Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lundomys/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 21:22, 22 November 2009 [1].

Lundomys edit

Nominator(s): Ucucha 21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This article has recently gone through peer review and I feel that it is now ready for featured status. To the best of my knowledge, this article includes all encyclopedically relevant information on the animal that has been published. Yesterday, I renamed the article to the name under which it is most commonly known, Lundomys, as explained at length here.

Thanks go to Finetooth, Aranae, Ruhrfisch, Rlendog, and 6th Happiness for constructive comments at the peer review and elsewhere. Ucucha 21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but its contents need some work. Alt text should be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), but the existing alt text contains mostly info that a typical Wikipedia reader won't know from the image. For the map, please see WP:ALT#Maps for a guideline and examples. For the lead image, please imagine that you're describing the image to a non-expert over the telephone. Eubulides (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment. How do you like the current text? Ucucha 22:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The alt text for the mandibles is good; thanks. For the map, though, "Map of South America marked by red and blue colors." doesn't tell the visually impaired reader what a sighted reader can see at a glance, for example, that the current range is roughly coterminous with Uruguay. Again, please see WP:ALT#Maps. Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Revised the map alt again to say where the red and blue is. Is that sufficient? Thanks, Ucucha 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reeds is a DAB page.
    • First of all, thanks for your comments. On the "reed" link: My source only talks about "reed", not about the specific kind of reed. I could link to reed bed, but that is not completely appropriate as the link does not refer to the habitat, but to the individual plants. I would think that most people know what "reed" is, so I deleted the link.
  • The only(!) ext link is dead, you probably need to update the link
    • Wow, IUCN apparently changed all their link locations overnight. I fixed this one; we'll probably need a bot to do that across all the many articles which also link to the Red List. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • still didn't work. you need to be careful to link to the full details page with iucn, now done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it does work, but so does the link you edited in, so that doesn't matter. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Frietas ref, the families should not be italicised
    • I know it is wrong, but it is what the title of the article is. I already placed a "sic" in hidden text to indicate that. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please indicate the languages of the non-English refs
  • Any reason why the publication names are not italicised?
    • I see that as unnecessary formatting. It's in keeping with the house style of journals like American Museum Novitates. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that was the case, just checking it wasn't an oversight. The only requirement is for consistency, so no problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of red-linked technical terms, eg lophodont. You need to either write something for the link to go to, or explain the terms in the text, or remove the redlink if its already explained. Conversely, why do common words like "fur" need a link, or even worse, a redlink (tufts of hair)
    • Lophodont is now explained. I believe all other technical terms that need it also have an explanation. "Tufts of hair" links to the specific anatomical term for these tufts, "ungual tuft", which will one day get an article and, I think, merit a link. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It now says "the palate ... is perforated near the third molars by conspicuous posterolateral palatal pits." Doesn't that make it clear enough what those pits are? In a couple of other articles, I used something like "PPPs, perforations of the palate near the third molar", but I think the sentence flows better like this. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The karyotype is 2n = 52, FN = 58 and consists mostly of acrocentric or telocentric autosomes I shouldn't have to read another article to make sense of this. Are we talking about the number of chromosome pairs? What's FN? What's an autosome (no link) what's metacentric (no link)?
    • I rewrote that paragraph now. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It builds nests up to 1.5 metres (5 ft) above the water, similar to those of Holochilus Strangely, I don't know what a Holochilus nest looks like (must have missed that lesson), please describe.
    • The intention of that was not actually to enable people to understand what the nest of the either of the two looks like, but only to provide the notable fact that these two animals build nests which are similar in many respects. I clarified that now by taking the similarity part out to the next sentence. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said that, do we know what the nest looks like? It's supported by reeds, so is it above the ground? Is it open or enclosed? Is it made from reeds, twigs or what? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a long quote in Spanish about this in Voss and Carleton (p. 34), but I couldn't make too much sense of it. I'll see what I can do. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, it would be good to have a bit more about lifestyle, and nests are usually easier than obscure mating behaviour Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a little more. There's no information, unfortunately, on what it actually does in these nests. I don't think a lot of them would fit in. Ucucha 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardinas 1995, at least, has on-line text. Can you please check if any other papaers can be linked
    • Almost all do. I provided links now. It's funny that this article is now actually the top search result in Google for a number of the article titles of the references. Ucucha 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - all the new links checked with the linkchecker tool except iucn, although it does actually work. Can you add to the Steppan ref that it requires a subscription please?Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did so, and same for the other ones which are not open access. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the minor issues outstanding above, I have no other specific issues. I'm not far off supporting, but I still have some nagging doubts about the accessibility to someone lacking a scientific background. I'll wait a couple of days and have another read through, and see if there are any comments in the meantime. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I've tried as I could to avoid making the article too inaccessible for non-specialists, but I'm open to any suggestions for further improvement. Ucucha 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. They're describing both Holochilus and Lundomys nests together, which are similar but may not be identical. They mention nests 2 to 3 m above the ground, for example, but the quote in Voss and Carleton (1993, p. 34) says 1.5 m, and I am more inclined to believe the original source. I'll see what I can make of it later today. Ucucha 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. One danger of using the wildly inaccurate convert template is that you can end up with nonsense like 9 to 11 centimetres (4 to 4 in). Please recalculate by hand or replace with 3.5 to 4.3
  • Changed to "about 4 in". Ucucha 12:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Sources look good but you need to italicise your journal titles and put article titles in quotation marks.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for having a look at the links. As far as I am aware, I do not need to use any particular style of citation as long as the style is consistent within the article. As I mentioned above, the style I use is consistent with what journals in the field do. Ucucha 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is an image available of a living animal? Its preservation status in the infobox indicates that it is not rare, endangered or extinct. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there is not, and actually it is fairly exceptional that we could get as much as an image of the skull. Ucucha 12:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I read that it is rarely encountered (the reason for no images perhaps?), could that be added to the first line of the lead ... 'a rarely encountered rodent species ...'? I think that 'taxonomic' could be wikilinked, this would explain the section header of 'Taxonomy' as I (as a person who knows very little about biology) did not know what it meant, I looked it up using the search box. The only other suggestion I can think of is the use of sub-headers in the text for readability if that could be achieved. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. Some of the reasons both for the lack of photos and for its apparent rarity may be that it is active at night, has a limited distribution, doesn't live in a very accessible habitat, and is probably fairly difficult to distinguish from Holochilus brasiliensis in a photograph. I would prefer not to put the "rarely encountered" bit in the lead, because its apparent rarity may actually only be the result of insufficient effort to locate it, as the text explains. I think it would be misleading to say that it is rare without this bit of context.
  • I wikilinked "taxonomy" in the lead.
  • The article is not that long, so I don't think section headers are that important. Also, I can see few other ways to divide the long sections (Taxonomy and Description) than by creating a separate subsection for each paragraph, which I don't think is appropriate. Ucucha 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, it is your call. I tried some headers in my sandbox [2] to see how it would look, not technically correct headings perhaps (and one latin name spelt incorrectly I notice, apologies!) but I did manage to divide some related paragraphs. This section of an article recently passed FAC with many paragraph sub-headers, although it could be said that the need for them was greater there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also tried something like that (didn't save it, though), but the problems I see with it are that "Reclassification" is not a completely accurate summary of what happened (it was discovered again independently, not reclassified, by Hershkovitz) and that, to me at least, your organization of the "Description" section suggests that the first paragraph is a summary of the following three subsections, which it is not.
  • I think a comparison to the Rolls-Royce FA you mention reinforces my point: it only has one-paragraph sections where information relevant to the article is relatively limited ("Derby" there, "Natural history" and "Conservation status" in Lundomys), but still uses long sections where appropriate (the "Supercharger" sub-subsection, which is about as long as the "Taxonomy" section in Lundomys). Ucucha 16:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comments illustrate the problems every attempt to insert subsections into this article. When there is consensus that subsections are needed here, I will insert them; but I feel that they are not needed and hard to insert in an accurate way. Ucucha 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments I'll begin a lookover and make any straightforward changes (feel free to revert if I change the meaning!). Looks good but the clear challenge here is the balance between plain English and exactness of meaning. If we can reduce technical words and make it more accessible then this is desirable Good work in trying to reconcile some plain and technical english - a very tricky task! :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...recognized five synapomorphies for the group --> "recognized five (common) features unique to the group" I was thinking that "synapomorphies" is a pretty esoteric word to the non-taxonomist. However, it is important not to change or lose meaning.
..in the morphology of the first lower molar --> "in the shape of the first lower molar" (any meaning lost by this use of a plainer word?)
Any plainer English conversions of anatomical bits in the Description section would be a bonus :)

