A snowy winged mouse... This is one of the victims of a "forgotten mass extinction", which killed off the entire diverse (but mostly undescribed) oryzomyine rodent fauna of the Lesser Antilles. This article was improved by a GA review by J Milburn, and I'm looking forward to the reviews here. Ucucha 08:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"Map of the northern Lesser Antilles indicating the three islands where Pennatomys has been found" ... is this meant to be visible to the reader? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Point taken, and I'll try to make a better one. Ucucha 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments 2c: goodbut needs one page number no DOI/PMIDs, no DOI/PMID issues. Short cites: "Musser and Carleton, 2005" lacks a page number and it is a 500-600 page work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are no specific pages to refer to; the citation (particularly for the distribution) is to pretty much the entirety of the work (which lists the distributions of all cricetid rodents). None of the facts in that sentence are particularly controversial, and I could perhaps even claim they are common knowledge that does not require a citation, but I prefer to cite a work that does indeed contain the facts claimed (if not in easily citable form). Ucucha 09:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Urgh. "Found continuously and passing throughout."? Or passim. if you're into the old school. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Sasata (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Support—all comments resolved, looks like an FAC to me. As an aside, I think you could probably find a good April Fool's DYK hook for the currently red-linked Sugar Factory and Coconut Walk! Sasata (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
there's a mixture of present and past tense in the second paragraph of the lead when describing the features of the bones
Now all past.
"However, its exact position was poorly resolved because of missing data." Not completely clear what the "its" refers to here, could be Pennatomys or Nesoryzomys.
I meant Pennatomys, and clarified.
"Although there are no spectacular, unique adaptations in the known material," "Spectacular" seems strong to me… I wouldn't consider a mouse bone adaptation spectacular unless it was helicopter wings or a grenade launcher or something.
"animals get larger on larger islands" get->become
who found them in 1907? When and how many subsequent collections were made? Are there any bones other than skull fragments?
All the sites are listed under "Range and history". For the other questions, I'll have to look again in a few days, as I don't have all my literature with me right now. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 21:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The 1907 find was one C.W. Branch, whose paper I've now referenced; there are postcranials (a humerus and femur are listed among the paratypes), and I've added a sentence to say that, but Turvey et al. do not describe them. Ucucha 02:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Support Comments reading through - queries below: Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The lead as is does not give a date of fossil remains. I think it would benefit with a succinct sentence stating the age of most recent remains (i.e. "known from remains up till x years ago")
Added date range in lead.
I'd maybe link "cony" to a wiktionary term (?)
I think the footnote explains all that needs to be explained, so don't see much of a need for additional linking.
Unambiguous historical records.. - I know what you mean, I guess I am looking for a more definitive adjective...much like "Definitive", "Confirmed", or something. Not a dealbreaker this, just musing really...
I'm not wedded to "unambiguous", but I think it's actually a good fit: the point is that while there are records, they are ambiguous, as they might as well refer to other animals.
Otherwise looking clinical in its execution and clearly FA worthy. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Ucucha 00:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Support: Comments: As always, the article looks good. Here are the few issues that I feel needs to be addressed:
The Musser ref links to MSW3 online, but does not take the reader to anything useful. I would suggest linking "Superfamily Muroidea" to its ID: 13000001.
The current range map is useful only if you're familiar with the Lesser Antilles. Since much of the bottom left portion of the map is ocean, I would like to see a map of the globe or at least a map of the Americas shown in that space, with a box highlighting where these islands are located.
I'll try to get that done, although it'll strain my SVG skills. Note that the caption already indicates the general location.
I may have time to help if you need. Otherwise, you can import an existing SVG into a separate layer, possibly by "select all" + copy & paste. (Sorry, don't remember exactly how I did it.) If you can't do it smoothly in Inkscape, it can be done via text editing. As for the current caption, it assumes that the reader knows where the Lesser Antilles are. (Consider that many Americans can't even find the U.S. on a world map.) Granted, this is a more technical article, and its readers are likely to be more educated... But rather than changing the caption, I'd prefer to see the map tweaked. I won't hold this article up over this, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I've re-created the range map with a mini-map to help users understand where these islands are located (in case they don't already know). I've left a note on your talk page about the problem I had with the embedded raster graphic that I converted to a vector graphic. Again, if you're not satisfied with it, just lead me to your original source and I'll try to force it to export as a true SVG file. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Any luck obtaining photos of the remains for the Taxobox? Have you asked any of the researchers to snap a photo for Wiki?
At this moment, I don't think so.
Oh well... it's always worth asking. You never know who will reply and/or send material. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
In the lead: "bone remains"? I know we want to keep it simple in the lead, but I think "skeletal remains" should be commonly understood.
Naming "clade D" in the lead, although linked, seems a little too much. You seemed to summarize it in the "Taxonomy" section. Couldn't you first provide a general summary, and then add, "also known as 'clade D'" (with a link) near the end of the sentence?
I'm not sure if there are rules about this, but "articulate" links (through a redirect) to the article Joint. Couldn't you just use an inter-Wiki link to the definition on Wikitionary?
Yes, that redirect is dubious. However, the only relevant Wiktionary definition (wikt:articulate#Verb no. 6) is no better. "Articulate" is clearly the correct term where two bones of the skull meet, but I don't think anyone would say they form a "joint".
I guess I'll let this go given the lack of better options. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I cannot comment on more than the grammar in the "Description" section. This is where a review by Turvey would be helpful. Otherwise, everything else looks good to me! Great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Ucucha 02:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.