Jump to content

User talk:Ucucha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ucucha (talk | contribs) at 13:23, 29 August 2010 (→‎Cosmetic only changes: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Leave a new message

Upcoming FACs

Current FAC: Seorsumuscardinus – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seorsumuscardinus/archive1.

I keep track of articles I intend to nominate at FAC here. Feel free to leave any comments. I am adding a fake signature so that this section does not archive. Ucucha 19:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Per a comment left by Matthewedwards at the Glee FL Nom (for Glee (season 1)), he thinks that recent changes make the article a better nom. for FA than it did before. Thus, two questions come from this:

  1. The article now has more prose than it did before, and no longer summarizes Glee (TV series), which was one of his points. Thus, it stands out more as an article than it did before. Do you agree and should we consider moving to FAC, or can that even be done within a nom. without closing it?
  2. So far, only Matthew and Peregrine Fisher (the latter without opinion either way, just that it's an OK nom.) have visited. I've asked a few regular FAC/FLC contributors for their opinions, of which none is given yet (and I don't know whether it will be). What is the best way to find people with constructive opinions? T.V. doesn't seem to be finding me many. I have listed the FL on the WikiProject page for the time being in a further attempt to gain opinions.

Just curious about your thoughts here. Thanks in advance. =) CycloneGU (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Season articles are usually FLs (see WP:FL#Episodes) and some of those have comparable text-to-list ratios to your article, but there are also some FA season articles (WP:FA#Media). Perhaps there is some system there; I don't see it. I think most would do fine as FAs; they certainly don't have as much list material as the usual FL. I guess it comes down on what you prefer.
You shouldn't worry too much about too little feedback; people will usually eventually come along, especially at FLC. Have you tried doing some reviewing on other nominations yourself? Ucucha 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have helped one nominator of another article with some corrections on his review; as for reviewing, however, I fear that my personal reviewing skills might not be to par with the standards in the community. I will give it a try over time, but I don't think I'm quite there yet.
Frickative might pop in here as well; she's the co-nominator of the Glee nom. and may have a question herself. Thanks on my part for your answer, I'll also ask her what she thinks. CycloneGU (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates/archive1

Hey there, mind revisiting this one? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The dab + dead link checks are much appreciated. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems FLCs generally have fewer problems in the links than FACs, though. I'll check VH's list again. Ucucha 05:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Miniopterus zapfei

Hi, Ucucha; good to see you again! I just wanted to let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Miniopterus zapfei you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll try to address any concerns. Ucucha 20:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've passed the article, as I felt it easily checked against the criteria. I take this as a good omen; the first time I review a Good Article nomination, it succeeds! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN for Miniopterus griveaudi

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some arbitration for you!

Ah, if only I was sarcastic! Humor me, please. ResMar 15:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things....

If you have any time, I noticed Florida mouse GAN needed a second opinion. Didn't know if you'd seen it. Also, Fauna of Australia has a bit of a headache - it is an old Featured Article that YellowMonkey and I have been chipping away at improving (though probably should go to FAR - given your expertise on furry critters, can you see any glaring errors in the mammal section and easy ref pickups? I am not so good at furry as feathered things...:( Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already commented at the Florida mouse GAN, and added another comment. There are a few problems in the fauna article, yes.
D'oh - I had a slow connection and didn't check :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead of the "Mammals" section suggests bats disappeared from Australia from the Eocene until the Miocene; I'm not aware of any evidence for that. Also, rodents first appeared in Australia quite late in the Miocene—which is important to mention, since the Miocene is relatively long.
  • In the piece about convergent evolution, I don't see why Eurasia and North America are specifically mentioned. I don't think the gray wolf looks much more like a thylacine than African jackals or some South American canids; anomalures look as much like sugar gliders as flying squirrels do; and anteaters are mostly South American.
  • There are (at least) five living species of monotremes, not four.
  • "Marsupials are characterised by the presence of a pouch in which they rear their young."—no; many marsupials don't have a pouch
  • There are eight (not seven) peramelemorphians in Australia, plus three recently extinct.
  • "The evolutionary origin of this group [peramelemorphians] is unclear, because they share characteristics from both carnivorous and herbivorous marsupials."—not really, as far as I'm aware. They're just an independent group from both.
  • The largest possum in Australia appears to be Trichosurus caninus, and Spilocuscus maculatus comes close.
  • There are eight Australian bat families now that Hipposideridae and Miniopteridae are recognized as families. (Both have been going back and forth for a while, but in the last few years they have usually been recognized as families.)
  • Australia has three (not two) endemic bat genera: Vespadelus, Scoteanax, and Rhinonicteris.
  • "The old endemics are represented by 14 extant genera."—I count 13; I have no idea what the 14th would be. (The number will likely grow soon, though, as Pseudomys is going to be split up.)
  • Calling Rattus "the rat" is confusing at best; many Old Endemics (the term is usually capitalized, I believe) are equally called "rats". There is also an eighth, unnamed indigenous Rattus species.
  • Rattus exulans only marginally occurs in Australia, but would probably count as another species not deliberately introduced.
Ucucha 06:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, saying that marsupials originated in Gondwana ("Origins" section) is a bit of a stretch, though perhaps technically true; metatherians (marsupials and their fossil relatives) were most diverse in North America during the Cretaceous.
  • The article is missing a lot of biogeographical information—e.g., the general similarity of the New Guinean to the Australian fauna; the relationship of the Australian fauna to that of other nearby islands; faunal regions within Australia. Ucucha 07:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap. Okay, I can see the article is needing quite a bit of work...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid so. Ucucha 13:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopropithecus

