Talk:Oryzomys albiventer/GA1

GA Review

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

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: