Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oryzomys/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Oryzomys edit

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 17:14, 11 May 2010 [1].


Nominator(s): Ucucha 22:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the genus that includes four of the rice rats I've recently brought here. There are eight historically known species, five (with a little bit of hope for a sixth) of which are still around. They live in all kinds of wet habitats from New Jersey to Venezuela. This article summarizes what we know about the eight species (of which currently four are FA and four GA) and I hope will soon be the lead article of an Oryzomys featured topic. I am looking forward to all comments. Ucucha 22:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick driveby comment (I'll review properly when I get the chance): even though it would probably breach every convention of biological writing, might it be useful to have a very quick summary of how Oryzomys differs from Rattus, which I assume is what 99% of readers picture when you say "rat"? – iridescent 23:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps; I put some of that in marsh rice rat. The problem there (as with many other parts of this article) is that there is little that discusses the genus in general, so it's hard to make general statements. For example, one of the differences between the marsh rice rat and Rattus is that the upper- and underparts are more different in color in the rice rat. I think that's also true for the rest of Oryzomys, but I do not know of any source that says this for O. dimidiatus or the other rare species, let alone for the genus in general. But I'll try to see what I can do. Ucucha 23:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done; I simply limited the statement about the difference in color to the marsh rice rat and also added something about the cusps of the upper molars. Ucucha 23:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 15:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • more species may be recognized in the future in addition to the current eight. repeats number of species, why not just additional species may be recognized in the future?
    • Changed.
  • at least some species, with webbing between the toes. do you need "with"?
    • Yes, otherwise it would sound like "hind foot without ... interdigital webbing". I don't think there's any definite record that they lack it, and Sanchez et al. include the presence of webs in the diagnosis.
  • The vibrissae (whiskers) what's wrong with just the whiskers?
    • "vibrissae" is the term of the literature
  • fundamental number redlinked and unexplained
    • Reworded.
  • Support I can't find anything else to comment on other than (nitpicky) stylistic preferences in prose, so am supporting. Sasata (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from a quick read-through. More later. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…and most were at one time included in the marsh rice rat" sounds a bit odd to me… how about "were considered the marsh rice rat" (or something similar, to eliminate "included")
    • Not sure I see your problem here; your suggested wording sounds a lot more odd to me.
  • "…was soon applied to a wide range of American rodents, including over a hundred species." maybe "was soon applied to a over a hundred species of American rodents." ?
    • Yes.
  • "became more narrowly defined until its current contents were established in 2006" "contents" sound funny to me in this context… maybe "members"?
    • It's standard wording in this context; your wording would sound to me like the species were first described in 2006.
  • Does penis really need to be linked?
    • No.
  • "…(as characteristic of the Sigmodontinae)…" -> "as is" ?
    • Yes.
  • "…various kinds of wetlands, such as marshes, and rivers." second comma unneeded
    • Instead put a third kind of wetland in.
  • link gestation period
    • Done.
  • link tribe
    • Tony1 would call that a chain link: the link would be right next to the link for Oryzomyini, which links to tribe (taxonomy) right in the first line.
  • Okay, but I still think tribe should be linked somewhere in this article. Sasata (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A possible Oryzomys has been recorded from the Irvingtonian (Pleistocene) of Saskatchewan." Hey, that's my back yard! Should I be looking for rat fossils when I dig up my garden this year?
    • I would be much interested to see the fossil that record was based on, though I'm rather skeptical it's really Oryzomys. Do look for rat fossils; it's more likely you'll get Peromyscus or so than Oryzomys, though. :-)
  • "The next year, Delton Hanson and colleagues published a study using DNA sequence data to assess relationships within Oryzomys." what gene(s) did they use?
    • Cytb, IRBP, and ADH1. Added.
  • link pelage
    • Replaced with "fur" instead.
  • suggest relinking zygomatic plate in description; its previous link is way up the page
    • Done, though the next reviewer might chide me for overlinking. There are various other anatomical terms for which the same is true, by the way.
  • does anyone mention what the evolutionary advantage of a spiny penis is??
    • Not in the papers I've read. I suspect it may have something to do with getting rid of sperm from a previous mating. I guess it may also explain why female marsh rice rats don't like mating.
  • link mangrove, Andes
    • Done for mangroves; I think we can assume readers know what the Andes are, just as we assume for countries.

Thanks for reviewing. I should warn you that if you do a literature check, a lot of results won't be applicable due to the 2006 redefinition and some earlier ones—just about anything from South America applies to other genera, for example. Ucucha 18:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a cursory check for Oryzomys, which turned up almost 1300 results in the ISI Web of Knowledge. It appears all the important papers post 2006 have been included, so I'm satisfied with respect to criteria 1b/c. Sasata (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; there's nothing that I didn't understand, and nothing obviously missing that I can see. My usual biology article disclaimer, that I know nothing about rats and am taking the accuracy of all statements on faith, applies. – iridescent 00:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: minor format query: why the extra urls on the downloaded items? Otherwise, sources all look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you mean the Red List refs? That is the format they recommend for citing. Thanks for the check! Ucucha 22:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have images been reviewed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Three of the images appear in other FAs that recently passed, though; another (the skull of O. antillarum) is PD with the same rationale as one Elcobbola approved in the Mindomys FAC, and the fifth (drawing of O. molestus) is from a work published in 1904 (both of those appear in recently passed GAs). Ucucha 20:24, 10 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Oryzomys/archive1&oldid=1078804337"