Talk:Pseudoryzomys/GA1

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

I will begin reviewing this article. Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I often do small edits with edit summaries as explanations, so check them if you have trouble following why I might have done what I've done. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead should be a summary of salient points of the article. As it stands it seems to focus overly much on taxonomy (granted it is complicated!) I just added a sentence to finish the balancing.


 * I can see your point, but note that the lead also includes the most important points about distribution, habitat, and morphology. What about adding the following:
 * Specific characters it shares with Holochilus and Lundomys (webbing between the digits, reduction in complexity of the dentition)
 * Some additional general morphology, perhaps body weight and relative tail length.
 * Conservation status.
 * Ucucha 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (Now done - Ucucha 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Is there any more specific meaning by using the word "pelage" over "coat" or "fur"?


 * No. Ucucha 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The first two paras of the  Taxonomy are tricky to navigate as there are quite alot of tricky taxonomic changes to include. Not a deal-breaker for GA but section might need tweaking for FAC. I have added a couple of commas here and there to see if it helps.


 * I tried to make it clear by reviewing the histories of the two names it got in separate paragraphs and then reviewing their shared history in the third paragraph and beyond. I am happy to have this section improved; I want to have an article that is as good as possible and not merely one that is good enough for GA, and any suggestions you have for achieving that end would be welcome. Ucucha 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * phyllotine and oryzomyine need some explanation.


 * Both are tribes of Sigmodontinae. I added "of rodents" to "phyllotine group" now; is that clear enough?


 * but declined to formally place it in Oryzomyini in the absence of explicit phylogenetic justification of such a placement. - needs explaining.


 * The problem was that Oryzomyini was basically a collection of genera that some people thought looked pretty similar, without any phylogenetic justification. Voss didn't want to perpetuate that problem. I think it's too much for this article to explain that in detail. I'll try to think of a suitable replacement for it. (Now done - Ucucha 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * mesoloph(id) on its molars - a what?


 * It's a ridge on the molar, and some authors have considered its presence in oryzomyines and thomasomyines versus its absence in akodontines, phyllotines, and others to be very important. It is somewhat explained in the next sentences, but I agree that this may be made more clear. (Now done - Ucucha 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Some clarification of terms in the Description section would be helpful, including alisphenoid strut, tegmen tympani, zygomatic plates, posterolateral palatal pits, anteroloph, posteroflexid. This might be a little tricky but a few words would be helpful. Inline references in paras 2 and 3 would be good.


 * As you say, it is tricky. I will try to give some explanations for them and also add the refs. Ucucha 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (Now done, except for posteroflexid which was already explained - Ucucha 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Certain bats are also smaller and paler in the Chaco region, which includes much of Paraguay - bats? I'm lost as to why bats are mentioned here.


 * As an analogy: these species show the same kind of variation as Pseudoryzomys does. I think I clarified that now. Ucucha 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article needs something on aspects of behaviour, including diet and hunting habits (if nothing is known, this needs recording), and breeding/nesting. Do we have any info on predators which eat it?


 * As far as I know, nothing is known. It has been found in owl pellets from time to time, so that actually merits inclusion. I'll see what I can do. Ucucha 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (Now done - Ucucha 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC))


 * A range map would be nice.


 * That is true. I have little experience with making such maps well; do you have any suggestions as to how best to do that? Ucucha 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The IUCN has a, but of course that's copyrighted. Also, it appears to be incomplete, as P. simplex has also been recorded from Misiones in northeastern Argentina. Ucucha 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * References look okay.

Overall, a bit of work to do. Good luck. I can't help with content but am free to answer questions and help out where I can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I addressed most of your concerns. The range map still needs to be added, though, and there are some places in the text where I may not quite have been able to solve the problems you saw. Also, the "Distribution and ecology" section has now become something of a catch-all; I'll need to find some more logical organization for that. Ucucha 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've reached GA level. I will update and post some further notes on the general talk page itself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)