Why were you removing sources from sentences in the habitat section of this article? Everything that needs a source should have the source given clearly, and the source for the second and third sentences is not the Washington legislature page. (And have you done this elsewhere in the article?) —innotata 16:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused about the use of citations. I wasn't thinking clearly, and on that section for some reason, I thought that since I was citing the same source later in the paragraph, it didn't matter if I cited it after a specific sentence. I think that's the only paragraph I've done it, but I'll go back and fix it in other paragraphs if I find that I've accidentally done it again. --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Later in the paragraph is fine, unless there is a reason for confusion. (Don't sweat it either way though...it is like tomAto-tomAHto.) ;) TCO (Reviews needed) 18:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find a more tailored message gets more action than if it looks offically and like you cut and pasted it. People like personal more than impersonal. Like I can usually find somehting on people's user pages to refer to or the like. (no biggie and just leave the messages. Just a tip.) Enjoy the warm day! TCO (Reviews needed) 18:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, you're right! I wasn't thinking of it that way. It was sorta just my way of trying to be professional, but it did come off as being robotic and impersonal. I do have personality, I swear! :) Haha, would it be acceptable in Wiki-manner to go back and edit my posts on their talk pages? Or is it too late? Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to, sure. No sweat though. TCO (Reviews needed) 19:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Review
I would consider the review, but I think you need to give it a once over first. It seems to have very sparse interwiki links. Terms like Colony (biology) and Olympic Mountains should be linked. Meanwhile, you use redundant links in places like Vancouver Island marmot, when each term should generally only be linked once. See WP:OVERLINK. Terms should be linked on first usage rather than later (e.g. grasses, leaves, flowers). It will have more of a GA feel when correct the linked terms, IMO. Once you have gotten your linking corrected, I will review the article. However, I warn you that for a subject outside of my area of expertise, I am a slow reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you might have already seen, the article got another reviewer on board. But I'm still taking your advice, and have already started working on the wikilinks. Thanks for looking it over, and happy new year! :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More information needed about File:OlympicmarmotfromBjorn.jpg
Hello, Imthebombliketicktick!
It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:OlympicmarmotfromBjorn.jpg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.
If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.
Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the commons version and deleted the local version per F8. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after it, more later
that's it for a little while from me. Will try to get you more in a day or two. Gotta take care of some RL stuff.
You are doing a good job of hanging in there, in the process. Hope this is fun, at least intellectually.
Okay! I'll keep after it as much as I can. As I explained on the Olympic marmot talk page, I'll probably be a little bit slower in reviewing and fixing everything because I have school again now, but I'll still be making daily contributions. I actually do enjoy doing all of this though. As nerdy as it may sound, it has become fun to me! I really appreciate all your help. I know you and many others that have been helping are busy with other articles of your own and RL stuff on the side, so thank you for taking the time to help me out too :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't mess up your other classes. You're doing fine, by taking care of the easy ones. Some of the bigger ones, can wait for an FAC try (even by someone else on Wiki, if you don't do it!) I might just start copy-editing, but at the same time, I'm sensitive to you learning...and you will learn more by putting your hands on the article! TCO (Reviews needed) 19:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipen
Aww, thank you! I'm honored, haha :) I appreciate all the work that you and the other "nitpickers" have done to help me improve this article. Hopefully you'll see it become an FAC soon enough. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good job
You are doing great. Not just saying that. Honest. I leave long reviews because that is how I think and I pretty much treat everyone alike and as adults. You are really holding up great. Please don't be taken aback by all the verbiage. Article really is better than some others in the class in terms of amount of content and quality of the writing.
Go MARMOTS!
P.s. I have the page off of watchlist. Want to give you some space and let you work and others work with you. Will check up in a few days or you can ping me if needed. Good luck and hope you have the plus sign soon.
