Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oryzomys antillarum/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 21:39, 16 September 2010 [1].

Oryzomys antillarum[edit]

Oryzomys antillarum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ucucha 14:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good old rice rat, from Jamaica this time. It's one of the many insular animal species that have gone extinct in the last few centuries. We know relatively much about it, but most of that knowledge is buried in the older literature. This article was GA reviewed by Daniel Cavallari; I am looking forward to your reviews here. Ucucha 14:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images all look fine- nice work taking advantage of crazy laws for PD stuff :P J Milburn (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking a read-

  • "from where it" Was going to recommend "from whence", but that is apparently considered archaic. It is, however, apparently, very formal. See here. That's actually fairly interesting...
    • I'm not particularly attached to the current wording, but I don't think "whence" (which indeed sounds very archaic) is much better.
      • It'd be "whence" not "from whence" - I like the word but it is definitely archaic...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he did not know of" of which he did not know.
    • The current wording is standard English as far as I am aware, and sounds better to my ears.
      • No, it isn't. You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's something many linguists are perfectly OK with. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2007_November_21#Are_prepositions_ending_a_sentence_really_so_bad?, for example. Ucucha 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it's been joked about plenty of times, but unless wir wln 2 pt ^ wid wtvr ppl wanna zay, we should not be accepting it here. We're doing our best to be a serious reference work, and this kind of nonsense does not reflect on us well. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a nice slippery slope argument. However, the Chicago Manual of Style actually allows this construction (section 5.162: "the preposition can end a clause, especially a relative clause, or sentence {this isn’t the pen that Steve writes with}"). Ucucha 23:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fair enough. Makes my eyes burn, but who am I to argue with them? J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • And, for what it's worth, it wasn't a slippery slope argument, I was just pointing out that I couldn't see any relevant difference. Compare- if a school allowed students to have dyed brown hair, because it's a "natural colour", one could argue they should also allow other "natural colours". That would be perfectly valid, it would be the person making the rules acting inconsistently otherwise. A slippery slope argument would be "if we allow brown hair today, it'll be purple hair and nose piercings tomorrow". J Milburn (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Butting in - I am perfectly happy ending a sentence with a preposition. There is an old joke "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something with which I shall not put up" Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The oldest well-dated record of Oryzomys antillarum is at Drum Cave in the Jacksons Bay Caves system, where it was found in a stratum radiocarbon dated to between 10,250 and 11,260 years before present." When was this found?
    • McFarlane et al. (2002). I actually forgot to add that reference to the list; corrected now.
  • The historical records section is really interesting, but it's not too clear which (if any) of the listed species are hypothesised to be this one.
    • The only secondary source to have discussed this I believe is Ray (1962), and the article summarizes what he said. In many cases, we simply don't know; it's easy enough to distinguish introduced mice and rats (let alone water voles) from Oryzomys with a quick look at their teeth, but those 18th- and 19th-century naturalists didn't know much about that.
  • "the latter are well adapted to" to which the latter are well adapted
    • As above.

