# Talk:Inyo shrew

This review is transcluded from Talk:Inyo shrew/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 14:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

An anonymous username, not my real name AryKun (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The lead is very short and could be beefed up; for example, you don't actually describe the species's appearance, you just say that it's larger than the dwarf shrew.
Mentioned appearance.
You mention the sources inline far too much; you don't have to mention that a study from so-and-so is the source for some claim when the hyperlink is there at the end of the sentence. It unnecessarily breaks the flow of the article.
I only see one clear example of this, which I corrected. I also noticed "2016 data by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature", but this is rather necessary for the statement being made.
You could use File:Sorex_tenellus_skulls_Merriam_(cropped).JPG as the lead image; it's not great, but it's better than nothing.
 Done
The Taxonomy section is rather badly organized and is hard to follow.
Agreed. No idea what I was thinking. It should look much better now.
Mention the type locality immediately after the description.
 Done
"He studied...S. t. nanus." Excessive detail that should be removed.
 Removed
"He identified...Sorex nanus." and "In 1902...myops." can be combined into something like  "Merriam described three subspecies of the Inyo shrew, excluding the nominate: S. t. nanus in 1895, and S. t. lyelli and S. t. myops in 1902. The first two are now generally treated as distinct species, S. lyelli and S. nanus, while the last was promoted to species status by HHT Jackson in 1928 before being lumped with the Inyo shrew again in 1941. The Inyo shrew is now treated as being monotypic."
I handled it a little differently, but it should still be much more readable now.
"from Sorex tellenus, the dwarf shrew" → "from Sorex nanus, which is called the dwarf shrew"
Again, I handled it differently, but it's fixed. Some of what I wrote appears to have been a mistake after rechecking my sources.
In description, you mention that the dwarf shrew, Inyo shrew, and ornate shrew may represent the same species; presumably someone said this based on their morphological similarity and clinality. This should also be mentioned in taxonomy.
Perhaps only in taxonomy, in that case, to avoid repetition.
The species appears to have been included in some genetic studies ( here and here ) ; their results should be mentioned (although they appear to directly conflict with each other), with a cladogram if possible.
Results used, although I don't know if a cladogram would be appropriate, as it would require one study taking precedence.
"upper regions" and "lower regions" You could just say upperparts and underparts instead, both af which are more unambiguous.
I think I did this to avoid close paraphrasing, but I agree that it's better changed.
Skull doesn't need a link.
 Removed
Since this is a US article, shouldn't measurements be imperial first (or is metric allowed in US articles?)?
I think metric measurements first is always preferred. I can check later.
"The Inyo...and Nevada." → "The Inyo shrew is mainly found in the American states of California and Nevada."
I agree that this looks better as a standalone statement, but the sentence following doesn't work with the proposed wording.
"Granite Creek Canyon, Deep Creek Range, Juab County, Utah," Doesn't this seem like excessive detail? You could at least remove the county.
 Removed county and "Granite Creek Canyon".
Refer to the species exclusively by the common or scientific name, not both.
I only saw one instance outside of the taxonomy section, which I removed. I'm leaving the others, as I believe that would be more appropriate when discussing taxonomy.
A parasite has been described from this species, could be added to ecology.
 Done
The conservation section would be better worded as "The IUCN has classifies the Inyo shrew as being of least concern due to its stable population, its presence in multiple protected areas, and a lack of major threats to the species. The population is estimated to number well over 10,000 adults and is stable."
 Done
Ecology and Conservation could be merged into one section due to their shortness.
Hmmm, I see your point, but that would be rather unusual for this type of article. If it's fine with you, I'm going to keep it the same.
AryKun, I think I've sufficiently improved this article. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I think the article is fine now and good to go for GA. AryKun (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)