# Talk:Oryzomys albiventer

I'm not able to look this up right now, but I think there are some extra colons in the synonym section of the taxobox.  Some of those are clearly the actual authorities and not sources of name combinations.  --Aranae (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, don't know why I missed that. Thanks for the note. Ucucha 20:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oryzomys albiventer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 06:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

O. albiventer is further part of the O. couesi section, - "section" in this context needs a link or gloss- does it mean subgenus?
It's the term the source uses; I can't make more of it. It's not a subgenus because it doesn't have a one-word name. It might be inspired by section (botany).
Is it worth doing a complete legend for the map, naming all the species shown?
Possible. Not doing it makes the legend more concise, and it's not really that relevant to this article how some of the other species are called. I don't care much either way.
Nothing else really, there's not the masses of technical terms I usually nitpick about, so this shouldn't take long Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 10:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. This one has unfortunately never had a full and proper description, so I can't include many good technical terms on skull features. Ucucha 12:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

I realize the dist. map is of Western Mexico, but it's a little hard to tell what's what (a little too zoomed in perhaps).  And also, does the range extend further south (seems cut off)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As the caption indicates, the red piece is not the range of albiventer, but of a different species (Oryzomys couesi). It might indeed be better to have a context map indicating where this map is—I'll try to do that. Ucucha 03:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
That's all I'm asking for friend, is that you try. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
So...are you just waiting me out or something? (:-0 NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this species have a common name at all?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

See the last sentence of "Taxonomy". These "common" names were last used in 1918, though. Ucucha 17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, okay.  I was just wondering because the scientific name gets a little repetitive throughout the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I can hardly believe that for such a short article. :) However, I don't think we should resurrect decades-old common names, and "white-bellied rice rat" is particularly inappropriate since its belly is actually gray. Ucucha 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh...absolutely not.  Now that I read over the article, the scientific name isn't so repetitive as is the sea of italics.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)