Talk:Malagasy mountain mouse

GA Review

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

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)

Article title

This article should be at the species page (Monticolomys koopmani or, preferably, Koopman's Montane Voalavo) and since there are no other extinct or extant species in the genus (Monticolomys) then Monticolomys should redirect to the species page. 64.85.214.98 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Monotypic genera are conventionally placed at just the genus name, which is more concise. Still less should we use "Koopman's Montane Voalavo", a name that has only appeared in one source. Ucucha 10:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When did this change? Quite a few of the mammal articles redirect the genus (and some Family) article to the individual species page if it is monotypic. This creates an inconsistency. If necessary (unless things have really changed since the last time I checked), I can compile a list. When did this change? Hmmmm.... -64.85.221.22 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Never. But if there is a well-established common name, we use that, because there will hardly be a different common name for the genus. Ucucha 13:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about the common name at all. Give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can't put together a quick list of a few examples of what I mean. -64.85.221.22 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, look at Mongooses for example: the genera articles for Atilax, Cynictis, Dologale, Ichneumia all redirect to the monotypic species article. I found many many many many more, but only a few are needed for this example. Also, the Family article for Nandiniidae as well as the only genus it contains both redirect to the species article. If this convention is incorrect, then probably somewhere around 100 or so of the mammal articles need to be renamed. It seems to make sense to redirect any monotypic articles to the lowest taxonomic rank -- which would be the species article. I probably am missing something, but why would this article not be moved to Monticolomys koopmani? -64.85.221.22 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

All those, as I said, are under the common name. See Lundomys, Pseudoryzomys, Dendrocollybia, Noronhomys, Eremoryzomys, Mindomys (all FAs) for examples of the convention used here. Ucucha 13:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You're focusing on the common name; my point is that the genus redirects to the species, it just so happens that these species have an agreed-upon common name. I see from your contributions that you seem to be adding the missing rodent articles that appear to coincidentally be lacking any agreed-upon common name. I also see there is a separate Rodent WikiProject nowadays. Perhaps that is where the disconnect is happening. At WP:MAMMALS, the modus operandi was to redirect to the species. Not to appear to be targeting you for an argument, but I think we are not going to agree and I think neither will change his mind. This is creating an inconsistency in the project and the Rodents Wikiproject may be setting a different precedence than the Mammals Wikiproject. Also, I see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna) is in disagreement with the mammal articles, so this needs to be addressed, too. I want to take this to a wider audience for proper feedback, do you mind if I take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals -- I don't think continuing an RfC on this talk page is appropriate -- or if you have a better place for a centralized discussion, let me know. -64.85.221.22 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice that one of my examples is a fungus. The default across all organisms is, and has always been, to use the genus name as the title if the genus is monotypic and there is no established common name. Ucucha 14:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, then if there is a widely accepted common name, a different default is used (redirect genus down to species rather than redirect species up to genus)? Admittedly, I have not wandered outside of the mammal articles on Wikipedia, so I am very unfamiliar with the conventions of the other classes much less kingdoms. See, that is where the inconsistency appears and needs to be corrected, at least with the mammal articles. The defaults seem to be different when they should be homogeneous. Maybe this is just a "mammal with a common name" problem. Do you see what I mean, or am I still missing something? -64.85.221.22 (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there is at least an apparent discrepancy. However, in the case of Atilax, we can consider "marsh mongoose" to be the common name of the genus as well as the species—so arguably, there is no real discrepancy. Common names don't really have rank; only scientific names do. Ucucha 14:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe this is just semantics, but if we consider the common name to be that of the genus (in monotype situations) then shouldn't Marsh mongoose redirect to Atilax? So then there would be a real discrepancy. From an organizational point of view, it should always direct to the species; this would allow for the genus page to be expanded if enough info was notable to justify a separate article or if a new species was discovered, and then a new page for the new species, and the existing species' page would not need to be moved. Previously, you said "The default across all organisms is, and has always been, to use the genus name as the title if the genus is monotypic and there is no established common name." Forgive my ignorance if I am arguing against an accepted academic standard, but where is that established? (Maybe I should continue this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) after this question.) -64.85.221.22 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What I am arguing is that "marsh mongoose" is the common name of the genus as well as the species; thus, the article is in a way still at the genus name, even though "marsh mongoose" does not redirect to "Atilax". That default is established in the naming of scores of pages on Wikipedia. See also WP:NCFauna: "If there is a choice of scientific names, generally use the lowest-ranked taxon which the article covers, but for monotypic genera (i.e., where the genus has only one known species), use the genus name for the article title." Ucucha 16:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And that is exactly the sentence to which I take exception. Therefore, I shall take my protest to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) within the week. Thank you for vetting out the problem with me. -64.85.216.158 (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A Picture?

Does anyone know where I might find a picture of the animal? It seems odd that this article is featured and yet there is no picture of the subject matter. Jamutaq (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Amen. This article needs a picture of its subject. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. How on earth did this get to FA status without a picture of the subject in the infobox? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)