Talk:Akodon spegazzinii/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking up the review; I'm looking forward to your comments. Ucucha 21:53, 5 March 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):
 * Taxonomy, first paragraph, "an additional species" used twice in two sentences. A bit redundant...
 * Changed one.
 * The lead says "yellowish to reddish." while the Description section says "reddish to yellowish brown." First, this should probably be made consistent. Second, is this reddish-brown to yellowish-brown or reddish-red to yellowish-brown?
 * Inserted "brown" in lead.
 * Distribution and ecology, "from a latest Pleistocene (Lujanian) paleontological site". What is "a latest...site"?
 * It's a site from the youngest (i.e., latest, most recent) Pleistocene; now hopefully clarified.
 * Distribution and ecology, "dominant species of sigmodontine rodent." Link sigmodontine?
 * Sigmodontinae is already linked some way up, but I don't see any problem with re-linking it here.
 * Conservation status, "However, both Akodon oenos and Akodon leucolimnaeus are listed as "Data Deficient" with a trend of declining populations; they are said to be threatened by agricultural development." If A. oenos and A. leucolimnaeus are the same species as A. spegazzinii, then how is it that they have different IUCN designations?
 * The Red List assessments date from before the taxonomic revisions that brought us the current concept of A. spegazzinii. Ucucha 23:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Read up to Description section, will finish up the review in a bit. Looking good so far. Dana boomer (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now finished. Overall a nice article. A few minor prose issues, so putting the article on hold to allow time to deal with these. Dana boomer (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! The changes look good, so I'm passing the article. As a final comment, it might be worth making it explicit that the IUCN Red List was created before the most recent taxonomic revisions, but that's really up to you. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Since none of the sources explicitly mention this, I'd prefer to leave it implied. Ucucha 13:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)