Talk:Oecomys sydandersoni/GA1

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

Reviewer: –  VisionHolder  « talk »  15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments:
 * Lead: The lead seems very short. I would definitely summarize in the lead the note from the article stating: "Nothing else is known about ecology, behavior, diet, reproduction, or conservation status."  I know the material is pretty technical, so there's not much to summarize with, but please double-check that nothing else can be summarized.  And btw, the nav bar at the bottom mentions that Oryzomyini are known as "rice rats."  Should that merit a sentence in the classification, and then a quick mention in the lead?
 * I about doubled the lead in size, I think. See User talk:Ucucha (bottom post) on the "rice rats". I added a parenthetical mention in the body, but don't think it merits inclusion in the lead. Carleton et al. don't even mention "rice rat" anywhere in their article. Ucucha 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * General prose: The prose is quite dense, as I'm sure it has to be given how little is known about this species. However, given the high number of red links, it makes it very difficult to understand the details.  Is it possible summarize in parentheses what some of the terms mean?  (Probably not... I'm just asking.  I won't hold you up over it if nothing can be done.)  Given my work with subfossil lemurs, I share any frustration with the lack of good articles on cranial anatomy and dental morphology.
 * I think all technical terms are explained, though within commas rather than parentheses, which shouldn't matter much. I did another read-through and didn't see any obvious problems. Ucucha 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Measurements: The long list of measurements at the end of the Description section seems cumbersome. Could it be converted to a list or (preferably) a table?
 * Table is a good idea, and I implemented it. Ucucha 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes that you are welcome to revert if you'd prefer. Of course, you'll need a good copy edit from an expert if you plan to go further than GA. I'm also assuming that since you are so thorough about covering the available literature with my articles, that you also do the same for yours. Otherwise, the article looks good! –  VisionHolder  « talk »  15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the review. I'll probably take a bit of time to address the comments, because I have several other reviews to attend to. Ucucha 15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The changes you made were for the better. This won't go anywhere after GA, because it's so short and cannot reasonably be expanded. It'll be part of an Oecomys featured topic though - some day. :-) Ucucha 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pass with comments: Article looks better, especially with the longer lead and measurements table. Last things (not worth withholding GA over): 1) Could we add IUCN status of NE? 2) When you say, "the tail ends in a rudimentary pencil", is that a technical term? I know what you mean—the tail tapers at the end. I just thought it sounded funny, and I forgot to mention it earlier. Otherwise, good job! –  VisionHolder  « talk »  01:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't really see what IUCN status NE adds; it's not particularly informative. As for the tail, you actually did not interpret it correctly: the pencil here is a tuft of a few hairs at the tip of the tail. There's no picture of the tail in the description of sydandersoni, but you can see it in another Oecomys here. I should probably rephrase it when it is ambiguous. Ucucha 02:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)