Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macrotarsomys petteri/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 18:13, 1 May 2011 [1].

Macrotarsomys petteri edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ucucha 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This rat has only once been collected live, but we know from subfossils that quite recently it was fairly widely distributed on Madagascar. Its dramatic range shift may have been the result of climate change, and even its current tiny range is threatened by human activities. The article covers what little is known about the species and underwent a rigorous GA review by Casliber. Thanks for your reviews! Ucucha 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source/Image review

  • Goodman 2010 in References, seems to be 2008 in Literature
  • Images are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Goodman corrected. Thanks for the review. Ucucha 02:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My main concerns were addressed. Comments—It looks pretty good to me, albeit brief. Here's a few observations:

  • The ordering of the lead seems backwards. I would think you'd want to describe the creature before detailing why it has had a shift in distribution.
    • Lead rearranged. Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Goodman, Vasey and Burney 2006 in the "Literature cited" section but not in the References? Can this source be used?
    • It is in the references (numbers 11, 14, 15, and 16). Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, sorry.—RJH (talk)
  • Isn't there an image of the living specimen that could be presented? If not, how about a sketch?
    • None are freely available. Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently this article doesn't appear to satisfy the WP:GNG requirement for independent/secondary sources. You may want to hunt up a couple of such sources to keep this out of WP:AfD. (I know, this seems daft. But it does happen. :-)
    • I have no plans to do anything to fulfill silly rules or appease people who think they can improve Wikipedia by deleting the most comprehensive freely available account of this species in existence. In any case, it already cites independent sources (none were written by the rats, as far as I'm aware) and secondary ones (Garbutt, 2007 and Goodman, 2008). Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I find the whole issue of "independence" to be a tad subjective.
  • FWIW, it's standard practice on Wikipedia that all animal and plant species are notable by definition. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be. I know it's true of geographical locations. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Ucucha 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forêt des Mikea — why the French name instead of the English used in the site's own article ?
  • Many English sources use the French name. However, we decided with the Mikea Forest article that the English name was common enough, so I've also changed it here. Ucucha 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, the only differences fromm ingens is being a bit bigger and a different tail tuft colour. Is that all? If so, why is this split from ingens on the basis of one specimen and some bones?
  • It's pretty significantly bigger, actually (body weight is about 5 standard deviations above the average for M. ingens), and the tail tuft is quite distinctive (Goodman & Soarimalala, 2005: fig. 3). Ucucha 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other small mammals known from the Forêt des Mikea... — can you clarify the significance of this with regard to the rat?
  • It's placing it in the context of the small-mammal community it's part of. Ucucha 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''trap-nights — Is it actually worth red-linking? The concept is self-evident and barely merits an article.
  • Removed.
  • birds of prey — link?
  • I think we can assume readers of this article know what a bird of prey is. Thanks for your review! Ucucha 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've just been asked to link it in Fiji Parrotfinch, where it's even more likely that a reader will know. Not enough of an issue to withhold support though, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with regard to Criterion 1a, but I would prefer "in addition to" instead of "coupled with". Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I simply changed it to "and", which seems even better to me. Ucucha 12:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support was pretty good at GA review and I can't think of any other tweaks to improve it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The image caption says "Range of Macrotarsomys petteri". Image captions are useful when people that aren't accessing images. It might help to be more explicit and add something like '...in Madagascar'. This would give a better idea of the image when you haven't seen it.
    • Added "in Madagascar". Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image caption says "Red: find of a living animal; green: subfossil material; blue: subfossil material". This single coding method isn't accessible, and it has a notorious combination of red and green. It might help if the primary coding method used shape, e.g. squares, triangles, circles. It might also help if the relevant region was a higher proportion of the image.
    • I'll look into it. What color combinations do you think would work best? I'll have to look into SVG syntax to create different shapes. Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says "will likely qualify". I think that 'will probably qualify' is better. Even better still, 'may qualify' has the same meaning and is more plain English.
    • Used "will very probably qualify". "May qualify" seems to weak; the source says it "almost certainly" will. Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says "The Mikea Forest is one of the largest remaining forests of southwestern Madagascar, but it is not protected and is threatened by logging, pasture, and conversion to agricultural land.". I think that sentence is quite a lot to take in and might be better as two or perhaps three.
    • I think the length of the sentence is fine; it's not even longer than the preceding one. Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Ucucha 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no redirect at Petter's Big-footed Mouse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (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/Macrotarsomys_petteri/archive1&oldid=1078802776"