Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Euryoryzomys emmonsae/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 promoted by Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [1].
Euryoryzomys emmonsae[edit]
Euryoryzomys emmonsae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
This is a rice rat from some small area in the depths of Brazilian Amazonia. It took people some time to realize that it is a distinct species, so that it was only described in 1998. The article underwent a thorough GA review by Sasata; I'm looking forward to any further suggestions for improvement and other comments. (If someone wants to check for plagiarism, all the sources I used for this article happen to be accessible for free online.) Ucucha 22:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Euryoryzomys_distribution.png should identify all the colours used in the key Fasach Nua (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it? Only the distribution of this species is relevant to this article; exactly where each of the other species occurs is less relevant. Ucucha 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If only the distribution of one species is relevant then the distribution of only one species should be given Fasach Nua (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. Ucucha 12:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:FA Criteria 3 per above Fasach Nua (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Map changed. Ucucha 21:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Map changed. Ucucha 21:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. Ucucha 12:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If only the distribution of one species is relevant then the distribution of only one species should be given Fasach Nua (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it? Only the distribution of this species is relevant to this article; exactly where each of the other species occurs is less relevant. Ucucha 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentsEek, another rice rat!
- I fixed one dab (metacentric), please check, no dead links
- Thanks.
- In the context of this report — In this report?
- Yes.
- both of those — both?
- Yes.
- The IUCN currently lists Euryoryzomys emmonsae as "Data Deficient" because it is so poorly known. I understand this, but do we have any indication at all whether it's common in its range?
- Neither Musser et al. (1998) nor the Red List give any explicit indication.
- Can you name the protected area?
- Yes, added.
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! Ucucha 12:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No other concerns, changed to support above, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: Sources and citations look fine. No opportunities for spotchecking, but no reasons for concern. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Most of my concerns were addressed.—RJH (talk)
Comment—Overall a decent article, if a bit technical in a couple of places. I have a few concerns:- I'm bothered by the lack of illustrations. At least one photograph of the subject should be included for visual reference, even if it is employed under fair use.
- I've previously attempted to illustrate a similarly poorly known rice rat with a fair-use image, but consensus was (unfortunately) that such images are not allowed under the NFCC. Incidentally, there are probably no photographs of live individuals of this species; there are only photographs of study skins and skulls. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, how long is "long" when describing the fur? What is "brownish"? Couldn't you say tawny brown with a gray-white underbelly?In the sentence that begins "The upperparts are tawny brown", is this back to discussing the Euryoryzomys emmonsae? This is unclear.Please create stub articles for the red linked jargon, or else redirect them to an appropriate article.The ecology description of these creatures is pretty slim. Surely there is some dietary information from the captured specimens? In what sense is their distribution unique?- Their distribution is unique in the sense that no other muroid has a similar distribution—that's what the word means, I would think. The sources say nothing about gut contents, so I presume the collectors did not study them. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word 'unique' in the article is ambiguous and implies some sort of special status, so some clarification would be good.—RJH (talk)
- Their distribution is unique in the sense that no other muroid has a similar distribution—that's what the word means, I would think. The sources say nothing about gut contents, so I presume the collectors did not study them. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm bothered by the lack of illustrations. At least one photograph of the subject should be included for visual reference, even if it is employed under fair use.
DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 22:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have been interrupted reading this article a few times in the last day or two! I fixed a couple of redirects. Nothing else jumps out as prominently tweakable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; I restored the redirects, both because of WP:NOTBROKEN and because scansorial really shouldn't redirect to arboreal locomotion. Ucucha 14:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.