Generally pretty good- you have weird interests! Very nicely sourced and well illustrated. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only just noticed, my biggest gripe is the formatting on the sourcing. Article names should be "quoted", while journal names should be italicised. The way you note the page numbers is inconsistent, and a lot of the articles lack any identification (DOI? ISSN?). Those with external links should have access dates. J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The citations of this article are styled exactly as in >20 previous passed FACs and similar to the styles of many journals in this field—most do not quote article names, or italicize journals. Things like ISSNs or DOIs aren't available for old citations; and the links provided are purely convenience links for printed citations, and thus do not need accessdates. Ucucha 17:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our MOS is pretty clear that journal names should be italicised (see this page). Further down the same page, it notes that article titles should have quote marks. I don't mind so much about the quote marks, but the journals should definitely be italicised and the page numbering style should be consistent. Accessdates, as I said, would also be nice. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such inconsistency in page numbering, but books are treated differently from journals (in a way similar, for example, to the citation style of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology). The MOS page does not say they should be, only that they can be, and again, several FAs have passed with non-italicized journals. Accessdates would just be distracting, and it is conventional not to give them in cases like this (cf. Suillus brevipes, among many others). Ucucha 17:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the italics issue, one reference notes "620" at the end of the reference as the page number, one notes "Pp. 725–795" after the page title as the page number, another notes "211 pp" at the end of the reference (which, under any style I know, is simply wrong) as the page number. There is an inconsistency here, as far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I treat chapters in a book (pp. before the pages) differently from whole books (after); that is the same style as (for example) the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology uses. Ucucha 23:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see practically no rhyme or reason to what you're saying, if I'm honest. I'm willing to trust you that it makes sense, but, hell, it doesn't look right to me with my Wikipedia eyes, nor with my academia eyes. J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wait. Explain this to me. Where do you place the page numbers? When and how do you use "pp"? J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I use "pp." when there is no volume number (i.e., when I am citing a book, not a periodical). It goes before the page numbers for a chapter (i.e., Chapter. Pp. 5–30 in Book.) and after for a whole book (i.e., Book. City: Publisher. 200 pp.). It makes sense to me because one would say "pages 5 to 30" in the first case and "200 pages" in the second. (In this article, there is one (Long, 1774) that is slightly different, because it is a volume of a larger work that is cited, with the pages numbered continuously across the volumes; I am open to suggestions for improvement on that one.) Ucucha 23:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, starting to make sense to me; certainly not what I'd choose, but I can respect the right of article authors to reference in a way that feels comfortable to them, as long as it's consistent. I still feel fairly strongly that the journal titles should be italicised- I can't see an article on an album getting through without the album title italicised, nor a film, nor a species, etc etc. Sorry if I've come across a little stubborn... J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'll probably come across the same way. :-) As I (partly) said before, there are many journals in mammalogy and other branches of biology which don't italicize journal titles in the references (though some do), even though they do italicize journal titles elsewhere (see doi:10.1093/jhered/esn105 in the Journal of Heredity, for example—I went through my PDFs on oryzomyines to look for examples). Ucucha 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Just a few points to mention before I support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, as always, for the review. Ucucha 12:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar note 1 (no action needed). from where it may have dispersed — It's a pity that the useful word "whence" has fallen into disuse. Even I would acknowledge that, and I'm archaic myself.
  • Compare above. I'm tempted to actually put "whence" there; the current wording is far from ideal.
  • Grammar note 2 (no action needed). received a name he did not know of. — Conversely, the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition is archaic now. "This is something I can deal with" is better modern prose than "This is something with which I can deal"
  • In 1993, Gary Morgan reviewed the animal — ...the literature on the animal?
  • He actually studied the animal itself, for all I know.
  • He may have "studied" the animal, but I'm not sure that you can "review" an animal, as opposed to a book
  • Google Scholar produces many papers titled "A review of the genus ...". In any case, I've reworded to avoid the issue. Thanks for your support. Ucucha 12:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • supraorbital ridges — redlinked and unexplained. What's wrong with ridges above the eyes?
  • Clarified. The things are called supraorbital ridges, and merit an article under that name.
  • more reddish than even the most reddish animals from Florida. — can the repetition be avoided? Perhaps more reddish than even the most strongly coloured animals from Florida. or similar
  • Used your wording (but corrected that atrocious spelling of "colored" ;-).

:*native habitat of Oryzomys was exterminated — can you exterminate a habitat? I'd apply the verb only to living things

  • Change to "destroyed".
  • Support despite colonial spelling of "coloured" (: Note that I'm still not convinced that you can review an animal, even a rice rat Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oryzomys antillarum is one of eight species in the genus Oryzomys, which occurs from the eastern United States (O. palustris) into northwestern South America (O. gorgasi). - erm, well no as it is extinct - need to reword to reflect this "found in historical times"? or somesuch?
Why not? The classification is attributed explicitly to Carleton and Arroyo-Cabrales, who do indeed list it as one of the eight species of the genus. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 11:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, my bad - I see the "occurs" relates to teh genus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
falsifies the hypothesis that it was introduced; - sounds awkward " disproves the hypothesis that it was introduced;" maybe?
Sure.

Support Comment Article looks great! Just a few comments: Sasata (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • what is the meaning of the specific name?
    • It means "of the Antilles", but no source discusses it as far as I'm aware.
  • should there be a link somewhere to Rafting event in the history section?
    • Added.
  • this source says its diet included seeds, grass, fruit and invertebrates
    • That is likely enough, but it must be speculation, and I wouldn't consider that a high-quality source on biology. It also says it was diurnal, even though other Oryzomys are nocturnal. It is possible that insular species become diurnal in the absence of predators, but I would prefer a source that provides more explicit support for its speculations.
  • this says it was a "pest of sugarcane"
    • I think I also read that a few times, but Ray considers it unlikely; all indications are that it was already rare by the 19th century and any sugarcane pest more likely would have been one of the introduced rats and mice. Ucucha 17:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would not have been the only error in that piece, by the way. What they say on Galápagos rice rats is almost all wrong. Ucucha 17:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Oryzomys_antillarum/archive1&oldid=1046369249"