Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voalavo gymnocaudus/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 03:31, 9 June 2011.

Voalavo gymnocaudus

 * Nominator(s): Ucucha 07:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a small Malagasy rodent that was discovered only a few decades ago. The article was GA-reviewed by Rcej not too long ago and is part of a current good topic candidate. I'm looking forward to your reviews. Ucucha 07:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Publisher for Garbutt?

Images - source link for File:World_map_pol_2005_v02.svg (one of the root files for the map you use) is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Added publisher for Garbutt and a new link for that map. Ucucha 14:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Support [from RJH]&mdash;Overall I found no major issues and it seems to satisfy the FA criteria, although an image of the critter would be nice. Here are a few nit-picks that I hope you will address: Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit parenthesis-heavy in places. Some of those could be changed to comma pairs or otherwise modified. For example: "...but (as usual in nesomyines) contain..." => "...but, as usual in nesomyines, contain..."
 * Replaced a few. Ucucha 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Meanwhile, in 1999..." 'Meanwhile' is additive and redundant.
 * It's not necessary, but I think words like these help make the text more coherent, and less proseline-like. Ucucha 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. RJH (talk)
 * "Later studies found..." When? (See WP:DATED).
 * Added. Ucucha 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "...cytochrome b sequences..." See WP:JARGON.
 * Cytochrome b is explained and linked in the previous paragraph. Ucucha 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anything on predation of this species? The expected lifespan?
 * I'm afraid not. I guess galidiines would eat it and it probably won't get older than one or two years in the wild. Ucucha 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You could put the "Literature cited" section content between and  templates to make the format consistent with the references.
 * I don't see much of a need for consistency there. I think multiple columns are more suited for the reference section, since those don't wrap to multiple lines as often. Ucucha 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my concern had more to do with consistency of the font size. That just stood out on my browser. RJH (talk)
 * Thanks for the review and support. Ucucha 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good article otherwise. Just a couple things that jumped out at me, but I'm more than happy to support after these are addressed. Nicely done! Juliancolton (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments [from Juliancolton]
 * at 1250 to 1950 m (4100 to 6400 ft) altitude - The lead flows extremely well, except for this small bit, which is pretty stark and abrupt I think. I would suggest changing it to "at an altitude of...", but it's your call.
 * Switched it to "above sea level". Ucucha 07:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a brief mention of the confusion between the species and the two Eliurus species in the lead, if it's possible. It seems like an important part of the rodent's taxonomic history.
 * Added. Ucucha 07:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Voalavo gymnocaudus lacks a distinct tuft of hairs at the tail tip. - This feels a little redundant when you noted the same thing in the paragraph above it. Maybe it could be reworked or incorporated into another sentence to make it seem less redundant as a standalone blurb?
 * I simply removed this sentence; it doesn't add anything to the first one. Ucucha 07:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. Ucucha 07:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Looks good. Excellent work as usual. Juliancolton (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I couldn't even see any nitpicks with this one  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Comments  - I'll jot some notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 *  Morphological differences between the two are subtle but consistent, and the cytochrome b sequences of the two species differ by about 10% - this has nothing to let the lay reader know whether this is a large or little number - how divergent this is. A sentence or two to place this in context would be very helpful.
 * It's high, and I have added a sentence to that effect. However, I'm a bit hesitant to make too much of it, since the source doesn't give more than the raw value, so I'm hesitant to make too much of it. Ucucha 09:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good addition for context. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 *  DNA sequence data suggests it may be more closely related to Eliurus grandidieri than to other species of the closely related genus Eliurus. - in lead, don't you mean " DNA sequence data suggests it may be more closely related to Eliurus grandidieri than the latter species is to other species of the closely related genus Eliurus." ?
 * That means the same (if, as is standard in modern phylogenetics, we understand "more closely related to" to mean "sharing a more recent common ancestor with"), and the current wording is less cluttered. Ucucha 10:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * d'oh. Ok - but I guess it depends where you want to put the emphasis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Conclude - nice and ship-shape - was reduced to nitpicking...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.