This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
rodents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RodentsWikipedia:WikiProject RodentsTemplate:WikiProject RodentsRodent articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on
extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
Thanks. It's too short to send to FAC for my taste, but I'd nevertheless like to get it as good as possible, so please do make suggestions that go beyond the GA criteria.
Ucucha21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comments
"A distinctive species, it may have been…" distinctive -> distinct, but maybe it's too early to introduce this qualifier. I'd prefer if the lead were expanded a sentence or three to summarize the taxonomy section and the fact that it wasn't always considered a unique species.
I rephrased this a bit—though less than three sentences.
I know we've had similar discussions before, but would it be possible to give a bit of background about the discovery and the people involved? Were Nelson and Goldman American? Was this discovery part of some mammalogical expedition? Who was Merriam and why was he the one describing the species?
I expanded this with what little information I could glean from Merriam's and Nelson's papers.
"…Hershkovitz listed it as another subspecies of Oryzomys palustris" maybe "another" should just be "a", as the other subspecies weren't discussed previously
I attempted to emphasize that Hershkovitz included many subspecies in O. palustris, and reworded it to get that point across more clearly.
"Goldman considered O. nelsoni to be closest to the nearest mainland subspecies of O. couesi, O. couesi mexicanus." closest -> closely related? (reduce confusion - some might think you mean geographical distance)
Done.
I think the images should have captions that at least tell us if they're top or bottom views
Should avoid starting new paragraphs with abbreviations ("O. nelsoni is part of the genus Oryzomys…"), but it might be best to reword this (seems obvious)
Reworded. I did retain the piece about it being an Oryzomys, which may not be as clear to everyone and serves as a bridge between the previous piece, which is specific to O. nelsoni, and the following discussion of the entire genus.
That's a specifically botanical term; "section" here is from Goldman, and seems peculiar to Oryzomys.
wlink ochraceous, buff
Done for ochraceous; is it really necessary for buff, which seems a fairly common term?
I'll leave that up to you. I didn't know what the term meant until I started reading about mushrooms a few years ago, but then again, as my wife would tell you, I hardly knew any colors beyond ROYGBIV.
Sasata (
talk)
20:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I threw in a link.
"On the head and the back, dusky hairs somewhat darkened" dusky is a word I don't hear too often. Is there a more common synonym that could replace it?
Riceratologists are quite fond of it. I replaced it anyway.
"In O. albiventer, the rostrum and incisors were not as massive, but the molars are larger." changes verb tense
Don't blame me. I used present tense because the description is based on the four USNM specimens, which still exist, so that the traits also still exist, but can also see the argument for using past tense. What do you think?
Okay, almost everything looks good to me: images are PD, sources reliable, other GA criteria met. Just need to fix dab to Don Wilson.
Sasata (
talk)
20:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
No, but it is just one of several proposed common names for this species, none of which appears to be in especially common use.
Ucucha17:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, Merriam has used the name Nelson's Rice Rat in his first description in 1898 and so i think this name should have priority to all other names. --
Melly42 (
talk)
23:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Oryzomys nelsoni. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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.