I have finished reviewing the literature sent to me by Sasata and feel I'm about ready to submit Mesopropithecus for FAC. Since you did the GAC, would you mind skimming over it again whenever you have time? The only lingering issue that I can see is the plethora of unexplained terms. In that regard, I may need some advice. I'm concerned that if I try to add brief explanations in parentheses, it may make the text unreadable. At the very least, can suggest which terms are the most important to explain? Otherwise, I think I've covered everything. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are some unexplained terms that I think need explanation—I don't even know what a postorbital bar is, for example. Otherise, there are a few minor things:
  • I'll try to get to the terms... but again, I'm worried that the text will become harder to read by offering descriptions. I just wish I knew why this is always required of biology articles, but not of geology, opera, and other technical topics that I've reviewed at FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had a narrower snout and a more gracile skeleton, similar to but smaller than M. pithecoides, making it more like the living sifakas."—are the comparisons here to pithecoides? It's not entirely clear.
  • "M3 (third molar)"—M3 is conventionally only the third upper molar, but perhaps the third lowers are also meant here.
  • Really? I think deciduous teeth are usually given with a "D" prefix (i.e., DP3, dp3), and sometimes just D/d for deciduous premolars. Rice rats don't have deciduous teeth, though, so what do I know. Ucucha 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The average skull lengths by species are given in the "Species" section, and the ranges under "Anatomy and physiology"; that reads disjointed.
  • Before I fix this, I need to figure how to state it. I already give ranges in the latter section, and averages in the former. With the conversion, merging them could get messy. Any recommendations? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • post-orbital or postorbital? (I'd use the latter, but perhaps primate anatomists favor the hyphen.)
  • Piping "hand and foot bones" to metacarpus and metatarsus doesn't seem right; those are only a few of the bones of the hand and feet.
Ucucha 07:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the re-review! I will try to get around to reviewing your latest candidate after a short nap this afternoon. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got your first support. Great if you can have a look at Seorsumuscardinus. Ucucha 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eustrombus gigas peer review

Hi there Ucucha! It has been a while since Oryzomys antillarum, hasn't it? How are you doing? I know you are a very experienced editor here in en:Wikipedia, and an awesome writer no less. Would you be so kind as to help with the E. gigas peer review? In case you have time and patience, your opinions and tips would be greatly appreciated! Best wishes. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to take a look. I may not have much time, though, as I'm moving back into college soon. O. antillarum is one of the next items on the FAC queue. Ucucha 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for being the first support vote on my RfA, which has passed as successful! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, congratulations, and good luck! Ucucha 15:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

I've added everything you've mentioned, and Dispenser has fine tuned it and says it looks ready on IRC. Does it look about ready for publication? ResMar 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making some minor tweaks now. I don't use linkclassifier, but shouldn't linkclassifier.css go to your .css, not .js, page? Also, Innotata stated correctly on the talk page that the screenshot of HotCat is of the Commons, not the English Wikipedia version of the tool. Ucucha 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference isn't major enough to warrent removing the tool is it? The linkclassifier codon I forked from her tool description page. It's probably easier to add it to JS instead of CSS, because it's one edit and most people have a js but not a css (including me). Also, tell Visionholder I said hi :P ResMar 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I guess Anomie has it correct. (.js and .css are different, by the way, and if it works if you put it in one, it will almost certainly not work in the other.) The HotCat picture doesn't show what en.wp users—the target audience—will actually see when they use the tool, but the difference isn't major. Ucucha 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has the wp image I'd love for them to upload it. Anyway, does it look about ready? ResMar 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write of Ring-tailed Lemur

I'm getting ready to start the re-write for Ring-tailed Lemur. Since it is the most heavily studied lemur, this raises an important question concerning comprehensiveness. At what point do the details become "too much"? I'm sure there are plenty of detailed studies about diets, morphological measurements, etc. from numerous localities, so at what point do I draw the line? I'm worried that this article could rival Lemur in terms of size and depth if I'm not careful. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you already made a daughter article on vocalizations; perhaps a few more daughter articles are appropriate. Otherwise, perhaps look at the major secondary sources (LoM, I think there is a Mammalian Species account) for guidance as to what things to include. Ucucha 06:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dzungarian hamster

What to do about this? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs some improvement, of course, like all articles on pet rodents, which attract inordinate amounts of bad material. The best way to proceed is to improve the article with good sources, weed out the bad stuff, and carefully guard the article. Ucucha 09:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that White Russian is now Djungarian hamster. So, should the article be cleaned out and replaced with a redirect? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed the spelling difference. I think the best course of action is to redirect it to Djungarian and place a hatnote there. Ucucha 10:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. I'll look after it. Sorry I wasn't more clear. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Argentodites/GA1

Because this is an illustrated talk page :)

I've offered a review. Generally great, obviously, but a couple of thoughts that may improve the article. You clearly understand the subject matter far better than I do, so I'll trust your judgement if you think any of my suggestions are silly. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll have a look soon. (That picture is great, by the way; it made me realize just how weird the multituberculate p4 is.) Ucucha 09:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic only changes

Yes you are correct, generally SmackBot will avoid making edits like that unless there is a more substantive change happening at the same time. However there are a number of reason (User:Rich Farmbrough/FAQ#Known reasons for SmackBot visiting an article it can't fix) why it may visit articles and make only less substantive changes. At the moment there is a fair amount of category lag around. Rich Farmbrough 12:59 29 August 2010 (UTC).
In this case, it seemed SmackBot was editing pages it had already (substantively) edited briefly before. Are you perhaps running two instances with slightly different code? By the way, you placed this message here with the bot account. Ucucha 13:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As SmackBot was still doing the same thing, I've now blocked it. Feel free to unblock when you've fixed the problem. Ucucha 13:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a number of things to try and disperse the lagged categories, including removing or reinstating a few rules as the reg-ex's appear to be timing out. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I hope it works. Ucucha 13:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ucucha&oldid=381685621"