Talk:Voalavo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) – talk 01:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will begin ASAP! Rcej (Robert) – talk 01:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! One point I wasn't sure about when writing the article was whether I need to describe the morphology in a little more detail. What is there now is mainly from the section in Carleton and Goodman (1998) that compares Voalavo with Eliurus and other genera; as you'll see, there is some more detail in the articles on the two species. Ucucha 02:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prego! It looks like what you have is fine; if you think further delineation between the two genera is needed, though, add everything you have and we'll fiddle with it all when we get there. Chopping is easier than second guessing. :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put up some stuff to do here by late wknd. I read and dig and do little nips and tucks first; you may remember the way I do things, though, because I think I reviewed a creature article of yours before... though naturally I'm too cool to remember what it was...lol ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Your morphology content is good to go! For now, go through the article and police for disambigs and redirect links... I get monkey nerd picky over fixing those. More stuff ahead :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are no dab links, and redirect links shouldn't be a problem (WP:NOTBROKEN). Ucucha 15:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't much more we need to do... nice work! Just some stuff to mess with. In the taxonomy section:

sentence "The two Voalavo species are closely related and quite similar, but differ in various subtle morphological characters (mainly measurements) and by 10% in the sequence of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome b."

~~hmm...a 10% difference in the sequence? Maybe flesh that out a little, layperson-ish ;)~~

Not sure what to do about it, since the source doesn't go into detail (the cyt b sequence of V. antsahabnesis hasn't even been published). What specifically do you think would be good as a clarification?

Really, if that's your src limit, its fine as is :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sentence "Before the discoveries of Monticolomys (published in 1996) and Voalavo (1998), all of the known genera within Nesomyinae were quite distinct from each other, so much so that relationships among them long remained obscure."

The phylogenic relationship?

Yes, added.

paragraph "In their description of Voalavo, Carleton and Goodman argued that, although closely related, Eliurus and Voalavo form separate monophyletic groups;[6] but a 1999 molecular phylogenetic study by Sharon Jansa and colleagues, who compared cytochrome b sequences among nesomyines and other rodents, found that Voalavo gymnocaudus was more closely related to Eliurus grandidieri than to other species of Eliurus. This finding called into question the separate generic status of Voalavo. However, support for the relationship between V. gymnocaudus and E. grandidieri was relatively weak and Eliurus petteri, a species that is thought to be closely related to E. grandidieri, could not be sampled genetically.[7] Data from nuclear genes also supports the relationship between V. gymnocaudus and E. grandidieri, but E. petteri remains genetically unstudied and the taxonomic issue has not been resolved."

Is the weak support for the relationship between V. gymnocaudus and E. grandidieri based on consensus regarding the finding?
Why couldn't E. petteri be sampled genetically? Has it been suggested that an established relationship between E. grandidieri and E. petteri would be a strong enough factor to further conlude that the two genera are indistinct? -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the piece about weak support. This concerned weak support in terms of things like bootstrap analysis, but it seems that has not been a problem with later studies finding the same relationship, so I've just removed it. The reason they couldn't get DNA of petteri is probably that it is extremely rare and poorly known, so they couldn't get tissues. I think the idea is that when petteri is included, that may disrupt relationships in such a way that grandidieri will nicely go home and join the other Eliurus, so the genus becomes monophyletic after all, but the sources do not specify. Honestly, it looks kind of like they are grabbing desperately for ways to save the genus Voalavo. Ucucha 20:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the description section:

sentence "The zygomatic plate, a plate at the sides of the skull that roots the front part of the zygomatic arches (cheekbones), is narrower in Voalavo, and lacks a projection into a clear zygomatic notch, which is present in Eliurus."

Pinpoint the difference between zygomatic plate and zygomatic notch, because they share the same wikilink. -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the comments! Ucucha 20:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like everything... we pass! Nice working with you, and I'm sure we'll do this again ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Voalavo passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass