Talk:Euryoryzomys emmonsae/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• please expand the lead a bit, I'm sure you could squeeze two more summary sentences from the description and taxonomy sections
  • Done.
    • Excellent. Now please juggle some words a bit so that 5/8 sentences do not begin with "It" :) Sasata (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Down to two now. Thanks for passing the article. Ucucha 04:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Its conservation status is unknown" Semantically, I would argue that its conservation status is known (i.e., "data deficient"). More accurate to say that its conservation status is assessed as [[data deficient] because yadda yadda...
  • DD means that the conservation status is unknown, see the IUCN definition "A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status." [1]. Regardless of that, your wording is probably superior anyway, so I used it.
• link taxonomy
  • Done.
• "For a group of 17 specimens from three locations in the state of Pará, Brazil, which had been previously identified as Oryzomys macconnelli (now Euryoryzomys macconnelli) and then as Oryzomys nitidus (now Euryoryzomys nitidus), they introduced the new specific name Oryzomys emmonsae." Sentence needs tweaking: i) was Para previously identified as Oryzomys macconnelli? ii) emmonsae is the specific name, not Oryzomys emmonsae
  • Even Brazilian states are rice rats. You are right, as usual, and I moved these sentences around a bit to remedy it.
• based on this, it seems that Louise H. Emmons is redlink-worthy
  • Yes.
• "…including genetic data from the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene" genetic data->sequence data more accurate?
  • Yes.
• "Their analysis reaffirmed the distinctiveness… " -> distinctness
  • Yes.
• about 12%, versus 14.7%: one looks approximate, the other exact... intentional?
  • It differs by 12.1% from southern E. macconelli, 12.5% from northern E. macconelli, and 12.3% from E. russatus. Introducing those numbers here would make it necessary to explain that there are two different clades within E. macconnelli (possibly separate species), but that's a different story which doesn't need to be told here. Therefore, I thought it was best to be a little more approximate to avoid that issue.
• "In 2006, on an extensive"
  • Done.
• "… O. macconnelli, O. lamia (placed under O. russatus by Musser and colleagues) and O. russatus clustered together" the last two words will probably be confusing to someone who doesn't know phylogenetics/cladistics
  • Expanded a little.
• link/define tribe
  • Linked.
• "The upperparts are tawny brown, a bit darker on the head because many hairs have black tips." missing word (but, and, although?)
  • Sounds best with "but", I think.
• "It is similar to other members of the genus in the pattern of the arteries of the head." Is the artery pattern reflected as grooves in the skull, or was this determined from dissection of a fleshy specimen?
  • Grooves and some foramina, but I don't think it's necessary to say here. That's where data about this character usually come from, though I recall reading about the marsh rice rat that Musser and co were able to confirm that the arteries really followed the grooves in some skulls that were so poorly cleaned that they could see the arteries.
• "The alisphenoid strut, an extension of the alisphenoid bone which separates two foramina (openings) in the skull, the masticatory-buccinator foramen and the foramen ovale accessorius, is rarely present;" when I first read this I though the final "is" should be "are", as I thought three bony parts were being listed, but looking closer I see what the sentence is actually saying. Maybe put (the masticatory-buccinator foramen and the foramen ovale accessories) in parentheses to reduce possible confusion
  • Used the parentheses.
• (2n = 80; FN = 86) perhaps n could be linked to ploidy. Fundamental number doesn't have a link that I can see, but maybe it's understandable enough from the context.
  • Seems a bit of an easter egg link.
• "As far as known," ->as is known
  • Tightened up a bit more.

Thanks for the review, helpful as usual. Ucucha 03:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The article meets all of the GA criteria: Sasata (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written; technical terms are explained sufficiently; complies with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Well-cited to reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Uses all the (scant) important literature.

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):

   One image, PD.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: