Talk:Northern voalavo/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Will start ASAP! Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Ucucha 06:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! hmm...why no mention of the subfamily here/in the box? Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Per the documentation for Template:Taxobox, we should only include minor ranks (such as subfamilies) immediately above the taxon under consideration—so the subfamily should be included in the article for the genus Voalavo, but not for this species. However, there is an exception for especially significant "minor" taxa, and Nesomyinae is arguably such a taxon, so if you insist, I can add it to the taxobox. Ucucha 07:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We'll leave it alone ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine job! Just one thingy:

• In taxonomy, paragraph "Their results suggested that the current definitions of Eliurus and Voalavo may not be correct, because they found that V. gymnocaudus and E. grandidieri are more closely related to each other than to the remaining species of Eliurus. However, support for this relationship was relatively poor and Eliurus petteri, a possible close relative of E. grandidieri, was unavailable for study, so Jansa and colleagues recommended further evaluation of the problem. Data from nuclear genes also supports the relationship between V. gymnocaudus and E. grandidieri, but E. petteri remains genetically unstudied and the taxonomic issue has not been resolved."

• Again, is "support for this relationship was relatively weak" consensus- or finding-based? But doesn't statement "Data from nuclear genes also supports the relationship between V. gymnocaudus and E. grandidieri, but E. petteri remains genetically unstudied and the taxonomic issue has not been resolved." counter the "weakness" of that relationship? :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Reworded all this a little. Ucucha 13:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Nice :) Pass! Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Voalavo gymnocaudus passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass