Talk:Petter's big-footed mouse

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Macrotarsomys petteri/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you know the drill :)

''Its distribution may have shifted because of climatic changes and competition with introduced species. - I'd rejig this to "Climatic changes and competition with introduced species may have impacted upon/affected/reduced its distribution. "

Done. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"vicariant" which is an unusual word, is not mentioned in the Allopatric speciation article at all (apart from as a target for the redirect). I'd think of linking to a wiktionary def if there is a good one, or adding material to the linked article and redirecting to the subheading maybe....or possibly using a plainer english term?

Reworded. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"cover hairs" - I don't recall this expression before though I think I cna guess what it means...link or gloss maybe?

They are the main fur, in contrast to the guard hairs which are longer and extend over the cover fur. I've glossed. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking WRT logical flow that sentences 2 and 3 should swap places in the Distribution and ecology section. See what you think.

Sentence 2 refers to the Andaladomo forest region in general, not to the fragment where they found M. petteri, so I think it's better as is. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha, that helps. Agree then and good catch for reducing ambiguity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance: - just the minor issues outlined above. Fairly straighforward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: N/A

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: N/A

Overall:

Pass or Fail: nearly there. Otherwise looking good as always. I know what the answers to my questions on diet and breeding will be ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. Thanks for the review; I've replied above. Ucucha 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macrotarsomys petteri. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo?

This article fairly calls out for a picture of its subject. The text just doesn't do it justice. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's an extremely endagered animal and the first thing people will see when searching for it is a latin name. If anyone has a copyright-free picture of it, please post it on the Commons and place it here. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the above comments about the lack of a photo. I believe that this article should not have been promoted to featured article status, let alone accepted as a TFA candidate, without an accompanying image. There are terrific articles out there, with adequate images, that never get promoted because of people's nitpicking, or because of Wikipedia rules that I regard as arcane or arbitrary. Yet this incomplete article (and it may not be the fault of the editors that they could not obtain a photo, but that's no help to the reader) gets promoted and featured. There should be more consistent standards for Wiki articles than is currently the case, in my opinion. Dylanexpert (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The featured article criteria do include a requirement that the article must have images and other media "where appropriate". I don't recall ever seeing a FAC opposed because the article lacked images that in theory could be obtained, but it may have happened; it would be an interesting discussion. Regardless, I don't think featured articles without pictures should be excluded from TFA. That would amount to the TFA coordinators asserting that they know better than the FAC process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we get pictures of it and is it a species or a living being

I want to see what Petter's Big Footed Mouse looks like. I also want to know if Petter's Big Footed Mouse is a species or an owned animal or just a wild animal 207.171.204.31 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)