Talk:Moupin pika

Moupin 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: October 29, 2017. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Moupin pika appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 September 2017 (check views). 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/Moupin pika.

Wikipedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 11:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I will read this soon, but first some preliminary comments. Funny that this species was also named by Alphonse Milne-Edwards, like my last nomination you reviewed... FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for picking it up for a review! Glad that both were described by Edwards. :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like in the last pika article I reviewed, it seems the literature on this animal hasn't been fully cited, Google Scholar shows many results about this species that are not covered here, and it would be good to see what of this you can obtain.

Seems this is the only issue left? FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk Found scraps of information here and there. Added! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there doesn't seem to be a consensus about this, Sikkim pika now has its own article. I think this should only be done once there is a scientific consensus about its distinctness, and until then, its content should be merged back into this article, and it should redirect here. Also, is that the subspecies shown in the taxobox? Should be noted then.

Done! Looks better? Yeah, also MSW3 does not treat it as a separate subspecies. Really, a great observation! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better, still some self links that need to be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self links? :P What are they? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links that link to this very article itself. After you merged the subspecies article back, you still have links that go to that article, but now back to here. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an alternate range map[1], don't know if it is more accurate than the one currently used.

According to Guide to the mammals of China, the current range map looks correct, but according to iucn, the alternate range map seems correct. Could you suggest what to do on that? I do think the alternate range map to be better, as in the current range map even some part of Nepal is shown, but the pika is not found in Nepal. Furthermore, IUCN surely seems more reliable to me. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can already see the old map is wrong, the other one should be better. FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that the image is probably of another pika, I have replaced the range map! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added one more image, which shows the Moupin pika in Uttarakhand. The current range map has a portion near Uttarakhand shaded, so with this observation, the current range map seems more appropriate. It is so doubtful. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come it is categorised as another species (Ochotona roylei) on Commons? FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem closer to the Royle's pika than to the Moupin pika. So, removed the image. Based on this, I have also replaced the range map! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more comments soon, but I'd like to see some incorporation of overlooked sources first (especially important if you want to take this article further than GA). No rush for time. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I completely forgot about this article! Would get to it by tomorrow. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"and because the intermediate forms do not occur" Why "the"?

Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"in the journal Nouvelles archives du Muse'um d'histoire naturelle" is it really necessary to mention this?

Removed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably better to link species at their common names than their scientific names, since the former are listed first.

Ah, thanks for that. Would keep this point in mind for future articles too! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"based on holotype analysis" What does this mean? Very vague.

The source mentions nothing more, so I have changed it slightly, and instead added the mention of Feng and Zheng. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the o. t. osgoodi as" Why "the" and the first O. should be capitalised. I fixed some, but there are more throughout.

Thanks, done! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The description section has bony anatomy at the start, then goes into external features, and then back to bones again. Better to group the text about each subject together.

Ah, moved! Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this UK or US English? You have both "metre" and "favor".

Woops, US, fixed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"making it "critically endangered." You should maybe add "locally" then.

Added! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate common names should also be bolded in the intro.

Done! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The intro could state that there are many subspecies, some of which may be distinct species.

Done! Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article looks fine now, so passed! FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

funkmonk Thanks a lot for your reviews! Would you also mind verifying if anything more is available on the Thomas's pika? I have checked almost everything, and what may be found might already be present in the article, and few other sources have mere mentiones of the pika. (mentioned in Talk:Thomas's pika/GA1 too. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Re-ping... I am sure the letters, if not capital, should still have worked! :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing more shows up on Google Scholar, then it should be pretty comprehensive... FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk Are you able to find this somehow? "Bannikov, A.G. 1960. Notes on the mammals in Nien-shan and South Gobi Area (China). Byall. Mosk. Obshch, Isp. Prir. Biol., 65:5-12." I am just unable to find this paper anywhere... Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, but as always when I'm looking for something I can't find through Google, WP:RX always comes to the rescue. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it up there on WP:RX, thanks a ton, FunkMonk! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Is this image an image of Ochotona thibetana or Ochotona sikimaria? --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 19:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim[edit]

Moupin pika#Distribution and habitat: It mentions the range of the Ochotona sikimaria as if it is the range of Ochotona thibetana. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 15:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]