Talk:Reigomys

	Reigomys has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 18, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 16, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the teeth of the extinct rodent Holochilus primigenus are almost identical to those of Lund's Amphibious Rat, it is probably more closely related to marsh rats?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Rodents Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rodents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RodentsWikipedia:WikiProject RodentsTemplate:WikiProject RodentsRodent Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Rodents to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Drafts Cleanup : Beaver dam • Bolivian hemorrhagic fever • Campbell's dwarf hamster • Fancy mouse • Golden hamster • Guinea pig breed Expand : Bolivian hemorrhagic fever • Least chipmunk (requested) • California ground squirrel (requested) • Lemming (requested) Merge : List of literary accounts of the Pied Piper • Mousetrap NPOV : Birbalomys • Gambian pouched rat • Golden hamster • Hamster ball • Mountain Beaver • Pacarana • Plague (disease) • Prairie dog • Rat-catcher • Syrian hamster variations • The Rats (novel) • Tree squirrel Stubs : Rodent stubs Update : Baird's pocket gopher • Beaver • Black squirrel • Chinchilla • Cypriot mouse • Eurasian beaver • House mouse • Rabies Verify : Acouchi • Aethomys • Ailuravus • Allegheny woodrat • American red squirrel • Anatole (mouse) • Anomalomyidae • Apodemus • Arctic ground squirrel • Argentine hemorrhagic fever • Armintomys • Batomys • Beaver • Beaver dam • Black-tailed prairie dog • Blesmol • Bobak marmot • Eligmodontia • Guinea pig • Mountain beaver • North American beaver • Tokudaia Wikify : Baird's pocket gopher • Golden hamster • Indian giant flying squirrel Other : photo requests

The page currently says "which show that its molars were almost identical to those of the extant Lund's Amphibious Rat (Lundomys molitor). Although distinct in molar morphology..." Should that be "Although indistinct"? --Aranae (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That should refer to the fact that it is distinct from Holochilus in molar morphology, not from Lundomys, but that's evidently not clear. The sentence needs a rephrasing. Ucucha 23:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed it; it should be clear now. I also changed the word "also", which you added to the sentence about Pardiñas suggesting its placement in a new genus, into "explicitly". Carleton and Olson do not really say that it should be placed in its own genus; as I read the paper, they suggest that it should perhaps be placed in Lundomys or Pseudoryzomys. It's a minor matter, of course, but I think the current wording is more accurate. Ucucha 13:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. --Aranae (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ 18:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose flows quite well, terms linked/described adequately (thanks, WP:POPUPS). Airplaneman ✈ 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Good here. Airplaneman ✈ 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Yes. Airplaneman ✈ 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Well, no images are used, but I understand they are either nonexistent, copyrighted or extremely hard to find. Airplaneman ✈ 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Yes, definitely GA status. For FA, I would recommend getting hold of some pictures (if possible). Airplaneman ✈ 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)