Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oryzomys couesi/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 SandyGeorgia 15:10, 27 April 2010.

Oryzomys couesi

 * Nominator(s): Ucucha 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Together with the marsh rice rat, which became a FA some weeks ago, this is one of the two widespread species of Oryzomys rice rats. We know something about its biology, though a lot less than about the marsh rice rat, and are still learning about its classification—it probably actually consists of four species, if not more. This article treats the subject comprehensively, using all the sources I could find; I am looking forward to any reviews. Ucucha 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - No dab links, no broken external links. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments : This being my second review, I will  try  to offer a comprehensive review, though as you know personally, my ability to search the literature and double-check your sources is extremely limited.
 * In the lead, you go from describing the rats to talking about its taxonomic history, and then back to more details about the rats themselves. Maybe you were trying to follow the order of the body text, but it just doesn't flow for me.  Personally, I'd suggest putting the lengthy taxonomy text at the end, after you've told us about these little critters.
 * You're right, moved it around a bit.
 * The range map is beautiful! Normally I request a reference for range maps, but looking at the sources listed on the image description page, I think I'll have to let this one slide...  unless, of course, a single source can be used as a general reference?
 * No; I really had to use all the sources listed.
 * I think some people prefer that refs follow punctuation. Personally, I don't care... but it's something that often comes up when my articles are reviewed.
 * Do you mean the mid-sentence refs without any punctuation surrounding them? I don't think there is any rule against them, and I believe the people who think there is are misunderstanding the MOS rule which says that you shouldn't place refs before punctuation, like "this[1], this, and that".
 * I recommend adding non-breaking spaces between stand-alone numbers and the words that follow them... but that's ultimately up to you.
 * Most did already; I added some.
 * "That crinitus, which occurs at over 2000 m (6600 ft) altitude in the Valley of Mexico, was the same species as peninsulae from the lowlands of the Baja California Peninsula they could not accept..."  It may be grammatically correct, but I don't like how it reads.
 * Really? I do like it.
 * "but it has been supposed to be from the Valley of Mexico." Again, sounds like bad grammar.
 * Rewritten
 * Serial comma, or no? Sorry to not fix them, but I just starting noticing the lack of consistency half way through.
 * There should be serial commas (except in the refs), but I didn't notice any places where they are missing.
 * I can't even find the one that tipped me off, let alone any others. Maybe I was just tired. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  14:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Oryzomys jalapae Allen and Chapman, 1897, from Veracruz; Oryzomys jalapae rufinus Merriam, 1901, from Veracruz; Oryzomys teapensis Merriam, 1901, from Tabasco; Oryzomys goldmani Merriam, 1901, from Veracruz; Oryzomys jalapae apatelius Eliot, 1904, from Veracruz; and Oryzomys richardsoni Allen, 1910, from Nicaragua."  When including the binomial authority in a sentence, is this the proper way to do it?  For me, it makes the sentence much harder to read.
 * I am afraid it is; it's also how Carleton and Arroyo-Cabrales do it.
 * "The form of the sex chromosomes has been used to distinguish the marsh rice rat from Oryzomys couesi, but there are no consistent differences." Differences between what? The the marsh rice rat and Oryzomys couesi, or between different populations of Oryzomys couesi?
 * Between palustris and couesi. Clarified. You can see some of the confusion on Oryzomys karyotypes in User:Ucucha/Sandbox; according to Schmidt and Engstrom, earlier authors had misidentified the Y chromosome in couesi, and it seems that some people have also been confusing FN and FNa.
 * Some terms get multiple parenthetical explanations (e.g. zygomatic arch), and others do not. Sorry... it was hard to keep track of which do and don't.  I just noticed that one and possibly a few others.
 * I think I fixed those.
 * The idea of a sortable table sounds good, but when you actually use the ability, all of your colspan location headers get thrown to the top or the bottom, mixing all the populations together. Maybe drop the sorting feature.
 * Done so. Being able to sort was instructive, though.
 * I also wish it could have been sortable. I just wish there was a way to make it work... –   VisionHolder  « talk »  14:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see my Template:DentalFormula put to such good use outside of lemur and other primate articles. Should we protect the template since it's starting to be widely used?  (I know... this isn't an FAC issue, but it does affect this article.)
 * Perhaps, don't know what the threshold for that is considered to be.
 * "The second lower molar bears a crest, the anterolophid, before the two cusps that form the front edge of the molar in some other oryzomyines, the protoconid and metaconid." At first glance, the "protoconid and metaconid" modify "oryzomyines"... maybe restructure this sentence?
 * Rearranged.
 * "It probably breeds around the year..." Do you mean, "It probably breeds year-round..."?
 * Yes, that's better.
 * Incomplete sentences in footnotes treated as sentences?
 * I like to end everything with a period, but that can be changed if necessary.