Overall good work, and should pass this FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! With the synapomorphies, we have the problem that they are not unique to oryzomyines: there is some homoplasy, with Reithrodon also lacking the suspensory process and various akodontines and others also lacking the gall bladder. I could replace "synapomorphies" with "shared derived features", but I'm not sure whether someone who doesn't know what a synapomorphy is is any more likely to know what "derived" means in this context.
I've attempted several other changes to make the text less jargon-ridden. I didn't say "shape", because that to me refers to the actual outline of the molar (whether it's broad at the front or narrow, for example), but did get rid of the "morphology". Ucucha 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Lundomys distribution.png - Please add a source for this diagram to the image description page. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it good now? If not, what specifically is the problem with the sourcing? Ucucha 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine now. I've stricken my oppose. Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, an image of the skin does in fact exist, thanks to the Smithsonian. I uploaded it as a fair use image and it's in the article now. Ucucha 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lundomys skin USNM.jpg - Please add the name of the copyright owner to the fair use rationale. Your explanation of why the fair use image is justified is convincing to me. To make it super-duper strong, however, you might add a source for your statement on the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your further comments. I added to the file description page that it is (C) Smithsonian Institution and added some sources to my comment on the talk page. Ucucha 01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now started a threat at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content about images like this one, which may result in the skin image being deleted from the article. Ucucha 13:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support seems perfectly fine to me, i do have some experience in rating articles :) . ZooPro 13:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I do agree that the jargon could be cut down a little, but overall, this is an excellent example of getting a lot out of a little for a Wikipedia article. If only there were a few dozen more contributors like you, Ucucha… innotata (Talk | Contribs) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: very good use of WP:RED; when jargon terms are redlinked, they are defined in text. Please do one more check for WP:NBSPs between numbers and measurement units. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I fixed the NBSPs. Ucucha 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lundomys/archive1&oldid=1146349767"