 | Reigomys 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 October 16, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the teeth of the extinct rodent Holochilus primigenus are almost identical to those of Lund's Amphibious Rat, it is probably more closely related to marsh rats? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Conflict among sentences
editThe page currently says "which show that its molars were almost identical to those of the extant Lund's Amphibious Rat (Lundomys molitor). Although distinct in molar morphology..." Should that be "Although indistinct"? --Aranae (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- That should refer to the fact that it is distinct from Holochilus in molar morphology, not from Lundomys, but that's evidently not clear. The sentence needs a rephrasing. Ucucha 23:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I changed it; it should be clear now. I also changed the word "also", which you added to the sentence about Pardiñas suggesting its placement in a new genus, into "explicitly". Carleton and Olson do not really say that it should be placed in its own genus; as I read the paper, they suggest that it should perhaps be placed in Lundomys or Pseudoryzomys. It's a minor matter, of course, but I think the current wording is more accurate. Ucucha 13:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looks great. --Aranae (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I changed it; it should be clear now. I also changed the word "also", which you added to the sentence about Pardiñas suggesting its placement in a new genus, into "explicitly". Carleton and Olson do not really say that it should be placed in its own genus; as I read the paper, they suggest that it should perhaps be placed in Lundomys or Pseudoryzomys. It's a minor matter, of course, but I think the current wording is more accurate. Ucucha 13:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Holochilus primigenus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ 18:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Prose flows quite well, terms linked/described adequately (thanks, WP:POPUPS). Airplaneman ✈ 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Good here. Airplaneman ✈ 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Well, no images are used, but I understand they are either nonexistent, copyrighted or extremely hard to find. Airplaneman ✈ 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Yes, definitely GA status. For FA, I would recommend getting hold of some pictures (if possible). Airplaneman ✈ 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