The first thing I have to say is that it's a very nice article! I love the organization for handling the synonyms. The second things is: Wow! You can sure write about the things I hate the most—taxonomy and skeletal/morphological descriptions. I should hire you to write the lemur articles! Anyway, take my comments with a grain of salt given my lack of experience at this. Sorry I didn't copy-edit more, but it's getting late and I may be reading things wrong. And by the way... have you asked Hanson or any of the co-authors to review this article? –  VisionHolder  « talk »  04:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the helpful suggestions and nice comments. I haven't asked Hanson or anyone else, no—but I probably should at some time. Ucucha 12:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Checked images. All have good licenses and description. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and comments A few nitpicks, but mostly minor so supporting anyway  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Ucucha 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * a medium-sized to large rat. &mdash; personally I'd prefer either  a medium to large rat or a medium to large-sized rat.
 * "a medium rat" doesn't make sense to me, because it could be in medium in color or what not instead of size, and "large-sized" is a tautology, so I don't like either of those constructions.
 * found evidence to separate species from the Pacific and eastern sides of Mexico and Central America and two additional species from Panama and Costa Rica. &mdash; I don't think the meaning of this is immediately apparent
 * Reworded.
 * give birth to about four young &mdash; I'd prefer either the range or the average rather than unnecessary vagueness
 * There are two different, and conflicting ranges and averages given in the text. Giving both would be too much for the lead, so I opted for a phrasing that aligns with either.
 * They become reproductively active when seven months old and have a short life cycle &mdash; I'd prefer The young instead of they because it was unclear what the subject was (could have been the pregnant females last mentioned), although meaning is unchanged
 * Reworded.

Support Comments by Sasata (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider all points below stricken. Meets all FA criteria. I checked a few sources, and did a literature scan, but as expected, nothing was amiss. Sasata (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Ucucha 11:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * lead: suggest linking scrubland (BTW, it's "shrubland" in the Ecology section), buff, DNA sequence data, Panama, Costa Rica
 * Done
 * "The animal is infected by several different" -> "is" to "can be" (unless we know that every individual is infected)
 * Done
 * "In 1918, Edward Alphonso Goldman consolidated most into the single species Oryzomys couesi and in 1960 Raymond Hall united this species with its United States relative, the marsh rice rat (O. palustris), into a single widespread species; subsequently, many related, localized species retained by Goldman were also included in this species." Could this be reworded a bit so that the word "species" doesn't appear 5 times? (maybe replace one with "taxon"?)
 * I replaced the two uses where "species" is not essential to the meaning with "taxon"
 * "After studies of the contact zone in Texas in 1979…" two things: the studies were probably earlier than 1979 (but published that year), and maybe "contact zone" needs to be explained a bit more clearly
 * Reworded.
 * "Oryzomys couesi as a whole is common and of no conservation concern" should link to conservation status there. I also don't like the phrase "as a whole"; how about "Generally, Oryzomys couesi is common" or "Collectively, …"
 * I used "generally". I don't really see a need to link to conservation status; it doesn't fit the sentence, and the link doesn't add that much.
 * "Oryzomys couesi and at least six more narrowly distributed species with peripheral distributions together form the O. couesi group within the genus Oryzomys, which also includes the O. palustris group, with the marsh rice rat (O. palustris) as its only member" unclear to me… does O. couesi + six also include the O. palustris group, or does the genus Oryzomys also include the O. palustris group? Then "…with the marsh rice rat (O. palustris) as its only member" How can it be a group with only one member?
 * Reworded. As for the one-member group, ask the sources, not me. :)
 * link classified
 * Done
 * "Additional studies of the palustris–couesi contact zone in Texas published in 1979 indicated that the two species are in fact easily distinguishable there…" If they are so easily distinguishable, why wasn't Hall able to figure that out in 1960? Any comment in the 1979 paper about this?
 * Hall had few specimens and didn't look at some of the characters that distinguish the two. I clarified a little.
 * I haven't usually seen gene names written with a mixture of caps and lowercase… is this what the sources use?
 * Yes, that's directly from Hanson et al.
 * link genetic distance
 * Done.
 * "In the same paper…" paper->publication
 * Done.
 * "extended the range of the species by 400 mi (640 km)" your other converts are metric first
 * This was miles in the original; the others are metric in the original.
 * "The types of regillus and aztecus" link type species?
 * Just used "holotype" again instead
 * link hybridization, Belize
 * Done
 * I don't think any of the skull pic captions need fullstops
 * Removed
 * there's a lot of talk of % of sequence difference between various taxa, so it would be worthwhile to include a sentence about what % divergence is typically considered sufficient for species to be considered distinct
 * I added the benchmarks Hanson et al. used.
 * link/define ochraceous
 * Linked
 * "… is buff to reddish above and becomes paler towards the sides…" -> "above, becoming paler", sound better?
 * Yes.
 * "The fur is shorter, brighter, and more intense than in the marsh rice rat." How is fur intense?
 * In color.
 * "…the moderately large eyes emit reddish eyeshade." "emit" doesn't seem like the correct verb to use here
 * Used "show"
 * "In Texas, males are slightly larger than females." Everything is slightly larger in Texas, haven't you heard?
 * Texas marsh rice rats are pretty small, actually. O. couesi aquaticus is a large form, though.
 * link chromosome (hasn't been linked since the lead)
 * Done.
 * I did not know that a baculum was a penis bone… that should be linked
 * Done.
 * somewhere Process (anatomy) should be linked
 * Done.
 * link coastal plain
 * Done.
 * "Cozumel rice rats rarely cross roads" I chuckled when I read this. Wonder if a poor grad student had to monitor a road to check for rice rat crossings to determine this?
 * All the sources for ecological information on Cozumel O. couesi trace back to a few MA theses, so probably yes.
 * "ecologically similar" needs hyphen?
 * No, no hyphens after -ly, saith the MOS.
 * link population density?
 * Done.
 * "…the life cycle is short." maybe link life cycle, but is this being used as a synonym for lifespan?
 * Introduced the link; the source doesn't specify
 * "The introduced snake" link introduced
 * Done
 * link reservoir
 * Done
 * "Populations even persist in the Valley of Mexico, as evidenced by a recent photograph." Huh? What photograph? This leaves me hanging...
 * I changed to "published in 2006", which will age better. It's in Medellin and Medellin, and Carleton and Arroyo-Cabrales say directly that the photograph provides evidence that populations referable to crinitus still exist. I don't know what else to make of it.


