Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Drymoreomys/archive1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Atomician
Irrelevancy from Atomician (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Atomician
- Could you link to Wikispecies?
- "is known only from the states of" Is only found in...
- "and perhaps reproduces year-round"? A little certainty please? It is believed to, if it hasn't been proven or if it's just a hypothesis.
- "and the discoverers recommend that the animal" Name the discovers and adjust it so that it doesn't sound like advice.
- "a biogeographically unusual relationship" How so?
- "The tail is brown above and below." Could this not be incorporated into the previous sentence, it's a bit short.
- "The front part of the skull is long" Doesn't sound professional, 1) frontal bone, 2) Long compared to what? Other mice?
- "and the ridges on the braincase are weak." Explain why.
- Link molar.
- As has been said above "Greek δρυμός drymus "forest", Latin oreo "mountain", and Greek μῦς mys "mouse"" is disjointed in its phraseology, it needs a rewrite.
- "in mountain forest" Forests.
- No, "forest" is used as a collective form here. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously, you're not listening to me: You wouldn't say: "in forest", you'd say "in forests". In mountain forests is grammatically correct, your version isn't. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Atomician, the way Ucucha has used the word is fine. Forest can be used in different ways; one of them is an uncountable term for a specific type of land (so, grassland, marshland, forest- three habitats). It just happens that a name for forested land is "forest". Alterantively, take a look at this. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- All of the links in Google have words after them "in forest soil solutions", "in forest layers", not just forest on its own.
- The full sentence: "The name refers to the animals' occurrence in mountain forest."
- What it should be: "The name refers to the animals' occurrence in mountain forests." Atomician (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Now you're ignoring me. First of all, your claim is wrong. The very first result uses the line "Forest migrants found in these "acahuales" were of comparable body condition (as determined by fat class estimates) to those found in forest." This is blatantly the same kind of usage as in this article. To repeat, the word "forest" can be used in the same way as "marshland", that is, as an uncountable noun referring to the habitat generally (meaning a), in addition to being a word referring to a single specific forest (meaning b). So, Grizedale Forest is both a forest (meaning b) and an example of forest (meaning b). Do you honestly not follow this? J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Atomician, the way Ucucha has used the word is fine. Forest can be used in different ways; one of them is an uncountable term for a specific type of land (so, grassland, marshland, forest- three habitats). It just happens that a name for forested land is "forest". Alterantively, take a look at this. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously, you're not listening to me: You wouldn't say: "in forest", you'd say "in forests". In mountain forests is grammatically correct, your version isn't. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, "forest" is used as a collective form here. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Latin albus "white" and maculatus "spotted"" Maybe the quoted words should be parenthesized?
- "Percequillo and colleagues" You repeat this 3 times in the article, can you not change the wording? (An image keeps popping up of Robin Hood and his merry men).
- "differ in frequency in populations" That isn't grammatically correct.
- "in the genus" From the genus or of the genus. In sounds weird.
- In context ("the only species in the genus Eremoryzomys"), "in" seems the best wording to me, though "of" is possible. Cf. Google Scholar. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Parque Natural Municipal Nascentes do Garcia should have an English translation by it in brackets.
- "head and body length is" You're talking about a study taken of 11 rodents, this should be past tense. 5 counts of is need changing to was. If you're not talking about a study, change the start: "In 11 adults".
Overfur, that's not a word. (2 cases)- Yes it is. OED Online lists it as a synonym of overhair, which it defines as "A component of the fur in many mammals which consists of relatively long hairs (guard hairs) extending beyond the shorter fur (underfur or undercoat) to form a sparser outer layer. Also occas.: one of these hairs; a guard hair.". J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- "in the half closest to tip" to the tip.
- "The sides are reddish brown." That's rather short.
- "except at the throat, chest" Except on the throat...
- "In overall appearance" I may be wrong on this one, but I'm not sure that's good grammar.
- It's used frequently enough. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- "with dense golden hairs on the outer and..." Outer surface.
- "the tail is the same color above and below" above as it is below.
- Link needed to rostrum.
- "the rostrum (front part) is long" Compared to what?
- "extending to between the first molars" first set of molars.
- "In Eremoryzomys, these fossas are deeper." The fossas.
- "the opening behind the palate" Grammar. Needs a comma before next part of the sentence.
- "There are twelve ribs and 19" 12 ribs, MOS.
- "The loss of lateral bacular mounds" Lack, not loss.
- "but is likely to occur there" You need to clarify who believes that.
- "as well as in pristine forest" Forests.
- The Conservation status could come under Distribution and ecology, which would account for the fact that it's rather short, if you can, try to beef it up a little, although I recognize that finding refs might prove quite difficult.
- I'd prefer to keep it separate for consistency with articles like Mindomys, though I did merge the two sections in Eremoryzomys, where they're even shorter. I am not aware of any other sources that discuss the conservation of this animal. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Percequillo and colleagues suggest" Grammar issues, and his colleagues...
So many grammar issues, but once you've done all of the above, that will hopefully be lessened. I sense a second language though, which means that it's perfectly acceptable. If I made any mistakes (bound to have), just ignore please. Thanks and good luck to the nominator, Atomician (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I find that I disagree with most of your recommendations, though you certainly did catch at least a few errors. I'm sorry if I'm overly curt at some places above. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I feel like a lot of work going through grammar errors (most of which still stand), has been quite ignored. Perhaps you should take a further look at some of these? Atomician (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
|}