Talk:? Nycticebus linglom/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I'm claiming this review before someone else does. Quick question, though: Are you planning to take it to FAC after this?

Reviewer: –  VisionHolder « talk » 21:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No—much too poorly known. I haven't been able to find any mention of it in any source other than Mein and Ginsburg (1997). However, I would appreciate comments that go beyond the GA criteria: I don't think this should be an FA, but I do want the article to be as good as possible. Thanks for taking up the review! Ucucha 00:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * N/A
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * N/A
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Closing comments: Very nicely written article, especially for being so technical. You're getting better and better at writing about teeth! If only I could pick up the skill... I only had two very minor (non-GA) thoughts:
 * Do these teeth have specimen numbers?
 * I think it was T Li 41, but I'm not sure, and don't have the full paper with me right now. Do you think it merits inclusion?
 * Why not? Listing the specimen names and where they're housed (with the year given) could be helpful to some readers. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 03:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll add it next time I can read the paper (I don't entirely trust my memory, and I'm not sure where the thing is housed). Ucucha 03:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was indeed T Li 41. I don't know where the specimen is, though; it says the micromammals were temporarily stored at the University of Lyon, but they may well have landed somewhere else by now. Ucucha 20:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, great job! –  VisionHolder « talk » 02:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please use WebCite to archive your abstract.
 * Done.


 * Missed a quick point: Your last article that started with a "?" didn't have a space between the question mark and the name, but this article does. What are we standardizing on? –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! The rodent (?Oryzomys pliocaenicus) is referred to in the sources without the space, and this one does have it in the sources (which I suspect is because question marks are spaced in French, but it is spaced even in the English abstract). I thought it best to follow the sources, but I don't particularly care if we decide to uniformly space or not-space these question marks. Ucucha 03:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think conformity is good, but standardization can be difficult to enforce. I'll leave it up to you. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 03:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)