The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:15, 8 March 2010 [1].

---

Mindomys[edit]

Mindomys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Ucucha 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Mindomys/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

This is one of the rarest, most isolated, and most endangered of the rice rats. We know virtually nothing about its biology, but there is enough material on the various ways it was classified and on the details of its skull to create an article that in my view meets all FA criteria. Ucucha 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - no dab links, a couple of domain changes in external links. Question re alt text: the text for the map reads "a red mark in northwestern Ecuador and a blue mark in eastern Ecuador" - are the dots misplaced, or is there an error in the alt text? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the check. I don't see your issue in the alt text; as far as I can see, both marks are where the alt text says they are. Ucucha 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the red mark is in northwestern Ecuador; however, the blue mark is right beside it, meaning that you could say it's east of the red mark, but definitely not far enough away to be in eastern Ecuador. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps something like "east-central Ecuador" would be better? Ucucha 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for the delay, missed this reply. My concern is that both dots are in northwestern Ecuador; the blue mark is simply not as "northwest" as the red. Therefore, I don't think that "east-central" Ecuador would accurately describe its location. I'm being quite nitpicky here because this is fundamentally a great article (and I wouldn't oppose over such a small detail), but I still feel it's best to be as accurate as possible. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it is not in the northwest. The map doesn't clearly show that because the borders are nearly invisible, but this Google Maps link has Concepcion (our blue dot) clearly not in northwestern Ecuador.
          • I do think it's important that even the details of the alt text are right. But I hope there'll be some reviewers soon who also address the other aspects of the article. :) Ucucha 20:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, I see! That explains a lot :) Don't suppose there's any way to make the borders slightly more visible so people like me can not sound crazy? Apologies for the confusion...Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • (Should have made clear that Concepcion is the green, not the red thing in the Google Maps link.) Making borders more visible might be good, but my graphical skills are limited and I haven't yet been able to find a good base map to do that with. Ucucha 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sources missing "Steadman and Ray" • Ling.Nut 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is there now. Thanks for the note; good that someone checks this. Ucucha 19:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments More later. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• why are the vernacular names only in the lead and not the main article text?
  • That's the same way I've done it in my other three rodent FAs (Noronhomys, Lundomys, Pseudoryzomys). It makes sense to me because just repeating the names in the body would only repeat the lead.
    • Upon reviewing WP:Lead it seems like this practise is ok. Sasata (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Formerly associated with Nectomys, Sigmodontomys, Megalomys, or Oryzomys, it is now placed in its own genus, Mindomys" please clarify what is meant by "associated with"
  • "considered to be related with", I think. I could change it to that, although to me "associated with" already implies that meaning.
    • It may not be immediately obvious (especially to the general reader) that it's talking about classification. "Associated with" may mean to some that they are all found in the same habitat
      • Fair point. I changed it.
• how about winks to montane forest, rostrum, buff (color)
  • Linked buff and montane forest. Rostrum has nothing useful to link to.
• "…on the basis of…" there's a guy that goes around changing this phrase to "…based on…", so you might consider switching preemptively if you agree with it
  • I recast the entire sentence; the passive voice was unnecessary.
• is Gilbert Hammond worthy of a link?
  • He appears very unlikely to be notable. Thomas barely mentions him, except to say that he collected the type, and I've never heard of him elsewhere.
    • I found this about him. If that's all we know, there's not much to put in an article. Ucucha 18:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "He now considered the latter to be a species of…" Maybe "He then considered…"?
  • I like the word here, because "now" more clearly contrasts his 1948 opinion with the one he had in 1944, but am open to improved wording.
• Three consecutive sentences start with "He", should probably mix them up to reduce repetition; similarly, I noticed three instances of "noted" and another three of "noting" all relatively close to each other
  • Changed some words around.
• link subgeneric; somewhere in here there should be link for classification
  • Subgenus is already linked. Classification is linked now.
• why italicize incertae sedis but not nonem nudum?
  • Good point. Italicized nomen nudum as the ICZN appears to do that in at least some places. Thanks for the helpful comments! Ucucha 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(cont.)

