Wikipedia:Peer review/Lund's Amphibious Rat/archive1

Lund's Amphibious Rat

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to bring this article up to featured status. I consulted virtually all literature available about it (which ain't much), so there's little if any opportunity for expansion. I would greatly appreciate any comments you may have.

Thanks, Ucucha 12:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicely written. I am not very familiar with zoology, but here are my comments on format:

• Although there is a lot to say about its taxonomy, I'm not convinced that section belongs at the top. The order given by Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article template makes more sense to me.
• A picture would be very desirable; I assume that a free picture is not currently available.
• When using the short footnote format like this, they look better with 3 or 4 columns.

--Yannick (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I placed the taxonomy section at the top because I felt that several points made there are essential for understanding the rest of the article. The template you mention is not generally used for mammals articles including current FAs such as Sperm Whale and Giant Otter.

Actually, I am very happy that I could at least get the skull picture that is now at the top. That's as good as we get for those animals.

Thanks for the reflist suggestion; I hadn't thought of that. It's at three columns now. Ucucha 15:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-written and most interesting. I'm not a scientist, and I can't bring the eyes of a biologist to the reading, but I have some suggestions about Manual of Style issues and other, mostly nitpicky, things.

Lead

• Since the lead is to be a summary or abstract of the whole article, it would be good to slip in at least a mention of "Natural history" and "Conservation status".
  • Well, it says from the NH section that it's semiaquatic. I got in a sentence mentioning its nice nests and that it's not threatened.
• Wikilink pelage?
  • Done.
• Generally quantities expressed in metric units are also expressed in imperial units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions because the template spells and abbreviates automatically and does the math. Thus "head and body length averaging 193 mm" would become "head and body length averaging 193 millimetres (7.60 in)".
  • Well, WP:MOS#Unit conversions seems to imply that this is not needed for scientific topics such as these. In all mammalogical publications, even when written by Americans on American species, measurements are only given in the metric system. I would prefer to also do that here, but if there is a strong need to include the imperial units, I have no problems with that. I did link "millimeter", though, as required by the MOS.
    • I might disagree. It is certainly true that American mammalogists publishing in American journals will only use metric, but similar texts intended for a popular audience do tend to include imperial units for very basic measurements. I think the average American reader should be able to see whether it is big or small and whether the habitat is hot or cold, dry or wet. Cranial measurements are meaningless in anything but metric, but my personal opinion is that habitat features, weight (when present), head and body (or total length), and tail should show the conversion. --Aranae (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I will do it. Thanks for weighing in. Ucucha 00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• "its external morphology" - Wikilink morphology?
  • Done.

Description

• "The forefeet also lacks tufts on the digits and show very long claws... " - "forefeet ... lack" rather than "lacks"?
  • Done.
• "The coat, which is long, dense, and soft, is yellow-brown in color at the sides... " - Tighten by deleting "in color"?
  • Done.
• "The head and body length is 160 to 230 mm (average 193 mm), the tail length is 195 to 255 mm (average 235 mm), and the length of the hindfoot is 58 to 68 mm (average 62 mm)." - More conversions?
  • Same as above.
• "a slight raising of the mandibular bone at the back end of the incicor," - "incisor"?
  • Shame on me for not catching that one. Done.
• "The first lower molars has four roots... " - "molar" rather than "molars"? Or "have" rather than "has"?
  • Changed into "molar", which is consistent with usage in the rest of the teeth description.
• "including two small accessory roots located in between larger anterior and posterior roots" - Tighten by deleting "in"?
  • Done.

Distribution and ecology

• "its distribution is generally limited to areas with mean winter temperatures over 12°C" - The convert template will handle temperature conversions too; e.g., 12 °C (54 °F).
  • Same again.
• "The oldest locality, at Bajo San José, dates to MIS 11... - Perhaps this should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use, thus: Marine Isotopic Stage 11 (MIS 11)?
  • I made it just Marine Isotopic Stage 11. I don't use the abbreviation later in the article, so I see no point in giving it here.

Natural history

• Is it known what preys on Lund's Amphibious Rat?
• Is it known how long these rats live?
• Is anything more known about its life cycle? Reproductive habits?
  • I read virtually anything that has ever been written about this species (which ain't much) when writing this article. I will check again to see whether I missed anything, though. Ucucha 00:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I now added a little more information that I could pull out of the sources. Someone with a better knowledge of Spanish than me might want to add some more information on the nests (cited in Voss and Carleton, p. 34, [1]), but I think that might actually go into too much detail. The sentence currently in the "Natural history" section apparently includes everything that is known about its reproduction or life cycle. A lot more [2] is known about Holochilus sciureus, which is probably similar in many respects. Ucucha 02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

References

• et al. takes italics because it's Latin.
  • Not all scientific journals agree. This doesn't seem to be done consistently in our FAs either; I would prefer to leave it non-italicized.

