Talk:Macrotarsomys petteri/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you know the drill :)

''Its distribution may have shifted because of climatic changes and competition with introduced species. - I'd rejig this to "Climatic changes and competition with introduced species may have impacted upon/affected/reduced its distribution. "

Done. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"vicariant" which is an unusual word, is not mentioned in the Allopatric speciation article at all (apart from as a target for the redirect). I'd think of linking to a wiktionary def if there is a good one, or adding material to the linked article and redirecting to the subheading maybe....or possibly using a plainer english term?

Reworded. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"cover hairs" - I don't recall this expression before though I think I cna guess what it means...link or gloss maybe?

They are the main fur, in contrast to the guard hairs which are longer and extend over the cover fur. I've glossed. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking WRT logical flow that sentences 2 and 3 should swap places in the Distribution and ecology section. See what you think.

Sentence 2 refers to the Andaladomo forest region in general, not to the fragment where they found M. petteri, so I think it's better as is. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Aha, that helps. Agree then and good catch for reducing ambiguity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance: - just the minor issues outlined above. Fairly straighforward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: N/A
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: N/A

Overall:

Pass or Fail: nearly there. Otherwise looking good as always. I know what the answers to my questions on diet and breeding will be ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately. Thanks for the review; I've replied above. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)