Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drymoreomys/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:31, 30 August 2011 [1].

Drymoreomys edit

Drymoreomys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ucucha (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I last nominated a rice rat at FAC. This one was only described this year, even though it occurs close to the two largest cities of Brazil. Understandably, little is known about its ecology, but we know that some aspects of its morphology are unusual for a rice rat, and it is apparently related to a species from far away in Peru. The article was GA-reviewed by Rcej. Thanks for your comments. Ucucha (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • Ref 8: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's passim; the information cited is general information spread throughout the cited work. In any case, I won't have access to the paper version of that book until Monday at best. Thanks for the check. Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No issues were found by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looks good as always. I have not done a source review due to a lack of access. Below are my comments.

  • "Atlantic Forest" is linked twice in the first two sentences of the lead, and sounds a little redundant anyway.
  • For the conservation status, is it customary to put the suggested status in the taxobox, or should it just be mentioned in the article?
    • See Template talk:Taxobox#Suggested conservation status (and previously User talk:Stemonitis/Archive32#New status system, where I brought this up before. There doesn't seem to be consensus on this matter, but I'd be happy to remove the status from the taxobox if that's what people prefer. Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for not checking back on that discussion. Personally, I'm leaning towards only mentioning it in the body text, and not in the taxobox. Even though the IUCN has guidelines anyone can follow, I'm not sure if the basic peer review process ensures that the results of the researchers will pass the IUCN's review. Since the IUCN does its own research and appears to do thorough reviews with multiple experts, it might be wise to wait for their official assessment... which is what I feel that spot on the taxobox represents. But that's just my opinion... and again, I'm just leaning. I would certainly value the opinion of other reviewers on the matter. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coronoid proces" and others like it... is this an alternate spelling? The Wiki articles you link to spell it with two s's.
    • That was just a typo. Are there any other such errors? Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there were 2 others just like it in the same sentence... which caused me to hesitate on fixing them. Anyway, they are fixed now. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you're probably sick of me asking this, but would you like for me to contact the researchers who described it and request a photo? I know I haven't had as much luck with your stuff as I have with mine, but it's always worth a shot... unless you've already asked.
    • Sure, feel free to ask. Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. Email sent and I will keep you updated if I receive a reply. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, aside from the missing page number Nikkimaria pointed out, everything looks good. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review. Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm still working on trying to obtain a photo, but no luck at this point. If you could send the email addresses of the other authors, I could try them as well. Otherwise, great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice looking article. [from J Milburn]

  • Perhaps you could rephrase "combines the Greek δρυμός drymus "forest", Latin oreo "mountain", and Greek μῦς mys "mouse"" and "Latin albus "white" and maculatus "spotted""?
    • What exactly is your problem with this sentence? I've fixed the repetition of "combines". Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The strings of words- Atomician also raises it below. Instead of "Greek δρυμός drymus "forest"", how about something like "Greek drymus (δρυμός), meaning "forest"..." or "Greek δρυμός (anglicised as drymus) meaning "forest"..." J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ossified"?
    • That means "made up of bone", but "closed" works as well here, so I've swapped it out. Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The alisphenoid strut, a piece of bone that separates two foramina (openings), is present in Drymoreomys, except in one juvenile specimen." Odd line- gives the impression that every Drymoreomys animal apart from one has the trait. How about something like "has been present in all D... specimens examined" or something?
  • "In the penis, there are no mounds of the baculum (penis bone) containing the three digits at the tip. Of these three digits, the central one is the largest." I can't follow this.
    • That sentence was botched; fixed now. Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The loss of lateral bacular mounds," Again. Sorry.
    • I hope this is clearer now that the sentence dealing with this trait has been clarified. Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "premontane forest. It has been found in disturbed and secondary forests as well as in pristine forest" Technical terms could do with links
    • I linked secondary forest; the others are not as far as I know specific terms of art, or at least I can't find anything to link them to. Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looking very nice; it'd be great to get a picture, and there do seem to be a few online, so good luck to VisionHolder! J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. What do you think of the issue about the conservation status that VH brought up? Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend removing it from the taxobox. I think the nature of a taxobox/infobox is that it is for hard data- any complications need to be covered in the prose. In addition, of course, plenty of species out there don't have ratings, so it's not like the taxobox is massively lacking without it. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've removed it. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy collapsed commentary from User:Atomician moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I found this article lucid and fascinating. This is FA quality. A minor criticism is that I don't like "Several traits of the genitals". I know what this means, but it sounds odd. Could we say something like "the male's penis has...? Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suppose I could say "The penis has several traits that..." (females don't have a penis, so "male's" is redundant), but that does not sound much better to me than the current wording. What do you think? Ucucha (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Despite my niggling issues, this was enthralling and very competently written, my commendations to Ucucha. Atomician (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ucucha (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, assuming there are no copyright problems. There are few sources, but there do not seem to be any more- the only way this article could really be improved is with the addition of a photograph- good luck to VisionHolder! J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too. Would you mind doing an explicit image check for the convenience of the delegates? All there is right now is one map, and I'm pretty sure I've used the same base map in other FAs, so it shouldn't be too hard. Ucucha (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only species, D. albimaculatus, is known only... — can one of the "onlys" be lost or replaced?
  • The first one is now single. Ucucha (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • animals' occurrence — I'd be inclined towards animal's (species rather than collection of individuals), but no big deal if you stick with as is
  • Yes, singular makes more sense. Ucucha (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • little appreciable geographic variation — lose appreciable?
  • three digits at the tip of the penis. — I can't visualise this, which may be just as well; are we talking long, finger-like projections?
  • Yes. Since you correctly understood what was meant, do you think a clarification is needed? Thanks for the review, Ucucha (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Although I understand the difficulty, I think the lack of a photograph of the rodent in the article is a serious weakness. Are there any pictures available on the web? If so they should be included with a comment in a External links section. Do the cited sources include a photograph? If they do then perhaps a comment noting this should be added at the end of the reference. Aa77zz (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK - I've now looked at Figure 2 in Percequillo et al. 2001 - the "ventral view of the dried skin" and I admit that it does little to help me visualize the live animal. Aa77zz (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:External media may be something to consider, but it is hardly ideal. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Visionholder and I are still trying to get images released; if that doesn't work out, I'll add an external link. Ucucha (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is a coloured drawing a possible solution? Graham Colm (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Colored illustrations are a possibility (for examples, see Subfossil lemur), but that requires finding a skilled artist who's willing to create and share his/her work under an appropriate license. And the illustration needs to be accurate... which is not easy to create, especially when there are not many photos to work off of. Like Ucucha said, he and I are trying to obtain a properly licensed photo, but sometimes that's not a possibility. Anyway, the lack of an illustration is not a reason to hold up the nomination. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Drymoreomys/archive1&oldid=1078798920"