This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I'll write a little more (rather than fixing things) since you need to get the learning. I'm not totally nitpicking the prose at this stage. Can do a fine pass, later. Am going to put this in section by section. In general, my comments are in text order, which will help you find stuff.
Also, I'm not saying you have to do every action here (especially wrt content or drawings) to "get the plus sign". Just giving some feedback, FWIW!
A. Make sure when this whole process is done, you come back and look at the lead again, especially if content is changing. Also, Lead is most viewed prose, so you really want to make it sharp prose-wise. But sometimes easier towards the end. (Image captions are next most read prose.)
B. Try to avoid lists of information in prose in general but especially for a lead. Make it punchier. So instead of listing every terrain (here), just say slopes or middle elevations of the Olympic mountains. Same with predators...just specify the coyote as most important (helpful for reader to say most imporant, gives him more than just a list does). Then lower down, say leaves and specify the most significant one (find it in a source).
C. In the current structure, I advise para breaks at Colonies... and then at The Olympic marmot is considered a folivore... (you get four paras and I think it will read better with more breaks, shorter is generally easier and also means you can have more unified paras).
D. However, I would re-org the structure to push behavior down a little further (less captivating than who eats it). I think something along the lines of paras:
1. Taxo and then range
2. Description
3. Ecology (what it eats and who eats it), then behavior
4. Interaction with humans (the state mammal fact can come down here).
-- Done! Imthebombliketicktick ( talk) 18:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
E. "For this reason" -> cut
F. "hibernate from September through May to June." -> "hibernate in September" (next clause explains emergence times).
G. "emerge from hibernation" -> "emerge"
H. "is considered a species of" -> "is rated" (tighten up)
I. "They are" -> "It is" (It is OK to shift some from plural to singular when talking about a species, but try to avoid unneeded shifts within a para. Easier on the reader.)
-- Done :) Imthebombliketicktick ( talk) 18:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
A. Make and add a simple diagram to show the taxonomic heirarchy in the paragraph. Will be more high value than the picture of the taxonomist (and he can slide down to the last section which is about humans). I am imagining some sort of branching tree, showing more information as you go down, to the right: Sciuridae (squirrels) at top, then genus branch, then two subgenuses, then the members of this subgenus (especially the ones mentioned in article). I can dummy something up if you want and flip it to graphics or you can play with it yourself. (your choice).
B. The "deviates from" discussion is slightly confusing. I started reading it, thinjking it was about our guy's own subgenus, but it is really about differentiating him from the subgenus he is not part of. I think it's good content, but can be written clearer. "Like the other members of X subgenus (New World marmots), the Olympic marmot is differentiated from Y subgenus (Old World marmots) because of blablabla"
C. Is any more known about the revision in taxonomy? Is it agreed on? What evidence is there to differentiate from the typical Rocky Mountain or Cascade marmots or from Vancouver Island marmots?
D. It works as is, but a para break might be nice especially if it gets any longer.
E. Add the term "ice ages" where you talk about Pleistene and refugia (will help the reader).
F. Give parenthetical explanations (jawbone) and (back). Leave chromosomes as is since there is no convenient parenthetical.
G. (General, not just this section) Take a look at the article (and especially the references) for the Vancouver Island marmot (and perhaps the Hoary and the general marmot articles). See if that gives you any ideas. Check out the ref names and see if there are some that might have useful here. In particular, I recommend pulling ref 12, the Ph.D. dissertation. Often the first chapter of a dissertation will be a very useful literature review...and it may have the big picture for marmots, not just about the Vancouver Island brand. It may also have some better discussion of why VI and O marmots are different species. If your library does not have UMI pdfs for dissertations, then the reference help desk at wiki (link on my user page) will get it for you.
Ending an article with a quote is a very nice flourish. It brings some meaning back and makes the reader feel like things concluded. It's good "human interest" and a slick trick (can use it with school papers and the like too). See the last section in Manhattan Project for a great example.
I am thinking you want something like this (don't know exact content, but):
Sentence 1 (The Olympic marmot was declared Washington's state endemic mammal on X day when Governor Y signed bill Z). Sentence 2 (The resolution followed a 2 year project by the elementary school class of Mr. umtifratz at blabla Elementary School with schoolchildren researching the animal and defending it before the Legislature). Sentence 3 and blockquote (Washington State declares its appreciation for the Olympic marmot: "The Olympic marmot is an appropriate symbol for Washington because it is found only in our state...its name references the friendship and culture of the ancient Greeks which give the Olympic peninsula its name...like all things truly Washingtonian, it should be cherished and preserved."
See State reptile or last section of Painted turtle or Common box turtle for some of this game. I would probably use the markup (blockquote) of the Manhattan Project quote though, not the boxed quote.
(fine)
First para here is too long (14 sentences). Also the topic sentence covers physical and calls, but later in section we learn about smell as well. Suggest to reorg this more like so:
Para 1 Physical (modify the topic sentence that formerly covered both physical and calls, probably by just deleting it.)
