Talk:Monticolomys/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

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

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)
      • You also use the term in the lead. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I've removed it from the lead. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Thought I had removed it there... I'm sorry. Ucucha 13:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "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)
        • And yeah, protuberances is better. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Thanks for the review! Ucucha 08:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)

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

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)