Talk:Carletonomys

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carletonomys/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Hi Ucucha, I will review this rat article. Hopefully I'll have some notes up later tonight. Sasata (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, some starter comments: Sasata (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

*imo, the lead should mention the word extinct, a fact which is currently only implied

• • Done.
• suggest dividing long second sentence of lead into two smaller ones
  • I think that would create two awkwardly short sentences. Or do you mean the third sentence, which is a bit on the long side?
  • Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. Sasata (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

*"and is distinctive in lacking the ridge that connects the front to the middle part of the molar," Why is this distinctive? Do other oryzomyine rodents have the ridge?

• • Yes, as explained in more detail in the body of the article.

*"C. cailoi was discovered in 1998" should avoid starting sentences, let alone paragraphs, with abbreviations. Two other occurrences as well.

• • Changed all three.

*"It is now in the collections of the Museo de La Plata as specimen MLP 98-I-15-1." Clarify "it"; also, does the average Wikipedia reader really need to know what the specimen # is?

• • It is marginally more relevant here than normally to give the catalog number of the holotype because there is nothing else. For the attentive reader, it also implies that this was the first specimen they entered into the collection on 15 January 1998, but the significance of that fact is rather limited too. I deleted it.

*link specific name

• • Done. Also for the generic one.

*"C. cailoi has a number of features that suggest a relation to a group of oryzomyine rodents" Maybe this sentence would be more accurate if it started something like "The jawbone of C. caloi..." (?)

• • "The fossil ..." now.

*"... which indicate specializations towards a semiaquatic lifestyle." Could you elaborate a bit on how tooth morphology can be correlated to lifestyle? I think it's worthwhile to add an extra sentence or two about this, as it helps give context to the topic

• • I accidentally wrote Noronhomys for Carletonomys there. As I think should now be clear, the semiaquatic features are not in the molars (no one ever really writes about it, but I believe the molar features are specializations for eating hard plants such as grasses). The semiaquatic specializations are in their feet (interdigital webbing, reduction of pads, and some other stuff).

*"It shows the most similarity to Noronhomys and Holochilus, so much so that Pardiñas considered placing it in either of these two genera, but its distinctive morphological features justify placement in a separate genus." what are these distinct morphological features?

• • Absence of anterior mure, configuration of the mesoloph, presence of anteromedian flexus. It is explained under "Description", but adding it here would be meaningless without also adding explanations of what these features are about.

*"This group of genera includes only a small part of the diversity of the tribe Oryzomyini, which includes over a hundred species distributed mainly in South America, including nearby islands such as the Galápagos Islands and some of the Antilles." This sentence has includes/including three times.

• • Wow, that is bad. I got rid of the first two.

*any possibility of an extant closely-related rat picture somewhere in the article? How about a map of South America with the collection location highlighted?

• • I put in the skull of good old Lundomys. The most closely related animal for which we have a live picture would be Oryzomys palustris, but it isn't that closely related and Pardinas doesn't even mention it, so I'd prefer not to use it. I'll look at the map.

*insert non-breaking spaces in short-form Latin binomials to avoid line wraps.

• • Done.

*maybe wlink character (biology)?

• • Doesn't seem that informative (and there is something weird going on with character (biology) redirecting to phenotypic trait, which is distinct from phenotypic character).

*"A shallow anteromedian flexus is present, superficially dividing the anterior cusp (anterocone)." Yikes - a jargon blast with only redlinks - help please. The whole second paragraph of the description section could use a jargon overhaul...

• • I changed one "anterior" to "front" there. In general, I avoid going into too much detail on tooth morphology, but in this case, there's not much else to say, so I've said a bit more. Although there is a lot of technical terms, I believe all are explained at least a little.

*wlink wetland

• • Done.

Thanks for the comments so far! Ucucha 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the article meets all of the GA criteria below. No problems were found with dabs or links. I'll trust you to fix up that lead sentence, and will promote Carletonomys at this time. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Clearly written, complies with MoS. Article is technical, but that is the nature of the subject material.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Article has appropriate citations, and they are to reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A quick check of various academic databases confirms there's not a lot of information on the topic, and article is a good summary of the little scholarly literature available.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image is public domain.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Great! I'll work on the map to improve the article further. It'll be too small a topic for FAC, though, I guess. Ucucha 12:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)