Talk:Malagasy mountain mouse

Malagasy mountain mouse has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 2, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 5, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the little brown mouse Monticolomys koopmani was first collected in 1929, it was not formally described until 1996?

Rodents GA‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rodents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RodentsWikipedia:WikiProject RodentsTemplate:WikiProject RodentsRodent articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Rodents to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Drafts
Cleanup : Beaver dam • Bolivian hemorrhagic fever • Campbell's dwarf hamster • Fancy mouse • Golden hamster • Guinea pig breed
Expand : Bolivian hemorrhagic fever • Least chipmunk (requested) • California ground squirrel (requested) • Lemming (requested)
Merge : List of literary accounts of the Pied Piper • Mousetrap
NPOV : Birbalomys • Gambian pouched rat • Golden hamster • Hamster ball • Mountain Beaver • Pacarana • Plague (disease) • Prairie dog • Rat-catcher • Syrian hamster variations • The Rats (novel) • Tree squirrel
Stubs : Rodent stubs
Update : Baird's pocket gopher • Beaver • Black squirrel • Chinchilla • Cypriot mouse • Eurasian beaver • House mouse • Rabies
Verify : Acouchi • Aethomys • Ailuravus • Allegheny woodrat • American red squirrel • Anatole (mouse) • Anomalomyidae • Apodemus • Arctic ground squirrel • Argentine hemorrhagic fever • Armintomys • Batomys • Beaver • Beaver dam • Black-tailed prairie dog • Blesmol • Bobak marmot • Eligmodontia • Guinea pig • Mountain beaver • North American beaver • Tokudaia
Wikify : Baird's pocket gopher • Golden hamster • Indian giant flying squirrel
Other : photo requests

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I doubt I'll get through a whole review before heading to bed, but I'll have a look.

I added a couple of categories; I assume there's no issue? There's also Category:Mammals of Madagascar.
- Both are fairly useless in my opinion, but yes, they do apply. Also added the Madagascar cat.
  - I can understand that, but I do like categories :)
"The long tail lacks a pencil" What's a pencil?
- The thing on this guy's tail—a piece of fluffiness at the tip. Goodman and Carleton (1996) appeared to be making a distinction between the "tuft" in Eliurus and "pencil" in Macrotarsomys, but other sources also speak of a tuft in Macrotarsomys, so I'll just eliminate the pencil. Ucucha 08:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You also use the term in the lead. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've removed it from the lead. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thought I had removed it there... I'm sorry. Ucucha 13:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It was not until the 1970s that Karl Koopman and Guy Musser recognized that the animal—whose skin had landed at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, while the skull was at the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle in Paris—recognized that the animal" Repetition of the phrase "recognized that the animal"- is that deliberate?
- Oops, no.
Could the common names perhaps get a mention in the lead?
- Sure.
"There are no crests and ridges on" or ridges, perhaps?
- Yes.
"many indentations and processes" Processes?
- Are "protuberances" any better? Cf. process.
  - I'd have no objection if process was linked. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And yeah, protuberances is better. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the second paragraph of "distribution and ecology" refer to the species, where as most of the article refers to the genus? (I note the conservation section also does this)
- They are the same; any variation is merely for the purpose of variation.
"shrew-tenrecs" Is this the common name of the species? I don't follow.
- Of the genus, to be precise. The species probably has no true common name, though I'm sure someone produced "Taiva Shrew Tenrec" or something like that. I've clarified a little.
Your citation style still looks a little odd to me, but that's fine. I'll do a few more checks of various things tomorrow, but it's generally looking great. J Milburn (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! Ucucha 08:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking back through, everything looks ready for GA status (apart from the quick replies above). Some things to think about if you're thinking about FAC-

A range map would be nice. See here.
- Yes, I'll make one myself or ask Visionholder. I think the IUCN map is missing the northernmost distribution segment, at Tsaratanana, where it was only recorded in 2008. Ucucha 13:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of the species would obviously be good, but I couldn't find a single one online, let alone a free one.
- There are some—try Goodman and Carleton (1996). But of course, those are not free.
I came across this book with a bit of Googling- seems an obscure subject, but maybe it's one you'd be able to get hold of somehow?
- That's a compilation of German Wikipedia articles.
More on its diet/habits generally would be needed, I think. I note you've added a line about diet now, it occurred to me last night after I'd gone that you didn't mention anything.
- I (of course) included all I could find. There are a few more books that I don't have right now that may have more information, but at the end of the day this is another poorly known species.
The article title is the genus, but it opens with the species name. This just seems a little odd to me.
- That's what I usually do for monotypic living genera—though I notice Sasata does it differently. I might change it here. Ucucha 13:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, these thoughts are for pushing towards FA. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a final peep, I'm now happy to promote this to GA status. Well done! J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

This article should be at the species page (Monticolomys koopmani or, preferably, Koopman's Montane Voalavo) and since there are no other extinct or extant species in the genus (Monticolomys) then Monticolomys should redirect to the species page. 64.85.214.98 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monotypic genera are conventionally placed at just the genus name, which is more concise. Still less should we use "Koopman's Montane Voalavo", a name that has only appeared in one source. Ucucha 10:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did this change? Quite a few of the mammal articles redirect the genus (and some Family) article to the individual species page if it is monotypic. This creates an inconsistency. If necessary (unless things have really changed since the last time I checked), I can compile a list. When did this change? Hmmmm.... -64.85.221.22 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never. But if there is a well-established common name, we use that, because there will hardly be a different common name for the genus. Ucucha 13:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not talking about the common name at all. Give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can't put together a quick list of a few examples of what I mean. -64.85.221.22 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, look at Mongooses for example: the genera articles for Atilax, Cynictis, Dologale, Ichneumia all redirect to the monotypic species article. I found many many many many more, but only a few are needed for this example. Also, the Family article for Nandiniidae as well as the only genus it contains both redirect to the species article. If this convention is incorrect, then probably somewhere around 100 or so of the mammal articles need to be renamed. It seems to make sense to redirect any monotypic articles to the lowest taxonomic rank -- which would be the species article. I probably am missing something, but why would this article not be moved to Monticolomys koopmani? -64.85.221.22 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]