| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 8, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that it may not be possible to determine what ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus is? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | This article refers to a taxon that doesn't have its type locality listed. If you can, please provide it. |
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:?Oryzomys pliocaenicus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 00:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment This articles is the ultimate in minimalism.
- Could there be more of an explanation as to why anyone cares about this one jaw bone? Why should this article exist?
- It's a biological taxon, and such taxa are always considered notable as far as I believe. More technically, it's received significant coverage in Hibbard (1939) and arguably in some of the other papers cited, and there is no obvious target to merge it to.
- I think the lead should contain some comment as to why it has a name that begins with a question mark.
- It does, where it says that it was described as a "possible species of Oryzomys". However, no source explicitly talks about the question mark, so neither can we.
- I also think you should make some effort to plant wikilinks in other articles to it. Otherwise, it remains a virtual {{orphan}}, isolated and no one reads it.
- The only existing article where I think a wikilink is appropriate is Oryzomys, and it's linked from there. It should also be linked from articles like Bensonomys and Jacobsomys, if they existed, but they don't, and we're assessing this article, not any others.
- I am sure you have done your best to fulfil the requirements of a GA.
Xtzou (Talk) 00:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking up this review. Ucucha 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Too bad no pix! Xtzou (Talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
Clear and concise writing
- B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources: Sources are reliable
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced where needed
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects: Broad in scope
- B. Focused: } Remains focused on topic
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Pass!
- Pass or Fail: Pass!
- Interesting article. Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 15:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)