Talk:Brachytarsomys mahajambaensis
 | Brachytarsomys mahajambaensis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 2, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hypogeomys australis, Nesomys narindaensis, and Brachytarsomys mahajambaensis are the only known extinct rodents of Madagascar? | |||||||||
GA Review[edit]
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Brachytarsomys mahajambaensis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Comments later
A couple of queries
1. looking at these two sentences
- The presence of B. mahajambaensis, a rare element in the local rodent fauna, suggests that the region was previously more humid.
- Brachytarsomys is a rare element of the rodent fauna, which is dominated by multiple species of ... The modern, dry environment in northwestern Madagascar is decidedly inhospitable to these animals; the presence of B. mahajambaensis could indicate that the region was more humid in the past.
- I’m not sure I get this: there are two extant Brachytarsomys species in the current arid environment, so why would the presence of a third mean that it was more humid then? I can see that could be the case if B. mahajambaensis inhabited wetter environments (no evidence as far as I can see) or if it was numerous, but it’s described as a rare element in the fauna.
- The living species occur in humid mountain forests, not in the lowlands where B. mahajambaensis was found. I've tried to clarify a little.
2. Do we know whether the extinct form is related more closely to one of the extant species that the other?
- No comments in Mein et al., so no.
I can't see anything else Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 15:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
