Talk:Oryzomys peninsulae

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oryzomys peninsulae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ucucha, I'm laying claim to this GAR, but will probably not leave any comments for a couple of days, as I have to clear some other stuff off my wiki-plate first. Sasata (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm doing a couple GANs myself at the moment, so there's no hurry. Ucucha 18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• maybe link riverine in the first paragraph
  • That redirects to river; doesn't seem a high-value link to me as readers probably know what a river is.
• that second lead sentence is pretty short. I'd recommend replacing the 1st "it" with the species name. "It is distinctive in fur color and in the shape of its skull." So what's the fur color? The skull shape?
  • Added.
• "Oryzomys peninsulae was first collected in 1896 and O. Thomas described it, in 1897, as a full species of Oryzomys." Tell me who is O. Thomas (British zoologist). Who first collected it? What's a "full species"?
  • I think we also discussed the first point (same for Hershkovitz below) in some other FAC or GAN, where I said that I prefer not to include things like "British zoologist" because it's not actually important information. But I am open to be persuaded otherwise.
    • Maybe not important in the context of this taxon, but I think it makes it more interesting reading. YMMV Sasata (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Full species" is just to contrast it with its later status as a subspecies; it's a phrase that's regularly used in the literature (even for O. peninsulae, by Alvarez-Castaneda 1994), but I can just say "species" if the additional word is confusing.
• "It was retained as a distinctive species" hmmm… distinctive or distinct?
  • Changed to distinct.
• "when P.M. Hershkovitz swept it, and other outlying populations of the same species group, under an expanded concept of O. palustris." Who's this Hershkovitz guy? BTW, I really like the use of the verb "sweep" to describe his taxonomic rearrangements; I may borrow it for future usage.
  • See above (he was an American zoologist, by the way). "Swept" is clearly an appropriate word for Hershkovitz's actions: he also once synonymized virtually all of what is now Hylaeamys, Euryoryzomys, and Transandinomys in a footnote. But then in his final years (1990s) he seems to have come around to oversplitting.
• "After it was recognized" who recognized it?
  • Several papers. Reworded that sentence.
• "…. published a revision of the Oryzomys of western Mexico" how about "… a revision of the classification of…"
  • "Revision of [taxon]" is regularly used in the literature; I'll change it when you think it is unclear.
    • I'm just thinking about the regular encylopedia reader who hasn't read the literature. Adding a couple of words might make for a slightly easier/enjoyable reading experience for them. Sasata (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• "… and used data from morphology and morphometrics" M&M aren't places, so the preposition "from" seems incorrect here
  • Recast to make them adjectives
• link montane, systematics
  • Done.
• "… because it was confused under O. couesi for so long" how about "… because historically it had been misidentified as O. couesi"
  • I am weary to use "misidentified" because the changing taxonomy reflects changing species concepts as much as actual misidentification, but reworded part of the sentence anyway.
• link introduced
  • Done.
• "Some plants and birds from the area suggest a similar biogeographic heritage." I doubt they suggest that. Rather, their presence there leads researchers to believe… etc.
  • I changed the sentence a little, but don't think it's entirely inappropriate: one can speak about a species's biogeographical heritage.
• link to ligature dab is unhelpful
  • But educational; I never knew the word had other meanings. Fixed now. I placed the convenient FA tools template above, and there is also a dab link to Santa Anita, but I can't yet find out the correct link. I might create a stub for the Baja California Santa Anita if I can find enough information.

Thanks for another set of helpful suggestions! Ucucha 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another nice little article that meets all GA criteria. I'll leave you to figure out that dab. Sasata (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written, complies with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Lit review doesn't turn up any sources that aren't already used.

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):

   All images have appropriate PD or free-use licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks for the review! I rephrased the "revision of" piece and will fix Santa Anita soon. Ucucha 17:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)