Talk:Glover's pika

Glover's pika has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 28, 2017. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Glover's pika appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 September 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Glover's pika was at different times treated as a subspecies of the Turkestan red pika and the Chinese red pika, but is now accepted as an independent species?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glover's pika.

Wikipedia

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glover's pika/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for picking it up for a review! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
"International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Endangered Species" is a hell of a mouthfull and also a bit of an eyesore of a wikilink. Can you just link to "International Union for Conservation" like this article I recently reviewed: White-crowned forktail?
Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add when it was first described to the lead.
Added! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wikilink "pelage" to the appropriate article. I note it redirects to fur. I'm not overly familiar with zoology so have not heard that term before.
Yep, the link is right. It is same as fur! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed that it was linked earlier, nevermind all good. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a stupid question, but is a "haypile", just, well, a pile of hay? Since I'm not familiar with this subject, this information raises more questions for me than is answers. Why does it construct them? Is it a nest of some kind? And how big are the piles?
Great question! Yeah, a haypile is just a pile of hay. In general, pikas store food in the form of haypiles, but for this pika, unfortunately I did not find the reason written in any source (neither the size of the haypiles). Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no coverage on the matter that's fine. It could be an idea to add a reference saying what other pikas construct haypiles for directly after mentioning they construct haypiles, but I'll leave that up to you. Freikorp (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of two-sentence paragraphs is giving me the heebie-jeebies. I'm not overly familiar with the accepted standard for formatting articles on this subject, but it seems to me like you could put the information in the third paragraph of the 'Description' section if front of the second paragraph, and merge the two paragraphs together. Do you think you can do any merging in the 'Distribution and habitat' section? Since you have a source that explicitly states there is little information about its behavior and ecology, I'm content with that section being very short. I'm happy for it to remain the way it is but considering how short it is do you know if its customary to rework the information somehow? Or is this the accepted standard when it comes to limited information on topics like this?
So true! I partitioned the paragraphs according to the information they had (the first talked about the description, the second about the subspecies, and the third about the differences with other species). However, now that you mention, it sure looks better the way you mentioned. Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Freikorp (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a brief explanation of what the 'Red List of China's Vertebrates' is since there's no corresponding wikilink?
Reworded it! Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Freikorp (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: N/A

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
What attempts have you made to locate an image of the creature? Obviously an image would be of the utmost importance but I'm quite sure if it one was easily available you would have added it already. Still, I have to ask.
Actually, I do not really know how to add images to commons. :P For instance, this is one image of the Glover's pika, so how do we determine if the uploader might not have mistaken it for another species? Also, should I download it and then upload it to commons, or is there any other way to directly get it to commons? Not sure... need your help here! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its my understanding that we generally assume good faith regarding what a photographer says their image is of. As long as there's no specific reason to doubt it is the right creature (such as an obvious difference in appearance) I think it would be fine to use. However, in this instance, that image is licensed as copyrighted. Note the copyright symbol and 'All Rights Reserved' text. Commons has an article detailing which type of image licenses from Flickr can be uploaded to their site. See here [1].

When searching on commons, after entering in what you are searching for, you can then select to display only images which have a certain license. Example:

Here's all the results for Glover's Pika: [2]

However, if we search for images that will allow commercial use, there are no results: [3] Nor are there any results for 'no copyright restrictions'.

So unfortunately, there's no free images we can use. You could try contacting the Flickr user who uploaded one of the copyrighted images and ask them if they'd be happy to 'donate' the image to Wikimedia by releasing the copyright. You could make a big spiel about the contribution they'd be making to an education resource etc etc. I wouldn't expect it to actually work, but you never know, you might find the person is generous once they've been asked directly. Hope this information helps. Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Freikorp Thank you very much! That was so very helpful. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail: A well-written article. Quite short but I'm satisfied you've expanded it as much as the available sources will allow. Looking forward to passing this once minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for this to pass now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review! I hope you have a great rest of the day. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson citations missing

We don't seem to have in this article the citations to books by Wilson. These are common in the other Pika articles we have been working on. There are lots of relevant sources listed here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen Upon closer look, most of the citations are present in the article (msw, cap, etc.). Also, new information would be useful to incorporate rather than multiple citations having the same bit of information! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't have access to those books, I can't do it. I was just suggesting new sources and lines of inquiry. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the same information, so it would be pointless to cite multiple references for the very same information. Also, careful examination has to be done before adding some information (reliability in mind as well), as for example choosing one reference and not the other. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]