Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Euryoryzomys emmonsae/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010.

Euryoryzomys emmonsae

 * Nominator(s): Ucucha 22:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a rice rat from some small area in the depths of Brazilian Amazonia. It took people some time to realize that it is a distinct species, so that it was only described in 1998. The article underwent a thorough GA review by Sasata; I'm looking forward to any further suggestions for improvement and other comments. (If someone wants to check for plagiarism, all the sources I used for this article happen to be accessible for free online.) Ucucha 22:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Euryoryzomys_distribution.png should identify all the colours used in the key Fasach Nua (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should it? Only the distribution of this species is relevant to this article; exactly where each of the other species occurs is less relevant. Ucucha 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If only the distribution of one species is relevant then the distribution of only one species should be given Fasach Nua (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. Ucucha 12:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:FA Criteria 3 per above Fasach Nua (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Map changed. Ucucha 21:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  Eek, another rice rat!
 * I fixed one dab (metacentric), please check, no dead links
 * Thanks.
 * In the context of this report &mdash; In this report?
 * Yes.
 * both of those &mdash; both?
 * Yes.
 * The IUCN currently lists Euryoryzomys emmonsae as "Data Deficient" because it is so poorly known. I understand this, but do we have any indication at all whether it's common in its range?
 * Neither Musser et al. (1998) nor the Red List give any explicit indication.
 * Can you name the protected area?
 * Yes, added.

 Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Ucucha 12:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No other concerns, changed to support above,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources review: Sources and citations look fine. No opportunities for spotchecking, but no reasons for concern. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support&mdash;Most of my concerns were addressed.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Comment&mdash;Overall a decent article, if a bit technical in a couple of places. I have a few concerns:
 * I'm bothered by the lack of illustrations. At least one photograph of the subject should be included for visual reference, even if it is employed under fair use.
 * I've previously attempted to illustrate a similarly poorly known rice rat with a fair-use image, but consensus was (unfortunately) that such images are not allowed under the NFCC. Incidentally, there are probably no photographs of live individuals of this species; there are only photographs of study skins and skulls. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the lead, how long is "long" when describing the fur? What is "brownish"? Couldn't you say tawny brown with a gray-white underbelly?
 * I've added hair length in the body; I think it's too much of a detail to include in the lead. I've also specified the color. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the sentence that begins "The upperparts are tawny brown", is this back to discussing the Euryoryzomys emmonsae? This is unclear.
 * Clarified. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please create stub articles for the red linked jargon, or else redirect them to an appropriate article.
 * All jargon is explained; there is no requirement in FAs for links to be red. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * The ecology description of these creatures is pretty slim. Surely there is some dietary information from the captured specimens? In what sense is their distribution unique?
 * Their distribution is unique in the sense that no other muroid has a similar distribution—that's what the word means, I would think. The sources say nothing about gut contents, so I presume the collectors did not study them. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of the word 'unique' in the article is ambiguous and implies some sort of special status, so some clarification would be good. &mdash;RJH (talk)
 * I am unable to think of any conceivable other meaning of the sentence, but I reworded it to remove whatever ambiguity I may have missed. Ucucha 23:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it unique in terms of being geographically very localized; in not overlapping any other member of the species; in having some unusual climate/terrain property, in some other sense not explained? Kind of what I was thinking when I saw that anyway. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review; I've responded above. Ucucha 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. -- Pres N  22:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I have been interrupted reading this article a few times in the last day or two! I fixed a couple of redirects. Nothing else jumps out as prominently tweakable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I the redirects, both because of WP:NOTBROKEN and because scansorial really shouldn't redirect to arboreal locomotion. Ucucha 14:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, ok. Is the word on wiktionary I wonder....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.