Talk:Akodon caenosus

Photo

This article really needs a photograph of the subject, preferably at least two. I wouldn't call it a GA without at least one pic.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are none available. GA criterion 6 says that articles should be illustrated, if possible, by images; in this case, it is not possible. Ucucha 11:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Akodon caenosus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 16:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a few nit pick copy editing issues. Otherwise, a fine article if somewhat technical. It is too bad that there is no picture. I assume none is available.

• "It mostly occurs in Yungas vegetation and breeds mainly during the winter. It occurs with many other sigmodontine rodents, including three other species of Akodon." Repetition of "occurs". I change another one in the first sentence to "found".
  • Changed one.
• " Oldfield Thomas described the animal as the holotype of a new subspecies of Akodon puer, a Bolivian species. He described the new subspecies Akodon puer cænosus as darker and duller in color than the Bolivian form, but otherwise identical" - repetition of "described".
  • Changed one.
• "They classified A. caenosus as a species separate from A. lutescens because the two forms did not form a single clade, with A. caenosus instead being recovered closer to A. subfuscus". - is "recovered" the right word here?
  • It is an established technical term here, but the sentence does fine without it, so I struck the word.
• "in view of the relatively high sequence divergence" - Is there a anything you could link "sequence divergence" to, to clarify for the general reader?
  • No, but I rephrased the sentence to clarify the meaning.

Xtzou (Talk) 16:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Some pictures have been published (though only of the skull, I think), but none are free to use. Ucucha 16:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: none available

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

• Good work! Xtzou (Talk) 17:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akodon caenosus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119190414/http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?s=y&id=13000814 to http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?s=y&id=13000814

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)