# Talk:?Oryzomys pliocaenicus

This review is transcluded from Talk:?Oryzomys pliocaenicus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 00:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment
This articles  is the ultimate in minimalism.

Could there be more of an explanation as to why anyone cares about this one jaw bone? Why should this article exist?
It's a biological taxon, and such taxa are always considered notable as far as I believe. More technically, it's received significant coverage in Hibbard (1939) and arguably in some of the other papers cited, and there is no obvious target to merge it to.
I think the lead should contain some comment as  to why it has a name that begins with a question mark.
It does, where it says that it was described as a "possible species of Oryzomys". However, no source explicitly talks about the question mark, so neither can we.
I also think you should make some effort to plant wikilinks in other articles to it. Otherwise, it remains a virtual {{orphan}}, isolated and no one reads it.
The only existing article where I think a wikilink is appropriate is Oryzomys, and it's linked from there. It should also be linked from articles like Bensonomys and Jacobsomys, if they existed, but they don't, and we're assessing this article, not any others.
I am sure you have done your best to fulfil the requirements of a GA.
Xtzou (Talk) 00:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review. Ucucha 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Too bad no pix!  Xtzou (Talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:  Clear and concise writing

B. MoS compliance:  Complies with the basic MoS

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:  Sources are reliable

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  Well referenced where needed

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:  Broad in scope

B. Focused: } Remains focused on topic

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass! 

Interesting article. Congratulations!  Xtzou (Talk) 15:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)