Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Earless Water Rat/archive1

Earless Water Rat
I think this article is comprehensive and good enough to be a FA. It contains about all information that has ever been published on the subject - which isn't that much - and it cites its sources throughout the article. There are no freely licensed pictures of this animal as far as I know, so I couldn't include one. Ucucha 12:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, if it will interest anyone, this is very clearly a self-nomination. I translated it from the Dutch nl:Moncktonbeverrat, to which I'm the only substantial editor. Ucucha 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I feel sorry for this (as this directly isn't a reason to oppose), but I have to oppose this nomination. The problem I have is with red-links. Agreed that it is not a criteria, but in this article, not having articles on topics mentioned in critical places (including the lead) clearly hampers understanding of the subject, thus compromising on comprehensiveness. If it is not possible to have articles on those topics, they can be mentioned in short in the article itself, though I would prefer the former. I also find that the history section is very small. The references can also be standardised using one of the cite templates. Dash usage should be standardized per WP:DASH. The article doesn't mention how was the name of the species arrived at (taxonomy). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. A guideline for FACs is that they need a picture on the top right corner of the article about the topic. While there may not be free ones, are there Fair Use pictures? A picture of the rat is more or less needed. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two images I know of. The first one is in Flannery's Mammals of New Guinea, the second in the article about the second specimen found (Tate 1951b; see the references section of the article for exact references). The Tate article is also at . I don't know what exactly are the guidelines for fair use, but this one should be used if possible, since I won't be able to scan the Flannery image. Also, I don't know if fair use would apply at all, since the article was written by a Dutch person (myself), so Dutch copyright law (which is far more restrictive with "fair use"-like things) would apply. However, I'm not sure about this. Ucucha 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The first one is from the American Natural History Museum, right? Wouldn't that be PD, as it's a governmental organization? Anyone else know? I'm not good with images. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably it is not PD; another article (1981) has Copyright (C) American Museum of Natural History on it. Ucucha 14:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I was getting confused with the National Museum of Natural History. OK, nevermind. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't support the FA status of an article that doesn't have a picture of the thing it's describing. Also, the redlinks are a real problem here; I have no problem with one or two in an article (heck, everything is a work in progress here, right?), but this amount really detracts from the comprehensiveness.  I haven't thoroughly looked through the article, so I may have other concerns, but I cannot support until at least these initial concerns are met.  Matt Deres 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although I have myself opposed the article, I think it relevant to discuss that according to the rules, there is no need for FAs to have pictures of what they discuss. For example, Eric A. Havelock & Matthew Brettingham (both FA) don't have a picture of the person. However, you are still free to argue that having a photograph is necessary for this specific article, like I opposed it for red-links that lead to loss of comprehensiveness. Just an observation. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Understood, however my argument wasn't based on the violation of a specific must-have-picture rule, but simply that FAs are the best articles we have to offer. I would oppose both the FAs you mentioned for the same reason, unless no picture existed for Brettingham (in which case I'd oppose for lack of proper citations :-).  To my mind, an article on a tangible thing isn't complete unless a picture is present and an article can't be a FA unless it's complete.  You're certainly right to note the distinction, though. Matt Deres 03:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not having a picture is still a problem, along with copious red links. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the editors have misunderstood our concerns. We (as others seem to have agreed with me) feel that not having enough information about the topics mentioned in the article makes the article difficult to understand. Removing red-links (by removing wikilinking) wasn't what we asked for. It simply makes the task difficult for the reader and even editors who may wish to expand the articles on the topic. If you can, please address the core issue. PS: I know that its none of the editors fault that articles on topics don't exist, but I am reporting the problem I faced. While trying to make sense of the article for reviewing FAC, I was left confused as relevant articles to guide me were missing. Removing wiki-links where they should exist is simply going backwards. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many red links, and no picture. Agree with other comments here. EuroSong talk 14:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - apart from the reasons listed above the prose needs work. Lead is comprised of short choppy sentences that don't flow together. Characteristics section should probably come before the Relationships section so that the beginning of the article is in plain english before an overly technical section is delved into. Needs a see also ( and external links ) section if possible. I do like the distribution map - Peripitus (Talk) 06:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)