Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marsh rice rat/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 Karanacs 13:45, 6 April 2010 [1].

---

Marsh rice rat

Marsh rice rat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Ucucha 12:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Marsh rice rat/archive1

This is the common rice rat of the United States, and much more is known of it than of any other rice rat I have brought to FAC so far. The article comprehensively covers the information of major secondary sources and the many papers that have been published on this species and is part of a planned featured topic on its genus, Oryzomys. I am looking forward to your reviews and comments. Ucucha 12:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, RATS! This one looks like a cutie. I'll look forward to reading the article. Meanwwhile:

no dabs.

several red links, one forbidden.

several brown links indicate some kinds of problems or access issues. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I looked at all the links earlier, and while there are various weird things going on, they all seem to work. Ucucha 15:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments ...sigh, where’s my ferret. I fixed a few presumed typos, but some niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I changed "clean" back to "cleanly", which is an existing word and the intended meaning here.

• Commensal needs link in lead

• Done.

• the marsh rice rat is a medium-sized rodent that resembles common rats. For consistency, the common rat

• Used this because it refers to both the black and the brown rat, but changed anyway.

• builds nests of sedge and grass and occasionally runways. Reads oddly, I’d put the runway first

• The problem with that is that it would read like the runways are made of sedge and grass.

• less brownish less brown?

• Yes.

• Carnivorans is this a real word?

• Yes, it refers to members of the order Carnivora, as opposed to "carnivore" which refers to any animal that eats meat. I put in a link.

• contain much less dimethylsulphoniopropionate significance? Is it toxic, unpleasant tasting or what?

• I've created a redirect, but changed to AE anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; hadn't noticed that the paper I got the name from used British English. They hypothesize that it is some sort of signaling molecule that herbivores don't like. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 11:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No further issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support and Comment "Entepicondylar foramen" link is red. I don't think it is "bad" but it doesn't looks good to me. Other than that a very good and easily read article even for somebody like me who knew nothing of rats beforehand! --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (I placed your "support" at the start of the line per FAC instructions.) Thanks for the support. There's a lot of anatomical terms I have to write on sometime, and this foramen is among them. I don't think the redlink makes it hard to understand the sentence where it occurs, but I agree that the link would be better blue. Ucucha 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah thanks, still new to this. If it is going to be written about sometime it is agreeable to keep on the page. Striking comment.

• Support - Well done, Ucucha! Solejheyen (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORTComments Lovely article. My comments are addressed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Several predators prey...this sounds redundant to me.
    • "Several animals prey" now.
  • Three years later, Spencer Fullerton Baird argued that the referral of the species to Arvicola was erroneous and introduced a new generic name for the marsh rice rat, Oryzomys, which was from then on recognized either as a full genus or as a subgenus of the now-defunct genus Hesperomys.[22] "Oryzomys" combines the Greek oryza "rice" and mys "mouse" and refers to the marsh rice rat's habit of eating rice.[21] Since the 1890s, Oryzomys has been universally recognized as a distinct genus, with the marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) as its type species.[23] This first sentence in this set of sentences is very confusing. Perhaps end at Oryzomys, which combines the Greek orzya (rice) and mys (mouse) and refers to the marsh rice rat's diet of rice.
    • Question, though: was the name recognized as a full genus or a subgenus of the nonw defunct genus Hesperomys until the 1890s? or is it still ? In which case, the last sentence is confusing. You see my problem?
      • I reorganized the paragraph.
  • what does less brown mean? If my hair is less brown, does that mean it is more blonde? More black? More gray? (well, yes, that, but...)
    • It comes pretty directly from the source, but another part of that paper makes it clearer. The marsh rice rat is more gray.
  • just a comment, the chipmunk article doesn't have an explanation of cheek pouches either.
    • So much still to be done
  • Many of these characters are common adaptations to life in the water in oryzomyines
    • shouldn't oryzomyines be in italics? and shouldn't characters be characteristics?
      • I replaced it with the slightly more precise "traits". Oryzomyines doesn't need italics, as it is an informal term, and we don't italicize names above the genus.
  • with those from southern Florida (coloratus) brighter than those from the center of the state (natator) with those from southern florida...being brighter (parallel construction).
    • Really? The sentence sounds fine to me even without that, but I made the change anyway.
  • I would call this color a red grizzle, or a brown grizzle. See Border Terrier. It looks like the hair is several colors along the strand. Is that right?
    • Possibly; I have tried to follow the sources in the terms described. The third picture is also a Florida rice rat, and it looks rather yellowish than reddish to me, but we'd better use what the people who studied variation in this animal wrote. Different color bands may well be present, but the sources I read didn't mention them.
  • Sigmodontinae... italicize?
    • No, it's a taxon above the genus.
  • a fleshy process... what is a fleshy process on the penis? I guess the question is also what is an urethral process?
    • According to Weksler's figure, it's a little flap on the urethral process, which is a bigger flap somewhere in the top of the penis. I added a little clarification.
  • According to Goldman, Florida animals (coloratus and natator) generally have the largest and broadest skulls, and western specimens (texensis) have somewhat smaller and narrower skulls than those from the east (nominate palustris). have smaller and narrower (not somewhat). Do Florida animals not qualify as animals from the east? or do you mean such states as South Carolina or North Carolina? The states in the northern part of the animal's range?
    • "animals from the east" there does not include those from Florida; clarified.
  • Population dynamics, you might start with the typical density, then mention that weather may influence, then the Everglades (where weather did influence), and Louisiana.
    • Repeated rewriting made that paragraph a bit incoherent. I think it's better now.

doesn't DMSP taste good? Why don't they want it? (or do they?)

• • • The source doesn't really say; nothing definite is known and it says nothing else about rice rats than what is there already.
  • I think they would be --on-- plantations.
    • Sure.
  • do you think you have enough sources?
    • When I am quite honest—I'm hoping hard this gets promoted before Sasata comes along to do a literature check, because otherwise I will probably have to add at least a few hundred more.
• this is fascinating, and most of my comments are quibbles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, which helped improve the prose greatly. Ucucha 03:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.