Talk:Petter's big-footed mouse/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you know the drill :)

''Its distribution may have shifted because of climatic changes and competition with introduced species. - I'd rejig this to "Climatic changes and competition with introduced species may have impacted upon/affected/reduced its distribution. "

Done. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"vicariant" which is an unusual word, is not mentioned in the Allopatric speciation article at all (apart from as a target for the redirect). I'd think of linking to a wiktionary def if there is a good one, or adding material to the linked article and redirecting to the subheading maybe....or possibly using a plainer english term?

Reworded. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"~~cover hairs" - I don't recall this expression before though I think I cna guess what it means...link or gloss maybe?~~

They are the main fur, in contrast to the guard hairs which are longer and extend over the cover fur. I've glossed. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am thinking WRT logical flow that sentences 2 and 3 should swap places in the Distribution and ecology section. See what you think.~~

Sentence 2 refers to the Andaladomo forest region in general, not to the fragment where they found M. petteri, so I think it's better as is. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that helps. Agree then and good catch for reducing ambiguity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

- ~~just the minor issues outlined above. Fairly straighforward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: N/A

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: N/A

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

~~nearly there. Otherwise~~ looking good as always. I know what the answers to my questions on diet and breeding will be ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately. Thanks for the review; I've replied above. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]