Para 2 Calls
Para 3 Scent
Would have liked to discuss Calls first, but it seems we need to know about playfights, first, so keep in that order.
--Done! Imthebombliketicktick ( talk) 20:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Generally pretty good selections. I recommend getting rid of the eNature and Wildlife North America refs and citing same content from more scholarly sources. Maybe the New Hampshire TV station one as well (that's a little better though). The Blumstein calling fact sheet looks OK. He is a professor who studies marmots. He's another person for a potential pre-FAC review (no holdup for GA though).
Couple comments elsewhere relate to possible new refs for the article. I did not check formatting nits (FA is very observant of those, so before heading there we would need to look at that with a microscope).
Fine. (no action)
Fine. (no action)
If not wikilinked in article, then make a section "See also" (it goes higher than the Refs I think) that contains these two wikilinks:
List_of_Washington_state_symbols
(But if you do have those links provided in article, no need for this section.)
Add Category:Olympic National Park and Category:Symbols of Washington (state)
Add a citation for the synonym.
Article is well laid out, with attractive visuals. You have a little bit of space in Behavior where more could go in (but not a need). Didn't check permissions given Guerillo did.
This is way over the top, but if someone here on Wiki is making a trip to look at the marmots and could tape record some of their calls and upload a sound file, that would be interesting to have in the Communication section. Or possibly a donation from one of the academics (Griffen I guess). Not at all trying say you need to go to these lengths! Just recording the idea in case anyone (even me) decides to follow up.
Looks good. Probably when it is ready for FAC, have User Suncreator add archiving. For now, you probably want this stuff available to look at. But if it gets to be a distraction, consider archiving.
(review done)
TCO ( Reviews needed) 20:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The last work cited, Witczuk 2007, is not used in the refs. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Olympic marmot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
FunkMonk could you doublecheck these edits I made? [3] I thought the prose was rough, but perhaps I got it wrong. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I just moved @ Mackenziemogren's addition of information about the marmot's migration across the Bering straight from its own section to Taxonomy, where there's some further discussion of its evolutionary history. I am concerned that there's a contradition here between that and "The Olympic marmot is thought to have originated during the last glacial period as an isolated relict population of the hoary marmot in the Pleistocene ice-free refugia", but do not understand the content here well enough to try correct it myself. Rusalkii ( talk) 19:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I'll write a little more (rather than fixing things) since you need to get the learning. I'm not totally nitpicking the prose at this stage. Can do a fine pass, later. Am going to put this in section by section. In general, my comments are in text order, which will help you find stuff.
Also, I'm not saying you have to do every action here (especially wrt content or drawings) to "get the plus sign". Just giving some feedback, FWIW!
A. Make sure when this whole process is done, you come back and look at the lead again, especially if content is changing. Also, Lead is most viewed prose, so you really want to make it sharp prose-wise. But sometimes easier towards the end. (Image captions are next most read prose.)
B. Try to avoid lists of information in prose in general but especially for a lead. Make it punchier. So instead of listing every terrain (here), just say slopes or middle elevations of the Olympic mountains. Same with predators...just specify the coyote as most important (helpful for reader to say most imporant, gives him more than just a list does). Then lower down, say leaves and specify the most significant one (find it in a source).
C. In the current structure, I advise para breaks at Colonies... and then at The Olympic marmot is considered a folivore... (you get four paras and I think it will read better with more breaks, shorter is generally easier and also means you can have more unified paras).
D. However, I would re-org the structure to push behavior down a little further (less captivating than who eats it). I think something along the lines of paras:
1. Taxo and then range
2. Description
3. Ecology (what it eats and who eats it), then behavior
4. Interaction with humans (the state mammal fact can come down here).
-- Done! Imthebombliketicktick ( talk) 18:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
E. "For this reason" -> cut
F. "hibernate from September through May to June." -> "hibernate in September" (next clause explains emergence times).
G. "emerge from hibernation" -> "emerge"
H. "is considered a species of" -> "is rated" (tighten up)
I. "They are" -> "It is" (It is OK to shift some from plural to singular when talking about a species, but try to avoid unneeded shifts within a para. Easier on the reader.)
-- Done :) Imthebombliketicktick ( talk) 18:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
A. Make and add a simple diagram to show the taxonomic heirarchy in the paragraph. Will be more high value than the picture of the taxonomist (and he can slide down to the last section which is about humans). I am imagining some sort of branching tree, showing more information as you go down, to the right: Sciuridae (squirrels) at top, then genus branch, then two subgenuses, then the members of this subgenus (especially the ones mentioned in article). I can dummy something up if you want and flip it to graphics or you can play with it yourself. (your choice).
