Talk:Durrell's vontsira/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Looks good at a quick glance. Comments to follow. Are you planning to take this to FAC?

Perhaps, but I've got a couple of others I'd also like to nominate; this one is fairly short and may change too much as new information gets published. Ucucha 05:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the propensity to change is what discourages me from trying an FAC run with Saadanius. That would be an article that would require a lot of "babysitting" to maintain FA more than a year or two. By the way... have you written to the researchers to see if they have a photo of the new species? – VisionHolder « talk » 11:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

In the taxonomy section, it's sometimes referred to as Salanoia durrelli and sometimes as Salanoia durbelli. Is this a typo? Does the animal have two different names? Was it originally durrelli but changed to durbelli? Vice versa? Someone needs to clear this up for dumb guys like me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.161.25 (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It was first observed in 2004 and formally described as a species new to science in 2010." – I suggest changing it to "...formally described as a new species in 2010." I know what you're trying to clarify, but it just makes the sentence awkward. (But see the 2nd part of the next point first.)
"It is most closely related to the brown-tailed mongoose (Salanoia concolor) and closely resembles it genetically, but..." – I suggest: "It is most closely related to the brown-tailed mongoose (Salanoia concolor), with which it is genetically similar, but..." The word "closely" sounded repetitive. Another possibility with this and the previous sentence would be to organize them a little differently: "First observed in 2004, it is most closely related to the brown-tailed mongoose (Salanoia concolor), with which it is genetically similar, but is clearly different morphologically. It has therefore been recognized as a separate species and was described in 2010."
- Used that wording. And it didn't sound repetitive, it was repetitive. ;-)
"The brown-tailed mongoose has narrower feet with more poorly developed pads.[7] The fur is long and soft.[3]" – If you're going to compare, I suggest starting that first sentence with "In contrast,..." and move the description of the fur up to where you describe the color. As it stands, it's a little confusing.
- Done.
~~First mention of "canine" I would say "canine teeth".~~
- Done.
"Salanoia durrelli has been recorded from Andreba, a marshy area at 750 m (2460 ft) above sea level on the eastern coast of Lac Alaotra." – From Andreba to.... ??? Maybe just "in" or "around", not "from".
- Changed to "at". I think, but am not sure, that Andreba is a village (which is not Andreba). It might merit an article.
~~"The nearest occurrence of the brown-tailed mongoose is about from Alaotra." – Huh? Did I misread this, or is something missing?~~
- Oops; my automated subst:-able converter doesn't actually support kilometers. Fixed (it's 55 km).

Comment not related to the review: Are they seriously pointing to lemur taxonomy to justify the identification of a new species?? Oh boy! What a precedent that contentious topic has set....
- Yes, although somewhere in the article they do say something like "the Alaotra bamboo lemur, whatever its taxonomic status may be". I think this description is part of a larger debate around the status of morphologically distinctive isolates of more widespread species. There are some other examples: the beach vole of Massachusetts (currently regarded as a species, but a subspecies of the meadow vole according to some), the silver rice rat of the Florida Keys (currently included in the marsh rice rat; just how distinctive it is is debated), Artibeus incomitatus (a fruit bat) of Escudo de Veraguas (described as a species in 1994, but recently synonymized with Artibeus watsoni on the basis of a genetic study). We'll see how it turns out; this one may well eventually end up as a subspecies.
- NO, of course not! Maybe you haven't read the discussion properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz1925zyx (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, great article. I'm looking forward to passing it soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As always, another great article!

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
N/A

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
N/A
Overall:
Pass or Fail: