).
2. Ross, Patricia D. (23 June 1995). "Phodopus campbelli" (PDF). Mammalian Species (459). The American Society of Mammalogists. Retrieved 28 October 2011.
3. Ross, Patricia D. (4 December 1998). "Phodopus sungorus" (PDF). Mammalian Species (595). The American Society of Mammalogists. Retrieved 28 October 2011.
The article on subfamily Cricetinae in MSW3 (one level up from our ref 1) has very interesting comments about uncertainty of the taxonomy. It's difficult to read, but you could use it to source a statement to the effect that the authors of MSW3 consider that the relationships among the genera in Cricetinae need reviewing. (If you want to use this, you can use the {{MSW3}} template - see ref 1 in this article.)
There is a lot of overlap, and some inconsistency, between the descriptions in the "Species" and "Biology" sections, and then there is more description of how to recognise the different species in "Biodiversity". More usual section headings in Mammal articles are "Taxonomy" for the family/genus/species stuff and "Physical description" for the ... well, physical description. It might be good to use that division.
Breeding: the "clarification needed" I put in that section refers to the words "all dwarf hamster breeds ...", which is a problem because you are citing the statement here to a book about pet breeds that covers only these three species and the Chinese hamster. Cricetulus species other than the Chinese are dwarf hamsters, but not covered in that book (and I don't think they are kept as pets, are they?). It might be best just to remove the statement about average gestation time, since what is really interesting is the gestation of each individual species, rather than the average.
Ref 2 is a book, with an author, publisher, etc. Best to use {{cite book}} with all the right fields, as the template will format it properly.
done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, you can get more details like publisher, date and place of publication, from sites like Google books, Amazon in your country, or whatever. You need to do this kind of thing if you want GA. I've done it for this reference. --Stfg (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3: the title you give is a translation into English of the title of Sandra Honigs's book (our ref 5). I can find no mention of Krylzow und Schubin. In the German WP article, "Ross 1998" is the 3rd listed above, but none of those papers refer to Krylzow und Schubin. Where did this reference come from?
Sorry, I put the translation in there and forgot about the German one, I will remove that reference and replace it. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4: is a book. Needs {{cite book}} again.
done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't. What you've done is to refer it to what is now ref 5 (was ref 9), which is still incorrectly using {{cite web}}, even though it's a book, and is merging the title, the series and the ISBN all together in the title field. --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 6: duplicates ref 3 and has the same problem.
I don't understnad. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Your citation (now ref 4) reads "Krylzow und Schubin 1964. Zitiert in: Ross 1998 (S. 1, „General Characters“)." That is German for "Krylzow und Schubin 1964. Cited in: Ross 1998 (p. 1, "General Characters")." But you haven't identified what "Ross 1998" refers to, so this is not a useful citation. However, I think you copied the citation from the German WP article Kurzschwanz-Zwerghamster (= "short-tailed dwarf hamster", their everyday term for Phodopus). This German article article does identify "Ross 1998", as the same paper I listed for you above (number 3 in the list). Now, if you open the Ross PDF and search in it for "Krylzow" and for "Schubin", you'll find that neither of them is mentioned at all. In fact, both your reference to Krylzow und Schubin 1964 and the reference in the German article are invalid. You need to find their actual paper or find some other source for what you claim they say. --Stfg (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I think I've found them. They are/were Russian and the names were transliterated wrongly. Leave it with me and I'll see what I can do later. --Stfg (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it. The authors names are given by Ross as Kryltsov and Shuber. Their paper (in Russian) is unfortunately only about the Djungarian and Eversmann’s hamsters, so you can't use it for generalised statements about all the Phodopus species. Also, Ross only cites it for details of body size and weight. I've checked, and I'm afraid it doesn't support any of the five statements you cite it for. I've left them in for now so you can spot them easily, but you do unfortunately need to find new references for those five statements and to get rid of this one. --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7: do you have this? The German WP article cites the same pages of it, but for information about the Karyotype - nothing to do with age.
Sorry, mixed that ref up from the Djungarian hamster article. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not supported by Krylzow und Schubin, unfortunately --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8: needs full citation.
removed Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not supported by Krylzow und Schubin, unfortunately --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9: duplicates ref 4. (books.google.com is not the publisher, by the way).
done Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. But see under Ref 4 above. --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 12: You haven't looked at this, have you? "Mitarbeiter" is not a name, but the German for collaborators. "Die Angaben beziehen sich auf unter natürlichen Bedingungen gehaltene Hamster" is not a title, but the German for "The data refer to hamsters kept under natural conditions". It's a comment about information cited from an article identified in the "Verwendete Literatur" section of the German article on the Djungarian hamster. That article is about seasonal body changes in the Djungarian - nothing about teeth and nothing about the other species.
I'm sorry again, I mixed this one up with the Djungarian hamster article again, I've changed the reference. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC). Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not supported by Krylzow und Schubin, unfortunately --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stfg (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 16: Grzimeks is also published in English, so we shouldn't be citing the German version.
Where? I only found the German version at my library. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia or search for "grzimek's animal life encyclopedia Mammals" in Google books. Unfortunately it's multi-volume and horribly expensive and only snippet views on Google. Perhaps someone at Wikiproject Rodents or Wikiproject Mammals might be able to give you the citation details for what you say about their diet. --Stfg (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to get hold of a copy to support that statement. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 17: I've flagged this with failed-verification, because this article is only about two of the three species. That may mean doing without it, but if you decide to use it for anything, it needs proper citation using {{cite journal}}, not a bare URL.
Gone, I've removed the gallery, there is no proper source for it. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and the new section title "Habitat" is an improvement too.
Ref 18: dead link (403) both yesterday and today. Is there an archive?
I don't know why that is written in Russian? I've removed that reference because I found the claims in the other one that I put at the end of the section. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. (For what it's worth, the paper was originally in Russian. The German WP article Langschwanz-Zwerghamster has a more complete reference.) --Stfg (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has any of the article been created by translating parts of the German Wikipedia article? If so, a {{Translated page}} template should be placed on our talk page.

--Stfg (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]