I'm SO sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you again, and to work on the article. Since it's been the last two weeks before the end of the semester, my teachers have been cramming in as much as they can to complete class curriculum that they were behind on, so I haven't had time for Wikipedia as much. I have an 11 day break starting this Saturday though, so I'll definitely work on it more then, if I don't get enough done this week. Plus my reviewer is still slowly picking through, so I'm not going to rush either. Thanks for coming back and looking over the article again like you said you would! I'm sorry if you were disappointed to not find all that much improvement :( Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's no sweat. I know you have a lot on the plate. You've done a good job to date. Article has lots of content and the like. Just work with ORLady and take care of her comments and push the thing over the goal line! I would pitch in and help, but want you to get the experience of working with a reviewer. Good for ya! TCO (Reviews needed) 16:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I've learned from my Wikipedia experience
I learned how to use Wikipedia, which includes a lot of confusing aspects of formatting
When citing references that don't have the exact month and day of its publication, and it only has the year, ignore the template rule that shows date being used, and use year instead diff
I learned the importance of referencing data ASAP diff
I learned that species and genus names should be italicized diff
Species of an animal as a whole can be referred to as it is rather than they are diff
I learned that the Estrous cycle and Estrus are two different things diff
Learned the meaning of copulate/copulation diff
Not only should the non-proper part of a noun be uncapitalized, but so should the second word in a species if there is one diff
Transitional phrases such as lastly are not always needed. diff
Sometimes, references can be misleading. To avoid confusion, try to reference the source directly after using information from it, instead of a few sentences after if another reference comes before it also diff
How to do conversions between different units, and that in science, the metric unit always comes first diff
When wikilinking, the case of the letters in the article title won't affect the link as long as it has brackets diff
Consistently match verb tense diff
Parenthetical explanations are helpful for difficult terms, even when the word is already wikilinked. (See Estrus in Olympic marmot article followed by heat)
Correct and incorrect uses of semicolons in shortening and combining sentences diffdiff
It has since been instead of Since then it has been, in order to show present tense diff
Remove redundancy such as reproducing for the first time at four years old, opposed to just reproducing for at that age diff
Repeating the species name too often can get repetitive, so try to avoid wordiness and redundancy with this diff
Disclaimers are an extremely essential detail to making sure a source is reliable. (i.e. - Animal Diversity Web controversy. Had to go back and replace at least 13 references cited to this invalid source because I didn't notice the disclaimer!) diff
Double negatives diff
I learned endemic can refer to when a disease is continuously present within a region, AND it can mean indigenous or prevalent, the second meaning being the way I used it in my article diff
Mammalogy is spelled like that, and not like this -> mammology diff
Singular vs. plural -- them and their vs. it and its diff
Say that marmots were recorded rather than sighted. Recorded includes also that they were sighted, and then written down for proof diff
Keep terms in a "natural context" when they are not unique processes or words only to the article animal diff
Appositive comma diff
When not using a subheading, paragraph breaks are important in separating ideas diff
Placement of only, putting it next to the word it modifies diff (also in article: "with only" -> only with)
I think I disagree with whoever "taught" you about "endemic." Endemism is a specific concept in ecology, but the term should used only within that narrow meaning. --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was ThatPeskyCommoner, changing Olympic marmot to say the species is an official indigenous mammal when it is officially endemic. Endemic has two narrow meanings—peculiar of organisms, and continuously present within a region of diseases—and is also used to mean indigenous and prevalent, respectively. —innotata 16:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay! Thanks for clearing that up. I'll edit that bullet. Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Olympic marmot GA
Arggh! I initially posted this on the wrong user talk page. (I responded to another user with an "I" name who had posted the most recent response on the GA page.) Anyway, here we go:
The top level of review is overall structure of the article. Some concerns with overall structure were pretty well resolved in recent days, so I did not comment on them. The lead section is an important part of structure. I had what I considered to be a serious concern with the lead section and my long comment from last Thursday has not received any response or reaction.
I have some other comments for you on some relatively specific aspects of sourcing, but I was puzzled not to get a response on that one, so I'm not sure where I will get your attention. --Orlady (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am so, soooo sorry that it took me so long to reply to your concerns with the lead. I honestly just did not notice it somehow, because I've been getting on every day to check if any more reviewing has been done by you but I must have overlooked it. I feel terrible for writing on your talk page asking if you were going to start reviewing when you already had and I just didn't notice it. It made me feel pretty dumb too! But I apologize, and now you have my full attention! I'd like to get this to GA by the end of the week (if possible), which is when our project officially ends for the semester. If it can't make it in time, no biggie, it'd just be awesome! :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Good Article now. Congratulations! I need to confess that after your last round of changes, I was feeling irritated with you for some interpretive statements that I deemed to be synthesis, a form of original research. I didn't relish the idea of another round or two of back and forth on them. I finally decided that they were fairly inconsequential, so I simply deleted/edited the bits that troubled me. Congrats on a good article. I learned a lot about this animal, which is one that I watched a good bit in times past, albeit not scientifically. (For what it's worth, they're cute little critters.) I also learned that Olympic marmots and Vancouver Island marmots are different, which I should have realized when visiting Vancouver Island and wondering why the marmots there didn't whistle like the ones on the Olympic Peninsula do. --Orlady (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
