Jump to content

Talk:Eastern voalavo/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just claiming this one now. I'll offer a review at some point soon. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Voalavo antsahabensis is a rodent in the genus Voalavo" Somewhat redundant- perhaps mention the family rather than the genus?
    • Done.
  • Perhaps mention the common name in the lead?
    • Done.
  • Mention in the caption that those are known distributions, rather than complete distributions?
    • Done.
  • Not a massive problem, but a thought; this article seems to focus a little too heavily on comparing this species to the other in the genus, rather than describing it for its own sake, if you see what I mean. I don't think it's a problem at this stage, and I'm not going to hold up the GAC for it, but it's something to think about.
    • I agree. The reason is that Goodman et al. (2005) do not describe the species at all (well, almost); they only compare it with V. gymnocaudus.
  • "osteologically" Link?
    • Done.
  • "Anjozorobe is about from the nearest occurrence of V. gymnocaudus" Sorry?
    • Fixed.

Short and sweet. I am left pondering what it feeds on, and the article lacks information about reproduction, lifespan and such; I'd like to see at least a hint of the former, but I doubt the latter will be answerable at this stage. Other than that, I do come away from the article feeling I know what I need to know about the species. Sources, images, stability and such are fine, obviously. J Milburn (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess it eats fruits and seeds as such—Voalavo is said to have a similar niche to Monticolomys. However, I'm almost sure there is nothing specific on this species. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 07:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shorter review than usual, but I'm happy to promote this. Nice work, keep them coming! J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]