Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Drymoreomys/archive1

Irrelevancy from Atomician (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Atomician

• Could you link to Wikispecies?
  • What would it add to the article? Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • An external links section, linking to the Wikispecies article. A lot of FA genus articles have them (even if these are dino-genera). Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "is known only from the states of" Is only found in...
  • They're not the same thing- it may be found elsewhere, but it is only known from the locations listed. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You're right, "has only been found in" would be better then. I was concerned about the grammar. Atomician (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The current wording is grammatically fine. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I assure you, it isn't. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
          • It sounds fine to me. What precisely do you feel the issue is? J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "and perhaps reproduces year-round"? A little certainty please? It is believed to, if it hasn't been proven or if it's just a hypothesis.
  • If you want certainty, you'll have to go to Brazil and study this animal. As the body of the article makes clear, we don't know exactly what its reproductive cycle is like, but most probably it reproduces year-round. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • This issue still stands. "Perhaps" is not a word you want in a featured article, it's very laissez faire, "might be, might not be." Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "and the discoverers recommend that the animal" Name the discovers and adjust it so that it doesn't sound like advice.
  • It is advise (to the IUCN). I would prefer not to name the discoverers, as their names are a detail that is not important to the lead. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • This still stands. Might want to change to: "the discoverers have recommended that..." Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "a biogeographically unusual relationship" How so?
  • Obviously, because there aren't many pairs of closely related species in the Atlantic Forest and the dry valleys of the Andes.
    • Then state it. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The tail is brown above and below." Could this not be incorporated into the previous sentence, it's a bit short.
  • Possibly, but that would make that sentence sound quite awkward. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • So you flat out... won't? Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The front part of the skull is long" Doesn't sound professional, 1) frontal bone, 2) Long compared to what? Other mice?
  • The frontal bone has nothing to do with it. I've added "relatively" to make point 3 a little clearer. I've avoided using the term "rostrum" here in the interest of accessibility. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Front part of the skull isn't informative, that sentence isn't telling us anything, name the specific part of the skull that you mean, not just "the front". If it's the rostrum, add the rostrum and do as you have done below (explain what it is). Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "and the ridges on the braincase are weak." Explain why.
  • Probably because it doesn't eat very abrasive vegetation and therefore doesn't need strong chewing muscles, but that would be original research. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • If it doesn't have it in the reference then fair enough leave it. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Link molar.
  • Done. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• As has been said above "Greek δρυμός drymus "forest", Latin oreo "mountain", and Greek μῦς mys "mouse"" is disjointed in its phraseology, it needs a rewrite.
  • I've put the transcriptions in parentheses now; otherwise it's not clear to me what the problem with this sentence is. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That was it. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "in mountain forest" Forests.
  • No, "forest" is used as a collective form here. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Seriously, you're not listening to me: You wouldn't say: "in forest", you'd say "in forests". In mountain forests is grammatically correct, your version isn't. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Atomician, the way Ucucha has used the word is fine. Forest can be used in different ways; one of them is an uncountable term for a specific type of land (so, grassland, marshland, forest- three habitats). It just happens that a name for forested land is "forest". Alterantively, take a look at this. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
        • All of the links in Google have words after them "in forest soil solutions", "in forest layers", not just forest on its own.
        • The full sentence: "The name refers to the animals' occurrence in mountain forest."
        • What it should be: "The name refers to the animals' occurrence in mountain forests." Atomician (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Now you're ignoring me. First of all, your claim is wrong. The very first result uses the line "Forest migrants found in these "acahuales" were of comparable body condition (as determined by fat class estimates) to those found in forest." This is blatantly the same kind of usage as in this article. To repeat, the word "forest" can be used in the same way as "marshland", that is, as an uncountable noun referring to the habitat generally (meaning a), in addition to being a word referring to a single specific forest (meaning b). So, Grizedale Forest is both a forest (meaning b) and an example of forest (meaning b). Do you honestly not follow this? J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
            • I wasn't trying to ignore you and I'm sorry if it came across that way. If you feel everything is okay, then leave it as it is. I believe you both, Atomician (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Latin albus "white" and maculatus "spotted"" Maybe the quoted words should be parenthesized?
  • They are the meanings of the Latin words; why should they be italicized? Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Parenthesized, not italicized, put brackets around them.
• "Percequillo and colleagues" You repeat this 3 times in the article, can you not change the wording? (An image keeps popping up of Robin Hood and his merry men).
  • I've used that in many FAs to avoid the jargon-y "et al.". It seems fine to me. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • And his colleagues. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "differ in frequency in populations" That isn't grammatically correct.
  • Changed the second "in" to "between". Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "in the genus" From the genus or of the genus. In sounds weird.
