Talk:Thomasomys ucucha

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't resist reviewing your namesake species. Comments soonish. Sasata (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay; random real-life stuff has prevented me from being at the computer for more than a few minutes at a time. Comments:

• "…where it occurs in forests and grasslands at 3380 to 3720 m (11090 to 12200 ft) above sea level, where it may occur with seven other species of Thomasomys." reword to remove repetition of "where it"
  • Done.
• link/gloss procumbent
  • Wiktionaried.
• "Habitat destruction may threaten the species, so that it is listed as "Vulnerable" on the IUCN Red List." This sentence directly follows mention of T. hylophilus, so it might be a good idea to reorganize to avoid subject confusion
  • Used T. ucucha instead.
• were the first three collected specimens caught live? Were they recognized as new species then? Maybe add a few words to explain that the environment is little-explored mammalogically due to the logistical difficulties of collecting specimens there.
  • I guess Söderström (Ludovic Söderström, who was the Swedish consul in Quito and apparently liked looking for mammals) caught them in a live trap, but don't think it's very important. The three from 1903 are AMNH 46621, 46622, and 46624, but Voss says very little about them and I can't find any more (especially since the AMNH appears to have closed down its collection database). I don't know whether they were recognized as a new species back then, or whether anyone would have cared much; there are lots of Thomasomys species (many, probably most, of which were named after 1903; I think about ten at least remain to be named), and they're probably hard to tell apart. I did add something about Papallacta's remoteness.
• is the holotype one of the original 1903 specimens or one collected by Voss?
  • It's one from 1980. Is it important? I don't usually mention details about the type specimens.
• range map?
  • I'll make one (will be just placing a dot at the appropriate place in Ecuador, I guess).
• link specific name
  • Done.
• dab Cordillera Oriental, Presphenoid
  • Done for the Cordillera; not sure about presphenoid, since the dab page doesn't produce anything suitable.
• "Most were taken in runways" clarify what a runway is
  • Done.
• would File:Mojanda.jpg be a suitable habitat pic?
  • Apparently about 500 m too high.
• what are the protected areas near which it occurs?
  • Tirira doesn't say.

Sasata (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 22:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Meets GA criteria, passing. Sasata (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sentence case species common names policy

Wikipedia has adopted a policy, in common with most if not all other encyclopedias, as well as the majority of other works in formal prose, of using sentence case for common names of species of mammals (as well as for species of most other types), since such names are not proper nouns; this policy is given here. According to this rule, the term "ucucha", a Quechua mammal common name, should be given in sentence case, since it is a common noun.

It should be noted that sentence case typography rules are not necessarily applied to lists, titles, or other printing that is not part of prose sentences. Thus, the typography used in the MSW3 common name listing (which is always given in title case) cannot be taken as evidence that the authors of the book would use the same typography in prose. Furthermore, even if MSW3 were to use a title case common name in prose, that would have no relevance here, since the Wikipedia policy is based on the distinction between proper and common nouns, regardless of the typography used by MSW3 or any other source. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo, picture, drawing, graphic, image ?

Anyway to include an image of the critter? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed...how did this article meet the FA criteria without even a single picture of the animal? The only image is a map! Clearly WP:FACR№3 is not met—this article should be demoted IMHO. Some editors have no problem pushing things through the WP:FAC process, while others are given a much higher bar. Pinging User:Ian Rose. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto is of course entitled to their opinion on how difficult or easy it is for different editors to get an article through FAC, but to stay on the main point: FACR #3 states an article should use images or other media as appropriate, and when properly licensed for reproduction; if images meeting these criteria exist for this beast then anyone can add them, if not then a map may have to satisfy. In any case, getting a Featured Article delisted has a process, which can be found at WP:FAR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course, if a free picture cannot be obtained, then one cannot be included. It took but a moment to find a source online which can at least be linked (I think CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 is not accepted by WP). The same source also has a a more up-to-date map which is consistent with the article, rather than the current one based only on Voss and entitled "Only known collection site of the rodent Thomasomys ucucha". Davidships (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this! I'm pretty sure that site didn't exist when I wrote this article a few years ago, and I haven't looked for new literature much since then. It would be great if we could include more information and link the picture from that site. It sounds like the species has also been found in a few additional places since 2003. Ucucha (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it didn't. The problem is as much with the system that leaves FACs lying there for nearly a decade and them pops them into the calendar at only a month's notice and with no requirement for a content review by main authors or any re-assessment. It's an interesting and well-written little article - the good thing is that it is already getting better, in the hands of those who understand the world of critters. Davidships (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Name in Local Languages

Maybe I missed it, but what is this called locally in Spanish and in the indigenous languages? "ucucha" is the word for "mouse" according to the article, but that doesn't say that it is the name for this specific animal. If this is an animal in Ecuador, it's surprising that there isn't a corresponding article in Spanish. Does it appear in local culture, folklore, etc.? Ll1324 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

According to this source or this one, known locally in Spanish as "Ratón andino Ucucha". The WP:ES article is not written yet, see here. Davidships (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source listing the Spanish names (not just a website), we should include it. I would expect that in practice it is known in Ecuador as Thomasomys ucucha though: there are more than a dozen Thomasomys species in Ecuador, and I doubt anyone but biologists distinguishes them. Ucucha (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

What means "not just a website"? At least one of the links I provided is published by a leading Ecuadorian university, and the other is from an author/publisher you already cite in the article. If you must have something with page numbers then the same PUCE page is less conveniently found in Vallejo, A. F. y Boada, C 2018. Thomasomys ucucha in: Brito, J., Camacho, M. A., Romero, V. Vallejo, A. F. (eds). 2018. Mamíferos de Ecuador Museo de Zoología, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. pp1368-1371.

The original question was about the common name in Spanish. Here you will find that members of genus Thomasomys are generally known in Ecuador as ratón andino, plus the usual descriptive. Davidships (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Photo

Despite the textual description, this article needs a photo of its subject. Anybody? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)