Wikipedia:Peer review/Earless Water Rat/archive1

Earless Water Rat
I translated this from my Dutch article nl:Moncktonbeverrat. It would be nice to make it a FA here too :-), but I'd like to know what can still be improved on this article (the English, for example). Ucucha (talk)  04:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some initial notes:
 * The lead should be expanded to fit WP:LEAD.
 * Numbers in the metric system should also have converted values to the US system (see WP:MOSNUM). The &amp;nbsp; should be used between numbers and their units of measurement.
 * History of discovery should be expanded, if possible.
 * I did a bit of English correcting with the article, though it could use some more.
 * Could 0+2=4 be explained more?
 * Thanks, AndyZ t 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your notes. I expanded the lead section and explained 0+2=4. I'm afraid I'm unable to say more about its discovery. I'll have a look at the American system in a few days. Ucucha (talk)  19:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * After a preliminary glance I have the following concerns:
 * Characters? Does this refer to Characteristics of the species?
 * Habitat, distribution and behavior needs to be expanded. Also a picture of the habitat is recommended.
 * The IUCN Red List link is broken. I did a search on their web site and could not find this species. Joelito (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, characters should be changed. I fear I can't expand this section. There's simply no more information about it. This is probably already the longest text that has ever been written on the species. I'll change the Red List link. It was probably to the old Red List. Ucucha (talk)  05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed there are a lot of 'red links' through out the article. Maybe the wikilinks should be removed for these or articles or at least stubs should be created for them. Also, a picture should be included to give the reader a visual representation of the Earless Water Rat. -- Underneath-it-All 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are none, as far as I know. Flannery's Mammals of New Guinea has some, but that's copyrighted.
 * I don't really see why there should be no red links. It doesn't have much to do with the excellence (or not-excellence) of an article itself, I think. But let's see what red links we have in fact.
 * I unlinked the scientists Musser, Carleton and Aplin and the book Mammal Species of the World, which are very unlikely to get an article. The Brown River, where it was first found, is apparently near to Port Moresby, but I won't be able to say more about it. Ditto about the tribes linked. Last, a lot of related rodents are linked. I think it is not really needed to give them their own article, since the article itself already states that they are other rodents related to Crossomys. I think that should be enough. If you don't think so, you can translate them from the Dutch Wikipedia, which has almost all of them. Ucucha (talk)  05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at some of the other featured animals on en Wikipeida, like Island Fox and Short-beaked Echidna - they might give you some ideas on how to better organise the information so it is clear for the reader. There is no need to cite a reference like - scincedude (2005), where you are also using a system of footnotes. A phylogenetic tree may help explain the relatioships between species.--Peta 01:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What could be better organized in the article? I myself can't see anything, but I'm flawed, of course ;-).
 * I don't think there's a need to change these references; I think the sentences are fine as they are now; however, if you think it'd be better to put them in a different way, go ahead.
 * I think a phylogenetic tree would only worsen the situation, in fact. There have been about no real phylogenetic studies involving C. moncktoni. Watts & Baverstock probably was the only one. The other papers I cite were mostly phenetic. There's in fact no tree I could use. Ucucha (talk)  19:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)