  • In context ("the only species in the genus Eremoryzomys"), "in" seems the best wording to me, though "of" is possible. Cf. Google Scholar. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Parque Natural Municipal Nascentes do Garcia should have an English translation by it in brackets.
  • Why? All English-language sources I've read that mention the park don't think that necessary. Besides, the meaning of the name should be obvious anyway. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • For ease of reading, some people just don't speak Portuguese. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "head and body length is" You're talking about a study taken of 11 rodents, this should be past tense. 5 counts of is need changing to was. If you're not talking about a study, change the start: "In 11 adults".
  • I'm pretty sure I used past tense in a similar context before, and got told to change it to present tense. These specimens still exist in a museum, I believe, so the measurements arguably also still exist. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's a study, that happened in the past, therefore it needs changing to was. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Overfur, that's not a word. (2 cases)
  • Yes it is. OED Online lists it as a synonym of overhair, which it defines as "A component of the fur in many mammals which consists of relatively long hairs (guard hairs) extending beyond the shorter fur (underfur or undercoat) to form a sparser outer layer. Also occas.: one of these hairs; a guard hair.". J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's very obscure, Google yields utterly nothing on it, but if OEDO says so. Atomician (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• "in the half closest to tip" to the tip.
  • Fixed. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The sides are reddish brown." That's rather short.
  • I don't think an occasional short sentence should be problematic. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • If you say so. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "except at the throat, chest" Except on the throat...
  • Changed. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "In overall appearance" I may be wrong on this one, but I'm not sure that's good grammar.
  • It's used frequently enough. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "with dense golden hairs on the outer and..." Outer surface.
  • The ellipsis seems correct to me. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • This is awkward, please change. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      • It's fine... J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "the tail is the same color above and below" above as it is below.
  • Both seem correct to me. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Again, awkward. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Link needed to rostrum.
  • That is a dab page (even though it doesn't say so), and the link would add nothing. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It isn't a dab page, the dab page is here, the link I gave you here is not marked as a dab page because it flat-out isn't. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "the rostrum (front part) is long" Compared to what?
  • Relative to other species. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Then say it. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "extending to between the first molars" first set of molars.
  • The current wording seems correct to me. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "In Eremoryzomys, these fossas are deeper." The fossas.
  • I don't see anything wrong with using the demonstrative pronoun here. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "the opening behind the palate" Grammar. Needs a comma before next part of the sentence.
  • Indeed, and there was also an article missing a few words above. Fixed. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "There are twelve ribs and 19" 12 ribs, MOS.
  • Fixed. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The loss of lateral bacular mounds" Lack, not loss.
  • Changed. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "but is likely to occur there" You need to clarify who believes that.
  • In my mind, that would only be distracting. This is not something so controversial that it must have in-text attribution. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You need to attribute your source if you are stating someone who has said something is likely to happen, otherwise it's just OR. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "as well as in pristine forest" Forests.
  • Not necessarily, as above. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • No, this is wrong. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't, as above. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• The Conservation status could come under Distribution and ecology, which would account for the fact that it's rather short, if you can, try to beef it up a little, although I recognize that finding refs might prove quite difficult.
  • I'd prefer to keep it separate for consistency with articles like Mindomys, though I did merge the two sections in Eremoryzomys, where they're even shorter. I am not aware of any other sources that discuss the conservation of this animal. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • If you say. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Percequillo and colleagues suggest" Grammar issues, and his colleagues...
  • As above. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • And his colleagues, otherwise it isn't right. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So many grammar issues, but once you've done all of the above, that will hopefully be lessened. I sense a second language though, which means that it's perfectly acceptable. If I made any mistakes (bound to have), just ignore please. Thanks and good luck to the nominator, Atomician (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I find that I disagree with most of your recommendations, though you certainly did catch at least a few errors. I'm sorry if I'm overly curt at some places above. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of work going through grammar errors (most of which still stand), has been quite ignored. Perhaps you should take a further look at some of these? Atomician (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to every one of your issues (except one already addressed by J Milburn), so I don't see why you say that work has been ignored. My impression (which may be incorrect) is that your definition of "grammar error" is overly broad. Ucucha (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have furthered my issues. I am fairly sure that at least some of them have some weight to them and have not been fully listened to. Atomician (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left some replies. Some of your claims seem to be wrong. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

|}