Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eremoryzomys/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 00:34, 21 April 2010 [1].

Eremoryzomys edit

Eremoryzomys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Ucucha 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Like Mindomys, this is a poorly known but genetically isolated rice rat, from Peru this time. In fact, we know even less about this species (if it is one species) than about Mindomys; taken together, only five pages or so have ever been written about it, and as far as I know, only one picture (of a detail of the skull) has ever been published of it. This article summarizes what little information there is and I hope it does it in a clear and accessible way. Ucucha 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There is only one species (Eremoryzomys polius) right? If that isn't the case the sentence "A large, long-tailed rice rat, Eremoryzomys polius has gray fur and short ears." in the lead feels awkward to me.
    Yes, only one. Why is that awkward? I don't see it.
    Oh, missed a part in the sentence there should have been "If that is the isn't case the sentence "A large, long-tailed rice rat, Eremoryzomys polius has gray fur and short ears." in the lead feels awkward to me." Thus it is no problem. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikilink IUCN perhaps? Or just use the whole name.
    Linked. I prefer to use the abbreviation, because it's far more prevalent in the sources.
    Yes, you're more likely to hear or see the abbreviation so it probably better to use that one as you say.
  3. There is a lot of red links, especially in the skull section. For me personally that does not look good. Is all of them future articles or could some be delinked? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I believe all merit articles. I don't think the reader's understanding of the article is affected by the red links, but I am working slowly on making them blue (there are five or so other links in that section for which I wrote the article over the last few months). Thanks for your comments! Ucucha 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Me neither but I believe many just add red links without thinking if they will one day become an article. You obviously do that and thus it will not be a problem. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is the "<" and ">" supposed to be there in <www.iucnredlist.org> in the Pacheco et al book? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's intentional. It's the way the IUCN wants us to cite them. Ucucha 21:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Esuzu - This article fulfils all of the FA criteria. I believe it is as extensive as possible during the circumstances. It's a shame there isn't a image of the rat but unfortunately we'll have to survive without it. Good job! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ucucha 11:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think I might have omitted the technical term "rostrum" in the lead, but that's just my preference Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did that because "front part", the non-technical term I use to translate "rostrum", is vague, whereas "rostrum" is well-defined, so this makes the wording more precise. Ucucha 11:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - why is there no picture of the subject? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my nomination statement. No free images are available. Ucucha 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who published it? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weksler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 296:fig. 20D. That image is of a small part of the skull only, though, and it wouldn't be of much use even in the unlikely case that the AMNH would release it. Ucucha 21:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that all seems in order FAC3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I couldn't find much to nitpick about. Here are a few comments: Sasata (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…in the dry upper valley of the Río Marañón" since we're speaking English, shouldn't it be the Marañón River (like the Wiki article is titled?) Why not tell the reader it's in Peru?
    • Thanks for the review. Weksler et al. and Musser and Carleton used the "Río" form, but I agree that "River" is marginally better. Good point about Peru; forgot to mention that in the lead.
  • "but may yet contain more than one species." is the word "yet" necessary?
    • It emphasizes that even though its distribution is so small, there may still be more than one species.
  • link Habitat destruction in lead?
    • Yes.
  • "… he was unable to find any species <that was> closely related to O. polius …" better?
    • Yes.
  • "The fur is grayish above and lighter below; there, the hairs are gray at the bases but white at the tips." Not clear to what the "there" refers: is is the hair above or below?
    • Clarified.
  • "A strong jugal bone is present" in what way is it "strong"?
    • The source says "jugal present and large". This means that the bones that make up the front (maxillary) and back (squamosal) parts of the zygomatic arch don't overlap when seen from the side, as they do in most oryzomyines. Interestingly, I now notice that Weksler (2006) scored Eremoryzomys as having a small jugal, with overlapping maxillary and squamosal bones. I am inclined to favor Weksler et al.'s (2006) later and more detailed information, but will put the discrepancy in a footnote. Ucucha 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. So far, the prose is quite good, but I have found a few issues: The WP:LEAD of this article is only eight sentence long, one of which is only four words long. Please add to the lead.

Extended.
Thanks for extending the lead.

"Clade D was supported by two shared derived (synapomorphic) molecular characters and by seven morphological synapomorphies—the tail has a different color above and below; the parietal bone extends to the side of the skull; the incisive foramina (openings in the palate) extend back between the first molars; the posterolateral palatal pits (perforations of the palate near the third molars) are complex; the sphenopalatine vacuities (openings in the mesopterygoid fossa, the gap behind the end of the palate) are large; the pattern of the arterial circulation in the head is derived; and the posteroloph (a crest at the back) is present on the third upper molar."

This 105-word sentence is far too long for the average reader to parse. The sentence which directly follows it:
Rather than just counting the number of words between two periods, please consider the sentence structure in these cases, which I think is such that the length is not problematic. Ucucha 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started counting because, as a reader, I began to wonder when the sentence would end. I understand that the first part of the sentence briefly discusses shared characteristics, and that the second part of the sentence is a list of the seven morphological synapomorphies, but do not agree that both subjects need to be welded together in a mega-sentence. These are called "snakes", and should be cut up when possible. It is possible here. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would the alternative? I could replace the dashes and semicolons with periods, but that would lose the relation between the phrases and I think obfuscate rather than clarify the passage. Ucucha 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Two other molecular synapomorphies supported the clade of all members of clade D except O. polius, coupled with three morphological traits—in these species, but not in O. polius, the first upper molar has an additional small root at the outer (labial) side; the first lower molar has additional small roots; and the second upper molar has the mesoflexus (one of the valleys between the cusps and crests) divided in two."

...is 72 words long. These sentences are far too long for most readers to comfortably follow, particularly when you're using technical terms. The average reader will end up skimming this material, which is bad this early on in the article.

"In Osgood's original two specimens, an old and an adult female, tail length..."

The second one was an adult female; it's not clear what the first one was, except old?
The construction is naturally a shortening of "an old female and an adult female"; is that really unclear? Ucucha 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T'was to me. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.

More later. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The skull section is quite technical, and could use an illustration showing the cranial anatomy, so that readers who do not understand the technical terms can figure it out. Most readers won't be med students, and although you have helpfully linked many technical terms (which helps!), you may lose some readers without some kind of illustration. See FA Massospondylus#Cranial_anatomy for an example of what I mean.

There are no images of the skull of Eremoryzomys, and images of other rice rats' skulls wouldn't be too helpful. I think I may create an article on the oryzomyine skull to do this, using some of our better skull images, like those of Mindomys, for diagrams. Ucucha 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The narrowest part of the interorbital region (located between the eyes), is to the front and the region's margins exhibit strong beading."

The comma here is superfluous.
Removed.

The article only cites five sources, one from 1913 and the rest from 2005 or later. I understand that the genus was only established in 2006, but there is almost a hundred year gap between your sources. Was the (then-)species so neglected during those 92 years that literally nothing on it was published? The curious reader is left wondering what happened during those 92 years. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there are no other sources that do anything other than list it or reiterate information present in other sources. Amazing, isn't it? No one had a clue what it was related to, and it seems no one tried. Ucucha 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and one very minor prose issue: ...so that each of the three upper molars has two roots on the outer side and one on the inner side and each of the lower molars has one root... should be: so each of the....or and. I read only for the prose and comprehensibility. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Not sure what you're getting at there—exactly what part do you want replaced? Ucucha 22:17, 20 April 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/Eremoryzomys/archive1&oldid=1054475392"