This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.
I will take this, to get back into reviewing. A first look gives this article an okay review, but there are important things to be considered. The lead needs to be expanded, and all info in the lead should be in the article; the animal should be referred to as the marsh shrew throughout the entire article; there should be no need for a reference in the infobox title. Other than these, the article checks out as good, but a more thorough review will be completed after these are fixed. IJReiddiscuss 03:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. I think I have addressed the above concerns but will read over once or twice more later today. Please give this as thorough a review as possible. Any recommendations are appreciated. I am going to redo the map in the next few days, to show more clearly where the 3 subpopulations reside. The data is in the .pdf by Pattie. --Gaff (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
In a figure caption of the original description it is still referred to as Bendire's shrew.
"There are no sympatric..." > "There are no sympatric Sorex species residing within the range of the marsh shrew." This removes the redundancies and adds a little more info. IJReiddiscuss 00:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This was vaguely and perhaps incorrectly worded. THere actually are several sympatric species, but it is the only dark brown one. I've rewritten this section. --Gaff (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
There are some minor textual errors in the Taxonomy section, which talks more about naming and less about taxonomy.
I fixed the errors and will work on expanding the taxonomy information. That may take a while, but it needs to be clarified how it was placed in the current subgenus. --Gaff (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The taxonomy section could be renamed "Taxonomy and naming". IJReiddiscuss 00:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The first two sentences of behaviour and ecology could be merged, with both references at the end unless there is a difference in the common selection of these items to eat. IJReiddiscuss 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
done & expanded. --Gaff (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The above problem is also in the second paragraph.
This article is a little short on references, so I will check the info. If you do not have already, I can send you a copy of the Pattie article available in JSTOR.
I have it. It's not much. I need more/better refs. There are a lot of pamphlets put out by the government of British Columbia, which are informative but not as reliable as books or journals. I'll dig more. --Gaff (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Not needed, but if possible, better and more images could be found and used. IJReiddiscuss 05:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying. Tough to find images of the animal. I'll email some sources and try to get something through OTRS. Can also add generic pics of the habitat. --Gaff (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Reproduction info could be added from the IUCN source.
I found the book that the IUCN referenced (Nagorsen) and plundered it.--Gaff (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I will try to find more references that aren't in the article, as well as images. IJReiddiscuss 14:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Nice work. All the references I suggested are in the article, and with the image showing habitat and Bendire, I believe that this article fulfils the GA criteria, good job. IJReiddiscuss 01:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the solid review. I'm going to work on details in the article and try to find better images. It has still a ways to go before being ready for FA. --Gaff (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)