Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oryzomys peninsulae/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 SandyGeorgia 23:33, 23 October 2010 [1].

Oryzomys peninsulae edit

Featured article candidates/Oryzomys peninsulae/archive1

Nominator(s): Ucucha 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little-known rice rat with a very restricted distribution. It's probably not around any more, but even that is uncertain. Sasata GA reviewed it some time ago. I am looking forward to any reviews. Ucucha 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review Two US PD-old, one PD-USFED ( Itweaked the description), one self-made derivative of a Commons licensed image, no issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Why the redlinking in footnote 2?
Publisher location missing for Hall 1981

Otherwise all sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked to doesn't exist yet, but the topic is worthy of an article.
Added. Ucucha 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~ No problem with the text, but i don't like the use of references within footnotes, especially the weird-looking redlinked one. So for example I'd have footnote 1 as The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature mandates that specific names first published with a ligature such as æ are to be corrected (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999, Art. 32.5.2) and footnote 2 as Incorrect subsequent spelling (Alvarez-Castañeda, 1994, p. 99; Carleton and Arroyo-Cabrales, 2009, p. 122) I don't know if your version accords with MoS, but it's very clunky. FWIW, I wouldn't red-link anything in footnotes or refs. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I converted the references to parentheticals. I don't know what the problem is with red links in footnotes, but the link is no longer red. Ucucha 14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, great solution to a red link {: No other issues, so change to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ - I think the article is highly polished. A few minor things: Sasata (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm satisfied that the article meets FAC criteria, especially after the recent tweaking flurry! (I was the GA reviewer) Sasata (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Oryzomys peninsulae is part of the genus Oryzomys" Seems redundant to mention this, as it's something the reader would already know if they read the article up to this point. Also, Oryzomys was linked in the last paragraph.
- Removed.
link section, classification
- Linked classification. I think we (or at least, someone else and I) discussed Oryzomys sections before; there is really nothing to link to (section (botany) won't do) and this usage of "section" seems peculiar to the genus.
the Musser (2005) reference has a mixture of capitalization in the title
- Fully title cased now. Thanks for the review and the copyediting fixes. Ucucha 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have read this and find it meets the FA criteria fully, as well as being an nteresting read, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:05, 15 October 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.