Talk:Oryzomys albiventer

Extra colons

I'm not able to look this up right now, but I think there are some extra colons in the synonym section of the taxobox. Some of those are clearly the actual authorities and not sources of name combinations. --Aranae (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, don't know why I missed that. Thanks for the note. Ucucha 20:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• O. albiventer is further part of the O. couesi section, - "section" in this context needs a link or gloss- does it mean subgenus?
  • It's the term the source uses; I can't make more of it. It's not a subgenus because it doesn't have a one-word name. It might be inspired by section (botany).
• Is it worth doing a complete legend for the map, naming all the species shown?
  • Possible. Not doing it makes the legend more concise, and it's not really that relevant to this article how some of the other species are called. I don't care much either way.

Nothing else really, there's not the masses of technical terms I usually nitpick about, so this shouldn't take long Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. This one has unfortunately never had a full and proper description, so I can't include many good technical terms on skull features. Ucucha 12:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Distribution

I realize the dist. map is of Western Mexico, but it's a little hard to tell what's what (a little too zoomed in perhaps). And also, does the range extend further south (seems cut off)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As the caption indicates, the red piece is not the range of albiventer, but of a different species (Oryzomys couesi). It might indeed be better to have a context map indicating where this map is—I'll try to do that. Ucucha 03:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's all I'm asking for friend, is that you try. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So...are you just waiting me out or something? (:-0 NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Common name?

Does this species have a common name at all?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

See the last sentence of "Taxonomy". These "common" names were last used in 1918, though. Ucucha 17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was just wondering because the scientific name gets a little repetitive throughout the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I can hardly believe that for such a short article. :) However, I don't think we should resurrect decades-old common names, and "white-bellied rice rat" is particularly inappropriate since its belly is actually gray. Ucucha 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh...absolutely not. Now that I read over the article, the scientific name isn't so repetitive as is the sea of italics.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)