• "Traits shared by O. hammondi and Oecomys included: tail unicolored, with the same coloration above and below; parietal bones extending to the sides of the skull; zygomatic plate narrow, without a zygomatic notch; posteroloph present on upper third molar; mesoflexus (a valley in the molar crown in front of the mesoloph crest) on upper second molar not divided in two." Needs tweaking to make more grammatical; I'm thinking specifically about the fragments like "zygomatic plate narrow" and "tail uncoloured"
  • I think this is a concise yet clear way to list such characters. Recasting those into full sentences would make the text more lengthy without really enhancing the reader's understanding. I tweaked a little, though.
• "Various crests develop on the long braincase" what's the rationale for using the word braincase instead of skull (to which the link redirects)?
  • That's a bad redirect. The braincase is the piece of the skull that surrounds the brain, behind the interorbital region. I'll try to make a stub at "braincase".
• link fossa
  • I killed that link earlier today because we don't have an article on the concept of a fossa in general; fossa is a dab page. I linked it to Wiktionary instead.
• "if present, the vacuities are small" eh?
  • Refers to the sphenopalatine vacuities in the previous sentence; should be a little bit clearer now.
• I share the same reservations as Jim about the description section; it's hard for me to read as its largely a bunch of words I've never heard of, with no accompanying picture to follow. But I imagine the microscopy sections I write for fungal taxa provide a similar experience for others … :)
  • Well, there is a picture of the skull. I continue to improve our anatomical articles related to the rodents I describe. The characters I describe inform what is inferred about its relationships, the most prominent theme in what has been written about it.
    • I know, I'm just whining :) Sasata (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "small, nonvolant mammals" nonvolant?
  • Meant to use "non-flying" there. Changed now.
• "In 1999, Eisenberg and Redford instead suggested that the species may live in trees." did they say on what evidence this was based on?
  • No.
• link protected area
  • Done.
• Neotropics is both capitalized, and not, in the first book reference
  • Fixed. Thanks for the further comments! Ucucha 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've struck through all the above, and am leaning towards support pending a check for 1b and 1c (although based on your past work, I'm not expecting to find anything). Sasata (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Good luck with the check; I don't think it'll cost you much time. :) Ucucha 04:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support yeah that lit search took about a minute! Sasata (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again. I promise you'll need more time for my probable next FAC. Ucucha 16:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments well researched and thorough as ever, but I'm concerned about the number of technical red links. These either need to be linked to stub articles, given a gloss (as some have been) or omitted when not actually adding anything. As an example, Mindomys lacks an alisphenoid strut; in some other oryzomyines, this extension of the alisphenoid bone separates two openings in the skull, the masticatory–buccinator foramen and the foramen ovale accessorius could be Mindomys lacks an alisphenoid strut, an extension of a bone in the base of the skull which in some other oryzomyines separates two foramen, the masticatory–buccinator foramen and the foramen ovale accessorius. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. I continue to write articles for those articles (though at a slow pace); I think they deserve articles and therefore also links from here. However, I found out that I had done some inefficient linking and was able to get rid of a few of the red links in the skull description. Ucucha 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm happy with the above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support upon condition that comments (above) are sorted out. Also, what does this mean? Eight specimens have been collected at the type locality, Mindo, between 1913 and 1980. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Eight Mindomys have been caught there. I think it is two in 1913, five about 1930, and one more in 1980. Is "collected" the unclear word?

collected I understood. What is a type locality? Are they only native to one little place? Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I shouldn't assume that everyone knows that kind of jargon. The type locality is the place where the holotype comes from, the specimen which fixes the application of a name. It's linked earlier in the text, in the etymology for Mindomys. On review I don't really see a reason to mention the term here, so I have rewritten the passage to get rid of it [2]. Ucucha 04:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review; I've tried to address Sasata's comments. Ucucha 19:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issues were addressed. This is a very interesting article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comment - I'll begin a read-through now and massage the prose for flow as I go. Please revert any inadvertent changes I make to meaning. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think for a lay reader, names of scientists read much better if they are (first name surname) at first instance (and then surname), rather than all their initials. I have changed the ones I can see, but the others would be good. If you really prefer initials, I won't stop you though.

a monophyletic group - I know we must have discussed this before - do you think any meaning is lost by adding the word 'coherent' or 'discrete' here for laypeople?

To summarise - the article represents a huge challenge in accessibility to the lay reader of a stack of highly technical information, however meaning cannot be lost. I can't see what else can be done in this regard, but I do feel the scientist name issue will make the prose a little smoother. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and improvements in the prose! I changed the two remaining instances of initials and glossed "monophyletic" with "coherent". Ucucha 13:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ucucha asked me to take a look at images:
  • File:Mindomys skull Ray.jpg - Image is apparently from a PhD thesis. I'm not entirely convinced that it would be reasonable to expect that copyright registration, if any, would be reported in the indicated archive, which is apparently books only.
    • Thanks for the image review. You are probably right there. However, according to our article on United States copyright law#Duration of copyright and 17 U.S.C. § 304(a)(3), copyright has to be renewed during the year when it is due to expire. In this case, that would have been 1990 or 1989, and this database, which has all copyright renewals since 1978, does not list Ray's thesis. (I will add this to the image description page if you consider it sufficient.) Ucucha 16:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mindomys distribution.png is a derivative of File:Southamerica blank.svg. The former, thus, shouldn't be using a license with the "self" variant, as the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." then refers to the creator of the derivative, who does not hold the copyright (this is a very minor housekeeping issue). File:Southamerica blank.svg, however, is troublesome as it says "self made, used another image (in public domain) in commons and edited it". This image itself would then be a derivative. What is the other image? How can we confirm it's PD? Were canislupusarctos' changes sufficient to generate the new, claimed copyright? Эlcobbola _talk 13:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that looks murky. I'll redraw it from a more clearly licensed base map. Ucucha 16:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Ucucha 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.