B. The "deviates from" discussion is slightly confusing. I started reading it, thinjking it was about our guy's own subgenus, but it is really about differentiating him from the subgenus he is not part of. I think it's good content, but can be written clearer. "Like the other members of X subgenus (New World marmots), the Olympic marmot is differentiated from Y subgenus (Old World marmots) because of blablabla"
C. Is any more known about the revision in taxonomy? Is it agreed on? What evidence is there to differentiate from the typical Rocky Mountain or Cascade marmots or from Vancouver Island marmots?
D. It works as is, but a para break might be nice especially if it gets any longer.
E. Add the term "ice ages" where you talk about Pleistene and refugia (will help the reader).
F. Give parenthetical explanations (jawbone) and (back). Leave chromosomes as is since there is no convenient parenthetical.
G. (General, not just this section) Take a look at the article (and especially the references) for the Vancouver Island marmot (and perhaps the Hoary and the general marmot articles). See if that gives you any ideas. Check out the ref names and see if there are some that might have useful here. In particular, I recommend pulling ref 12, the Ph.D. dissertation. Often the first chapter of a dissertation will be a very useful literature review...and it may have the big picture for marmots, not just about the Vancouver Island brand. It may also have some better discussion of why VI and O marmots are different species. If your library does not have UMI pdfs for dissertations, then the reference help desk at wiki (link on my user page) will get it for you.
Ending an article with a quote is a very nice flourish. It brings some meaning back and makes the reader feel like things concluded. It's good "human interest" and a slick trick (can use it with school papers and the like too). See the last section in Manhattan Project for a great example.
I am thinking you want something like this (don't know exact content, but):
Sentence 1 (The Olympic marmot was declared Washington's state endemic mammal on X day when Governor Y signed bill Z). Sentence 2 (The resolution followed a 2 year project by the elementary school class of Mr. umtifratz at blabla Elementary School with schoolchildren researching the animal and defending it before the Legislature). Sentence 3 and blockquote (Washington State declares its appreciation for the Olympic marmot: "The Olympic marmot is an appropriate symbol for Washington because it is found only in our state...its name references the friendship and culture of the ancient Greeks which give the Olympic peninsula its name...like all things truly Washingtonian, it should be cherished and preserved."
See State reptile or last section of Painted turtle or Common box turtle for some of this game. I would probably use the markup (blockquote) of the Manhattan Project quote though, not the boxed quote.
(fine)
First para here is too long (14 sentences). Also the topic sentence covers physical and calls, but later in section we learn about smell as well. Suggest to reorg this more like so:
Para 1 Physical (modify the topic sentence that formerly covered both physical and calls, probably by just deleting it.)
Para 2 Calls
Para 3 Scent
Would have liked to discuss Calls first, but it seems we need to know about playfights, first, so keep in that order.
--Done! Imthebombliketicktick ( talk) 20:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Generally pretty good selections. I recommend getting rid of the eNature and Wildlife North America refs and citing same content from more scholarly sources. Maybe the New Hampshire TV station one as well (that's a little better though). The Blumstein calling fact sheet looks OK. He is a professor who studies marmots. He's another person for a potential pre-FAC review (no holdup for GA though).
Couple comments elsewhere relate to possible new refs for the article. I did not check formatting nits (FA is very observant of those, so before heading there we would need to look at that with a microscope).
Fine. (no action)
Fine. (no action)
If not wikilinked in article, then make a section "See also" (it goes higher than the Refs I think) that contains these two wikilinks:
List_of_Washington_state_symbols
(But if you do have those links provided in article, no need for this section.)
Add Category:Olympic National Park and Category:Symbols of Washington (state)
Add a citation for the synonym.
Article is well laid out, with attractive visuals. You have a little bit of space in Behavior where more could go in (but not a need). Didn't check permissions given Guerillo did.
This is way over the top, but if someone here on Wiki is making a trip to look at the marmots and could tape record some of their calls and upload a sound file, that would be interesting to have in the Communication section. Or possibly a donation from one of the academics (Griffen I guess). Not at all trying say you need to go to these lengths! Just recording the idea in case anyone (even me) decides to follow up.
Looks good. Probably when it is ready for FAC, have User Suncreator add archiving. For now, you probably want this stuff available to look at. But if it gets to be a distraction, consider archiving.
(review done)
TCO ( Reviews needed) 20:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The last work cited, Witczuk 2007, is not used in the refs. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Olympic marmot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
FunkMonk could you doublecheck these edits I made? [3] I thought the prose was rough, but perhaps I got it wrong. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I just moved @ Mackenziemogren's addition of information about the marmot's migration across the Bering straight from its own section to Taxonomy, where there's some further discussion of its evolutionary history. I am concerned that there's a contradition here between that and "The Olympic marmot is thought to have originated during the last glacial period as an isolated relict population of the hoary marmot in the Pleistocene ice-free refugia", but do not understand the content here well enough to try correct it myself. Rusalkii ( talk) 19:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)