Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Muskrat/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:19, 20 December 2007.

Muskrat

check links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...I think it is a well-written article about an interesting subject, about which most people (in North America anyway) know a little but probably have some misunderstandings. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lead section is too short. Many unreferenced sections. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I only have a limited amount of time to comment at present so I hope to get back with additional points at a later time. Although I have been watching this article and have contributed a bit to it, it's in no shape to be a featured article. --Aranae (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost nothing is made comparing this animal to other arvicolines. Instead, it talks about muskrats as "rats", which I suppose it is if you call a rat any large muroid, but the comparison serves no purpose. It's the largest arvicoline, shares a convergent morphology with several other arvicolines such as Arvicola and Neofiber, and is generally a very interesting and unusual arvicoline. Even the population fluctuations should be discussed in the context of its relatives. Discussion of evolution and relationships should be included. --Aranae (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the basics of what needs to be covered are here, but almost all of it needs more detail. Citations for whole paragraphs should also be more directly attributed to statements. --Aranae (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not yet ready for an FA due to the following reasons:

Lack of citations to individual sentences in the article.
MoS issues like conversion of units and use of emdash and endash, need to be addressed.
Lead section would need to be expanded to provide more context.
The article needs a thorough copy-edit. Sentences like: "To trap a muskrat one must find a body of water with a reasonable quantity of muskrats huts. Muskrats live in huts made of reeds or cattails. The trapper uses an axe to chop out a plug from the hut and places a trap in the hut. He leaves and returns 4-12 hours later to often find a muskrat in the trap. Success rate is about 50%.", can definitely be written with a better prose. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the suggestions. I took off the uncited "hunting and trapping" section. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: too short. --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on how much a person wants to know about muskrats. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severe(ly) Minor Objection grams instead of kg presumably for consistency yet ounces instead of .x lb??? - Makes me doubt the entire article's worksmanship...--Keerllston 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed the weights for adult animals to kg and lb, but left the birth weight of the babies in grams and ounces. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Many of the problems in the article would be fixed if it went through GA status and had a peer review. Get those done first before coming back here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I can't find things wrong with it - perhaps needs copy-editing (per well-written), perhaps needs rehashing of citation/referencing (per standard usage), perhaps needs expansion (per comprehension)... because of the above needs I won't support - but I don't feel that they add up to an oppose for me either - I like the article as it is, even though it could improve.--Keerllston 13:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.