Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voalavo/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 Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011.

Voalavo

 * Nominator(s): Ucucha 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a small group of Malagasy rodents, discovered only in 1998. Unfortunately, the most recently discovered genera of Malagasy rodents—this one and Monticolomys—are also among the less interesting ones, since unlike all the others they lack any conspicuous specializations, but this remains an intriguing example of unique and long-unrecognized Malagasy diversity. The articles on the two species are featured and good, respectively, and this article is also a GA thanks to a review by Rcej. Thanks for your reviews, Ucucha 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: The only issue is whether it would be more consistent to use "et al." for the three-name string. Otherwise all looks in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. As for the et al., that is what the template I am using produces, and there is no actual inconsistency, since all works with more than three authors do use et al., and all those with less don't. There are, in fact, scientific journals using this same convention. Ucucha 12:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Image - File:Madagascar_rivers.svg (one of the source files) cites as a source a multi-page PDF that needs page number(s) added. Also, is "records" the correct word in the caption? I would use "Recorded sightings" or something of that nature. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the page number for the multi-page PDF. If you want the description cleaned up further, just ask. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Nikkimaria, "records" is a standard term in this context. It's actually places where they have been trapped; I doubt anyone has seen a Voalavo in the wild otherwise than in a trap. Ucucha 22:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you could find an image of the little critters? That would certainly be nice.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to help Ucucha with this, but I struck out with Carleton and now I'm hoping that he will put me in touch with Goodman. Apparently Goodman is the only person who would have pictures of these species. Let's keep our fingers crossed. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments [from Visionholder]: As always, the article looks very good. Here are a few thing:
 * "In the skull, the facial skeleton is long and the braincase is smooth." To me "In the skull" sounds weird... maybe "With the skull"?
 * I like "in the skull" better here, but would be fine with either. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal. –  VisionHolder « talk » 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want, I can try writing to Carleton and inquire about photos for both of the two species. Do you have a recent email address for him?  Granted, if I succeed, we'll have to wait on the OTRS process, but I may be able to enlist a volunteer to expedite the process.
 * His e-mail address is listed at . Thanks for the offer. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've written to him and he didn't have any. I've asked him to put me in touch to Goodman, but we'll see if I ever hear anything back.  It was worth a shot. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As for Nikkimaria's comment above, maybe say "Known localities" rather than "Known records"? Just another option...
 * Changed. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Voalavo is a small rodent resembling a mouse and with gray fur." – Can we drop the "and"?
 * Yes, done. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Monticolomys koopmani not linked for a reason? Also, the sentence it's in is a teaser—it doesn't say how exactly it compares in size.  Can (or should) that be fixed?
 * It's linked up in "Taxonomy". I've changed "comparable" to "close". Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "However, all species of Eliurus have a pronounced tuft of elongated hairs at the tip of the tail, a structure that..." – Is that a "structure" or a "feature" or "characteristic"? Just sounds like an odd word choice.
 * Used "feature" instead. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Chapter titles in the references: capitalized or not?
 * They shouldn't be capitalized, and I don't see any that are. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I must be blind... sorry about that. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: Otherwise, the article looks really good. I'm eager to add my support. –  VisionHolder « talk » 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Support FAC criteria are met. Sasata (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Comments &mdash; Looks very good, only minor nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * suggest linking musk, taxonomy, morphology
 * Did the first two; morphology is linked in the "Taxonomy" section.
 * "These genera are more distantly related to the other nesomyine genera and then to the other subfamilies of the family Nesomyidae, which occur in mainland Africa." the "and then" part is confusing me, should this be "than"?
 * No; I've clarified this poor wording by substituting "even more distantly" for "then". Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * gloss/link laminae
 * Glossed. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the article mentions that subfossil remains have been found, any more information about that?
 * No, unfortunately. I guess they are still working on them. There are also allegedly multiple new species of Eliurus in that collection; we'll have to wait and see. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember if we've talked about this before, but isn't it odd that the IUCN citations are the only ones that don't have the publication year in parentheses?
 * Yes, I need to fix the template. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now done. Ucucha 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * if I really wanted to be nitpicky, I could mention that the ISBN numbers are not consistently hyphenated. But I won't.
 * But I'll fix it anyway. Thanks for the comments and for the fixes to the article. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments [from Dana boomer] - Looking very good, but a few comments/questions:
 * Description, "among other characters. In other characters," First of all, redundant. Second, this is the first time I've seen "characters" used in this way. Is this a common biological usage? IMO, "characteristics" might fit better here.
 * Description, "In other characters, Voalavo shows one of several states seen among Eliurus species." Not sure what this is trying to say. What is "states" referring to in this context?
 * I've rewritten both of those sentences. "Characters" is a term I often see in the literature, but there are alternatives. I think technically a "character" such as length of the incisive foramen can have several "states" (i.e., short, long, intermediate). For some characters, different species of Eliurus show various traits, and Voalavo has one of several traits. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Distribution, "have been found in Mahajanga Province". As provinces were abolished in 2009, perhaps this might be better written as "...found in what was previously Mahajanga Province" or something similar. Or find out which of the regions (Betsiboka, Boeny, Melaky or Sofia) the fossils were found in and make it more specific.
 * It's probably in Boeny, Sofia, or both, but the source is not specific. I've put in "former" and hope the future publication of this stuff will be more specific. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Distribution - Is there any more information that could be given in this section? Predators? Where does it live (burrows, grass nests, hollow logs)?
 * None is known as far as I am aware. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When I click on the link for "Musser, G.G.; Carleton, M.D. (2005). "Superfamily Muroidea"" in the Literature cited section it takes me to the main MSW homepage. Any way this can be made more specific?
 * It could, but I don't think it's desirable. I could link it to the page on Muroidea, but the references in this article are not to the piece about Muroidea per se, but about other taxa, and linking to this particular page is not very helpful. Because the references in the article are to various accounts in Muroidea, there is no specific page that is appropriate to link to. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused then. When I click on the link, it takes me to the home page. Then, as a reader, how am I supposed to know what to do next to see the page that verifies what's in the article? At this point, the link is completely useless to the reader, as they don't know what they are supposed to be doing after they end up at the home page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What would the alternative be? If I link to some subpage, the reader will still be confused about how to verify a statement that is somewhere else. Ucucha 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How many different pages are we talking about? Perhaps a note of the sort "information can be found on website by searching for x and y"? Or perhaps piping the link through the title instead of the chapter (section?), so that it's more obvious to readers that the link is taking you to the entire book/database, instead of the page on Muroidea. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of these seems feasible to me; I've just removed the link as it is not helpful for verifying the references as used in this article. Ucucha 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That works too. Everything looks good, and obviously I've already changed to a support above. Thanks for the prompt responses. Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Once these are dealt with, I look forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotcheck - Checked several references and found no evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing. Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check. I try to always be on my guard against close paraphrasing, but it's good to have some independent confirmation that I'm doing well in that regard. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


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