Literature cited

• The word "and" is preferred to the ampersand except in the case of official names of corporations and other entities. "Bonvicino, C.R., Oliveira, J.A. & D'Andrea, P.S." would be "Bonvicino, C.R., Oliveira, J.A. and D'Andrea, P.S.", for example.
  • Done. Ucucha 00:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

General

• The dabfinder tool in the toolbox on the upper right of this page finds two wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  • One (to rostrum) turned out to be unnecessary; I deleted it and rephrased it because it used an unnecessary technical term. The other is to reed, and I'm not quite sure what to do with it, since my sources just talk about "reed" without specifying which species of reed is meant. I might link to reed bed instead.
• Could you create a map showing the range of these rats? That would give you a second useful image, which might be handy if you take this to FAC.
  • Actually, it is there already (at the bottom of the taxobox).

I must have gone momentarily blind. Yes, it's already there, plain as day. Finetooth (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, which were definitely helpful. I might consider some of the points you brought up as minor, but I think it's important for Wikipedia articles to be stylistically consistent and this is the way to achieve it. I will probably not have too much time to spend on Wikipedia for the next couple of weeks and what I have I'll use to get this one ready for FAC, but after that I'll definitely look whether there are any interesting PRs to do. Ucucha 00:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments I agree that this is generally well done, but had two suggestions.

• The use of "Meanwhile" at the start of the second paragraph of Taxonomy is confusing - one meaning of meanwhile is "at the same time" but the events described in the first sentence (1926) take place several decades after those of the first paragraph, and the second sentence is almost three decades after th first. Meanwhile, some rodents collected in Uruguay in 1926 that the collector had identified as Holochilus had been examined by American zoologist Philip Hershkovitz. In his 1955 review of the genus Holochilus, ...
  • What I intended to say with that was during the same period when other people were busy (or more accurately, were not busy) figuring out what molitor was, other people were in the process of discovering magnus, which I think agrees with Wiktionary's first definition of meanwhile: "During the time (that something is happening)." However, the fact that you find it confusing is probably a sign that it would be better to phrase it differently; I'm open to suggestions and will try to think of one myself.
    • Thanks for clarifying. I think I would either say something like what you said above, or perhaps say something like "Decades would pass before more information on the species was obtained. In 1926, some rodents collected in Uruguay were (mis)identified by the collector as Holochilus. American zoologist Philip Hershkovitz examined the samples again for his 1955 review of the genus Holochilus, ..." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I rephrased it now. What do you think of the current phrasing? Ucucha 15:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • That seems fine to me, thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• I also wondered if you had tried contacting someone who has published photos of the rat to see if they would be willing to release one or more for use here - perhaps as lower resolution or smaller versions.
  • No, I did not, and I consider the chance of success for that to be fairly small. It is also important to realize that the best we could get with that would be a better picture of the skull or a close-up of the molars--to my knowledge, no one has ever published a picture of its skin, let alone of the live animal.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • I assumed since it was Least Concern that there must be photos of it published somewhere. If there are not, obviously you can't ask permission to use them. I have had fairly good success rates asking for permission to use photos (though it is a fair amount of work). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'm not sure I'd even expect an association between conservation status and photo availability for rodents. But thanks again for your comments. Ucucha 15:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • My thought was LC animals would be more common and so more likely to be photographed - photos of robins are plentiful, photos of whooping cranes are less so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't imagine anyone will have much luck obtaining a picture of a live animal. It looks like AMNH has several specimens in fluid, but I'm not sure that's all that worthwhile anyway. I am personally quite impressed at Ucucha's ability to score the skull diagram. --Aranae (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Just to be clear, I also am impressed by the article and the current images. My original thought was just that there might be a published photo out there that the author(s) might be willing to release for use here - as already noted, I have had success asking for such permissions and I thought it worth a shot. SInce there are no such images, the point is moot. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Ucucha 00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rlendog comments Let me start out by stating that I am notoriously bad at reviewing things, so take anything I say here with a grain of salt. But you've reviewed some of my requests lately so it's only fair that I give it a shot. First of all, I think this is an excellent article, about as comprehensive as it could be. My suggestions are:

