![]() | Malagasy mountain mouse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2018. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 5, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the little brown mouse
Monticolomys koopmani was first collected in 1929, it was not formally described until 1996? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk) 02:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I doubt I'll get through a whole review before heading to bed, but I'll have a look.
Ok, looking back through, everything looks ready for GA status (apart from the quick replies above). Some things to think about if you're thinking about FAC-
As I say, these thoughts are for pushing towards FA. J Milburn ( talk) 12:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
After a final peep, I'm now happy to promote this to GA status. Well done! J Milburn ( talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This article should be at the species page (Monticolomys koopmani or, preferably, Koopman's Montane Voalavo) and since there are no other extinct or extant species in the genus (Monticolomys) then Monticolomys should redirect to the species page. 64.85.214.98 ( talk) 19:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, look at Mongooses for example: the genera articles for Atilax, Cynictis, Dologale, Ichneumia all redirect to the monotypic species article. I found many many many many more, but only a few are needed for this example. Also, the Family article for Nandiniidae as well as the only genus it contains both redirect to the species article. If this convention is incorrect, then probably somewhere around 100 or so of the mammal articles need to be renamed. It seems to make sense to redirect any monotypic articles to the lowest taxonomic rank -- which would be the species article. I probably am missing something, but why would this article not be moved to Monticolomys koopmani? - 64.85.221.22 ( talk) 13:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, maybe this is just semantics, but if we consider the common name to be that of the genus (in monotype situations) then shouldn't Marsh mongoose redirect to Atilax? So then there would be a real discrepancy. From an organizational point of view, it should always direct to the species; this would allow for the genus page to be expanded if enough info was notable to justify a separate article or if a new species was discovered, and then a new page for the new species, and the existing species' page would not need to be moved. Previously, you said "The default across all organisms is, and has always been, to use the genus name as the title if the genus is monotypic and there is no established common name." Forgive my ignorance if I am arguing against an accepted academic standard, but where is that established? (Maybe I should continue this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) after this question.) - 64.85.221.22 ( talk) 15:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I might find a picture of the animal? It seems odd that this article is featured and yet there is no picture of the subject matter. Jamutaq ( talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Malagasy mountain mouse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2018. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 5, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the little brown mouse
Monticolomys koopmani was first collected in 1929, it was not formally described until 1996? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk) 02:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I doubt I'll get through a whole review before heading to bed, but I'll have a look.
Ok, looking back through, everything looks ready for GA status (apart from the quick replies above). Some things to think about if you're thinking about FAC-
As I say, these thoughts are for pushing towards FA. J Milburn ( talk) 12:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
After a final peep, I'm now happy to promote this to GA status. Well done! J Milburn ( talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This article should be at the species page (Monticolomys koopmani or, preferably, Koopman's Montane Voalavo) and since there are no other extinct or extant species in the genus (Monticolomys) then Monticolomys should redirect to the species page. 64.85.214.98 ( talk) 19:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, look at Mongooses for example: the genera articles for Atilax, Cynictis, Dologale, Ichneumia all redirect to the monotypic species article. I found many many many many more, but only a few are needed for this example. Also, the Family article for Nandiniidae as well as the only genus it contains both redirect to the species article. If this convention is incorrect, then probably somewhere around 100 or so of the mammal articles need to be renamed. It seems to make sense to redirect any monotypic articles to the lowest taxonomic rank -- which would be the species article. I probably am missing something, but why would this article not be moved to Monticolomys koopmani? - 64.85.221.22 ( talk) 13:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, maybe this is just semantics, but if we consider the common name to be that of the genus (in monotype situations) then shouldn't Marsh mongoose redirect to Atilax? So then there would be a real discrepancy. From an organizational point of view, it should always direct to the species; this would allow for the genus page to be expanded if enough info was notable to justify a separate article or if a new species was discovered, and then a new page for the new species, and the existing species' page would not need to be moved. Previously, you said "The default across all organisms is, and has always been, to use the genus name as the title if the genus is monotypic and there is no established common name." Forgive my ignorance if I am arguing against an accepted academic standard, but where is that established? (Maybe I should continue this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) after this question.) - 64.85.221.22 ( talk) 15:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I might find a picture of the animal? It seems odd that this article is featured and yet there is no picture of the subject matter. Jamutaq ( talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)