# Talk:Oryzomys nelsoni

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oryzomys nelsoni/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I signed up for this review. Comments to follow soon. Is this article FAC-bound? Sasata (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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. Ucucha 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
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 switched distinctive to distinct, see here if you doubt the distinction. Sasata (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right.
"On the basis of" -> Based on
Done.
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
Done.
That second caption isn't showing up on my screen, maybe because the image width is too narrow? Sasata (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to make it a thumb; should be good now.
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.
maybe wink to section in taxonomy
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)
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.
Is that a fancy word for rat scientist? I could not find it or riceratology on Google or Google scholar. Sasata (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, just invented that. Ucucha 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
plumbeous, decurved could use links/defs
Got rid of them instead.
"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?
I think present tense is appropriate for an extant organism. Sasata (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Which this is not.
where are the type specimens kept?
USNM. Added.
I can't access these papers, but the following come up in a search:
Title: Descriptions of three new Rodents from the Olympic Mountains, Washington.
Author(s): Merriam, C. H.
Source: P. Ac. Philad.   Pages: pp. 352 & 353   Published: 1898
Nothing. I guess someone referenced the wrong Merriam 1898 once.
Title: Notes on geographic distribution, habitat, and taxonomy of some Mexican mammals
Author(s): MUSSER, GUY G.
Source: OCCAS PAPERS MUS ZOOL UNIV MICHIGAN   Volume: 636   Pages: 1-22   Published: 1964
Nothing. It mentions Megadontomys nelsoni and Oryzomys alfaroi.
Thanks for the helpful comments! Ucucha 19:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Should this extinct species have a dagger symbol † in the taxobox?
Not necessarily. Template:Taxobox doesn't prescribe it, and I think it's redundant with the conservation status. Ucucha 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
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)

Thanks for the review. I fixed the dab link. Ucucha 22:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any source that common name Nelson's Rice Rat is invalid or not in use? --Melly42 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but it is just one of several proposed common names for this species, none of which appears to be in especially common use. Ucucha 17:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
We tend to prefer current over 19th-century common names. There is no such thing as priority for common names. Ucucha 23:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627094911/http://www.iucnredlist.org/ to http://www.iucnredlist.org/
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)