Talk:Oryzomys antillarum

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Text is clearly well written and fluid.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Intro size is adequate and summarizes the content. Everything else seems OK.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Very well referenced. References are mostly verifiable.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Reliable references are provided wherever necessary.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article broadly covers important aspects of the species (morphology, taxonomy, ecology).

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   No copyright issues have been detected.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Image usage is very adequate. Images are provided when necessary, and are also very informative.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Discussion

I will detail any existing issues below.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1. The article is excellent overall, I have no serious complaints about prose, references, image captions etc. However, the first time someone is mentioned by name, I feel adding a couple of descriptors is valuable in understanding (usually nationality and occupation, eg. English naturalist, American zoologist, and so on). I already did add some descriptors, but I myself do not know many of those authors (or they are rather not wikilinked). Could this be arranged?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This matter has come up in a few previous GAs and FAs of mine. I prefer not to mention such descriptors, since they really are irrelevant details—what matters is the science, not where the person who did the science comes from. Therefore, I have removed the ones you added.

Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I understand your point of view, and it was only a minor suggestion. In fact, this is more of an issue in articles that are not science related. In any case, I believe the article is quite ready to go. You really should think about a peer review and later FA nomination soon. Congratulations!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oryzomys antillarum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627094911/http://www.iucnredlist.org/ to http://www.iucnredlist.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Oryzomyini tribe status

I know nothing about animal taxonomy, so I'll just ask. Does this species belong in the Oryzomyini tribe? I ask because, while the articles mention each other off-hand in the main text, both infoboxes fail to acknowledge the other article. If this animal does belong to said tribe, it should be mentioned both in this article's infobox, as well as in the "Genera" list of the Oryzomyini article's infobox. If anyone smarter than me can answer this, that would be great. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)