 * Support Comments - beginning a read-through now. Please revert any inadvertent changes to meaning I make. I will jot queries below (I need to get a template to say this!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 *  There is much geographic variation in size, color, and other features. - "other features" seems like a bit of a throwaway line - odd to have two specific criteria and then a nebulous one. Better specified.
 * There are many different "other features"—relative length of the nasals and premaxillaries, relative size of the molars, size of the zygomatic arches, form of the interparietal bone, presence of the sphenopalatine vacuities. I don't think it serves any purpose to list those here.
 * How about "There is much geographic variation in size, color, and bony features", "skeletal features" or "anatomical features"?
 * All are in the skull, so used that instead. After I did so, I remembered that lambi is distinguished by relative tail length, so I added "proportions" to the list. Ucucha 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In Texas, males are slightly larger than females - is that because Texas is the only place both males and females have been measured (and hence may occur elsewhere), or is it a trait unique to Texas? Clarifying that should e straightforward.
 * Only place where it's measured. I attempted a clarification.


 * :I'd link 'oxbow lakes' to something, especially as the local word is redlinked
 * Done.


 * I've not seen 'plague' used as a noun thus to describe an organism. I might say 'plague species' instead.
 * It's used as such in Dutch (and Spanish—the source says "es considerado como plago"). I'll trust you that using "plague species" is better in English.
 * Funny the little idioms in each language. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall looking very polished and just some minor quibbles to deal with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 13:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Images I think the use of two different styles of maps in the one article makes the overall feel incoherent, both with itself and with other wp articles Fasach Nua (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The second map is historical and thus uses the historical style. Ucucha 13:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that an editorial decision or MOS? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The former. Ucucha 21:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with comments (all minor):
 * "Oryzomys couesi […] is a semiaquatic rodent in the family Cricetidae which occurs from southernmost Texas through Mexico and Central America into northwestern Colombia"—is it O.C. that occurs from Texas to Columbia, or the family? (I know this is explained later on, but it needs to be clear in the lead.);
 * You're right, it is somewhat ambiguous. I tried replacing "which occurs" with "occurring"; does that work?
 * Regarding the dental pattern, I know "one upper and one lower incisor and three upper and three lower molars" is the standard way of descriping a dental pattern, but for someone not familiar with biology conventions, it appears to suggest that they only have four teeth on each jaw. It could maybe (emphasis on "maybe") do with an explanatory footnote; remember that if this makes TFA the majority of its readers will be people whose only rat-knowledge will be "like a big mouse";
 * I added "on each side of the jaws" here to clarify; you're right that an unsuspecting reader may be led on the wrong track.
 * Do we know what the typical lifespan is?
 * Not as far as I am aware.
 * Possibly a silly question, but is there anything in the literature about how they interact with humans, given that they're endemic to such heavily populated areas; are they kept as pets? exterminated as vermin? hunted for food?
 * Nothing I am aware of except what is in the article—they're considered a pest in some areas. Perhaps they're persecuted in those places, though I doubt they would be separated from other ratas.
 * All minor and the answer to all may well be "we don't know". – iride  scent  15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and helpful comments. Ucucha 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are the "Taxonomic synonyms" tables causing extra white space above them? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


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