• The taxonomy section goes through the convoluted history of how the animal came to be classified as it is. But a reader who comes to the taxonomy section just to learn what the current classification is has to read through the whole history to get there. It may be better to put the punchline first - i.e., its family, tribe, etc., its close relatives, shared characteristics among Lundomys, Holochilus, Pseudoryzomys and Carletonomys - and then go into the details as to how it got there. Admittedly, the lead seems to have some of this information, so my suggestion would just replicate the end of the lead then maybe it is best to leave as is.
  • I happen to agree with the final thing you said. This creature's taxonomic history is fairly confusing, and the current organization reflects my attempt to make clear that confused history in a nontechnical environment. Its relations to Holochilus c.s. have only recently been recognized, and therefore they belong at the end. As you say, this information is already in the lead, just above the start of the taxonomy section; I think that should be enough. Ucucha 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• The description is very technical, and all the technical deatils are good. But I think the first paragraph should limit itself to a more basic description, and then expand on the details in the 2nd paragraph. The first paragraph does note the size, the color, the sparse hair (or is this just the tail), the long claws, the fact that the tail is longer than the head and body, unlike H. brasiliensis and the webbed feet, which I think is right, but also includes more technical details like the plantar margins, tufts of hair on digits, which I think make the basic descrpition harder to follow. Also:
  • • This paragraph was supposed to be about external characters (plus the gall bladder which didn't fit in anywhere else). I moved the sentence about the coat a few paragraphs up now, so that we get all the readily understandable stuff at the beginning before plunging into the technical aspects of its feet. How does that read? Ucucha 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I was a little confused by the sentences that say "It is sparsely haireed and dark, and there is no difference in color between the upper and lower sides" and "The coat, which is dense and soft, is yellowish-brown at the sides, but becomes darker dorsally and lighter ventrally". These seemed to contradict each other at first, although rereading I think the first sentence only applies to the tail. But then it may be better to say "The tail is sparsely haired..." (I first thought "it" applied to the whole animal).
    • "It" there certainly refers to the tail, which is the subject of the preceding sentence. If this is unclear, it should be rephrased, but changing "it" to "the tail" would sound awkward in my opinion. The sentence on the coat now immediately follows the one on the tail, which might mitigate the problem. Ucucha 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying "becomes darker dorsally and lighter ventrally", it may simpler to use similar language to the tail sentence, i.e., the coat becomes darker on the upperparts."
    • Good, that helps eliminate a few unnecessary technical words. Done. Ucucha 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure why the description of the chromosomes was in the first paragraph of the description. If this belongs in the description section then it may be worth its own short paragraph at the end, although it may go better in the taxonomy section.
    • Fair enough, it is in its own paragraph now. It definitely belongs in "Description" rather than "Taxonomy", as the karyotype is one of the physical aspects of the animal that can be described. The karyotype can of course have taxonomic significance, but that goes for all characters. Ucucha 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the distribution and ecology section, I would say "Records of live specimens from eastern Argentina and Lagoa Santa, Minas Geraus, have not been substantiated," rather than stating they "cannot be substatiated", unless there is some reason why substantiation will never be possible.
  • Gooid point. Changed. Ucucha 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Also in distribution and ecology, I found it unusual to use 420.000, 360.000 and 30.000 years old, as I am used to seeing comma separators rather than periods. But I assume that the periods are an appropriate usage.
  • They are in British English, but this article is supposed to be in American English. I changed it. Ucucha 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• In Natural History, I would say "Lund's Amphibious Rat has semiaquatic habits...", which I think is a bit simpler to read than "Lund's Amphibious Rat is seminaquatic in habits..."
  • It's not a big deal either way, but I subjectively prefer the current wording. If people agree with you that your wording is to be preferred, I'd happily go with that. Ucucha
• Also in Natural History, I am not sure the word "even" in "It is even more specialized for swimming than Holochilus is" is necessary, since the article never establishes that Holochilus is an especially good swimmer.
  • Holochilus is in fact a good swimmer. I am not sure that should be said explicitly in this article, since it is not about Holochilus. The current wording of the sentence makes clear that even though H. is already good, L. is better, adding a little bit of information that would be lost without the word "even". Ucucha 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, take these suggestions with a grain of salt. I hope they help a little though. Rlendog (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it always helps when someone critically rereads an article and gives constructive comments. At the very least, you were the first one who recognized the "Amphibous" typo. ;-) Ucucha 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I could be of help! Rlendog (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)