Talk:Transandinomys bolivaris/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Images appropriate and licensed
 * Sources RS, all links work. Could the language of the non-English sources be added please?
 * Done, 2 x Spanish.
 * lead six scientific names have been introduced for it, but their consanguinity was not documented until 1998 &mdash; unlinked "consanguinity" is a bit technical for the lead. Can names, rather than species, be consanguine anyway?
 * Changed to "common identity".

More later,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking up the review! Ucucha 11:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * described three new species of Oryzomys &mdash; described three new species of Oryzomys rice rats would help your readers a bit
 * Done, and moved the sentences around a little.
 * superciliary vibrissae (vibrissae, or whiskers, above the eyes) &mdash; since it's a gloss anyway, why not superciliary vibrissae (whiskers above the eyes)?
 * Done.
 * In the table, the n column left aligned, other data centred. Not a big deal, but why not centre this one too?
 * Actually, all captions are centered and all cells in the body are left-aligned.
 * In the lead the whiskers are 5 cm long, next time they are 50 mm. Inconsistent, esp as the lead is the only cm measurement in the article
 * Changed to mm in lead.
 * The species may be expected to reach further north and west, perhaps into Veracruz, southern Mexico, and western Venezuela &mdash; I'm not clear whether this is hypothesised actual range or predicted future expansion.
 * The former, clarified.
 * per MoS, image captions shouldn't include the article title. It's assumed they show this species unless otherwise stated
 * Changed.
 * widely distributed species with a presumably large population that is found in numerous protected areas.  &mdash; lead said it is rare, here it's widespread and numerous
 * That's part inconsistency in sources. I presume that although it is rare in any given place, it occurs in a lot of places, so the total population is still large.
 * Any predators?
 * Nothing I could find.
 * Replied above. Ucucha 15:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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: