Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rodent/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rodent

Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important order of mammals, the rodents. Three of us (assisted by DrChrissy and others) have been beavering away at it for months and have recently brought it successfully through GAN. We think rodents are fascinating animals and hope you think that too, so please don't rat on us but start burrowing in. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have two drive-by comments, I suppose. The first is somewhat facetious. In the "Standard classification" subsection lemmings aren't listed under the family "Cricetidae", and I think they should be (notice my username?) Anyway, I guess that doesn't really matter. On a more serious note, the "Interactions with humans" section only talks about people eating them, keeping them as pets, and using them as lab rats (literally, in some cases). There's absolutely nothing about their depiction in popular culture. Now, you don't need a whole five paragraphs about that (unless you want to put that much effort in), but the pinniped article has a nice one-paragraph summary under the Human relations section; I'd use that as a model. There is no Rodents in popular culture article, at least as far as I can tell, but just include it in a hatnote; there's nothing wrong with red links in FAs. Other than that, the article appears to be quite comprehensive. Good work! AmericanLemming (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added the lemmings under Cricetidae (I hope you weren't offended!) and we will work on a paragraph or two on "Rodents in popular culture". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. I decided against having a popular culture section because of how large and diverse the group is and such a section is better suited for individual groups like mice or beaver. Unlike bat or shark, there is no cultural "rodent". Pinniped is also not a good comparison as they are far less diverse and culture pretty much knows them all as "seals" (the walrus being the only species with a significant cultural identity). It would be almost like having a "Mammals in popular culture" section for Mammal or "Carnivorians in popular culture" section for Carnivora. Another FA article Primate also doesn't have a popular culture section and I believe for the same reason. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see your point. I was wondering whether at some point this issue had already been discussed. Well, I can't really argue with the reasons you've given for not having such a section. Also, searching "rodents in popular culture" in Google, Amazon, and JSTOR doesn't bring up anything of substance, so it would be difficult to write a paragraph on the subject. I did find "Rats-Friends or Foes" in The Journal of Popular Culture, but that would fit better in the rat article than this one. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have made a start on drafting a short section so might as well complete it. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. That's just the sort of thing I was looking for: short and to the point. A few comments: In the first paragraph on rats, two important literary examples are missing: "The Pit and the Pendulum" by famed Gothic writer Edgar Allen Poe (rats swarm over the protagonist and try to eat him) and the children's classic Charlotte's Web by E.B. White (the gluttonous rat Templeton plays an important role in the plot.) In the second paragraph, we would be remiss not to mention that Mickey Mouse is Disney's mascot to this very day. Third, a good literary example of rats being portrayed as evil and mice being portrayed as good can be found in the late Brian Jacques' Redwall series of books (see the Characters section. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section is all about rats and mice and not rodents. I've asked Cwmhiraeth to remove it. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with you position on the matter; if rats and mice are the most commonly represented rodents in popular culture, then it makes sense to focus on them. But in the case we do end up removing it, I'd suggest copying and pasting it to the lead section of the List of fictional rodents article. That way Cwmhiraeth's work doesn't go to waste and the aforementioned article gets a decent lead section (right now it's one sentence long). AmericanLemming (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the text to the fictional rodents article. I hope this slight disagreement will not affect your support for the article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I think you have some very valid reasons for your position, and I respect that. As far as supporting or opposing, I don't think I've done a thorough enough review of the article to give a recommendation either way. And with school in session, I don't think I'll have time to burrow any further into the article, unfortunately. Anyway, with lemmings now mentioned in the article, my work here is done. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Emotions" section has 2 paragraphs (even though they both are addressing the same point). The first paragraph describes the theory and methodology of a cognitive test. This seems to stray away from the topic of rodents - it is a paragraph about an experiment, not about rodents. The second paragraph is about the result of how a some rats did on the test. This is only about rats - is the experiment saying this result is applicable to rodents in general or just rats (that paragraph may be better suited for the rats article)? maclean (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment. I think I introduced this section. The cognitive bias test is reasonably difficult to understand in principle and practice, and so I described it in a little detail. On reflection, this might be a little long - I was hoping to avoid the reader having to flick to another article to understand this section. The study in rats is extremely interesting because the high frequency ultrasonic call is one of the few contenders of indicating positive welfare that we are currently aware of (think of all the other indicators - they indicate negative welfare, or neutrality). Current knowledge as that only the rat emits this ultrasonic call so it is specific to rats, however, that does not mean that other rodents do not experience the same emotion/s. Remember the rat is widely used as a laboratory animal for reasons of convenience in these studies. Who knows, there might be "Happy Hamsters", "Merry Mice" and "Cheerful Chinchillas" ...but they have yet to be tested.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead could do with a little massaging.....
continuously growing incisors - hyphen here?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About forty percent of all species of mammal are rodents - I don't like the singular/plural juxtaposition here...I'd go with "About forty percent of all mammal species are rodents"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
''The most diversified mammalian clade, they can be found in a variety of terrestrial habitats including human-made environments. - singular/plural subject
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well known rodents include mice, rats, squirrels, prairie dogs, porcupines, beavers, guinea pigs, and hamsters, but rabbits, hares and pikas are no longer considered to be rodents. - two "rodents' in the one sentence
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few "rodents" in para 2 of lead - if we can pare down any of these with clever use of passive etc. that'd be good....
Reduced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sometimes even breaching oceans - odd verb choice here....better one would be prudent
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"'Rodents interact with humans in various ways, and have been put to use as food, in clothing, as pets and as laboratory animals in research. - the facts themselves illustrate the diversity - I'd chop the bolded bit
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link pelage, ultraviolet light. enamel, dentine, tundra, hydrological
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
''Rodents are capable of gnawing though even the toughest husks, pods and seed shells - needs a cite...also some elaboration on which species are strongest etc.
Thank you for your comments. I removed the uncited sentence, there's more about feeding later in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of Social behavior uncited.
First part of Social behavior section a series of standalone sentences - can we congeal these into 1-2 paragraphs?
Similarly, degus, another social, burrowing rodent - plural/singular disagreement
"'Using olfaction, rodents are able to recognize close relatives. - any reason why we're not saying "by (their) smell"? as it is simpler?
This allows them to express nepotism - "express nepotism" sounds weird to me..."show nepotism"?
Several different mating systems exist among rodents. - I'd remove this as redundant.
Rodents have advanced cognitive abilities and can perform a wide range of tasks. - I think the first part of this sentence is subjective to the point of being pointless - "advanced" compared with a monotreme? probably - to a human? no. Without some context, no meaning is lost by changing to "Rodents can perform a wide range of cognitive tasks."
I have dealt with these suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks comprehensive overall and flows well now. I will do some source checking a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing looks ok spot-checkwise for top of article - need to sleep now - more tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I wonder how we can tweak para 1 of Olfactory subsection - way it's written (The chemicals involved are the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and several urinary proteins, which are detected and interpreted by two olfactory bulbs. ) makes it sound like MHC is secreted, which is not true. Source says "MHC-associated odors in mice are produced through a complex molecular mixture of volatile metabolites bound and released by urinary proteins ", so I think we need a bit of a reword. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
err, a bit better but I think needs a bit of tweaking still. I was very tired when I wrote this last night. I feel better today and will have another look a little later when I get a stretch of time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I tweaked it like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
there are 168 species in 126 genera that "deserve conservation attention" - better to be written without quotes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll sit on a tentative support - prose is clear, refs I checked aligned with sources and many more are pretty obvious. One tricky one is now ironed out...and it looks comprehensive and I can't see anything else to fix. But these large articles are tricksy beasts so would not be surprised if something crops up. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I agree that long articles are more difficult to assess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Bat detectors are often used by pet owners for this purpose." - source?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the eusocial mole rats, a single female monopolizes mating from at least three males." - source?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
I don't understand this. Can you explain? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, ellipsis is used to indicate that material from a source has been omitted when quoting. However, it is understood that you cannot possibly be quoting the entire source in this article. For that reason, having ellipses at the beginning or end of a quote, as you do for example in "...for the first time", is redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm with you. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN5: link goes to a different site than is cited
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the refs have stray punctuation, particularly the .". string
Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting of FN111 does not match similar refs; same with FN113
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include publishers
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date formatting
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for the "Source review". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

    • As I promised a while back, I'm here to help. I'd like for us to work through the images first, before I start playing with the prose. This may be a lengthy process.
  • Check captions for semi-colons where colons would work better (or, for the lead image, a comma that might be better replaced by a colon)
Done Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source link for File:House mouse.jpg (part of your collage) is dead. Otherwise all images in that collage look fine. The collage would look better in the article as a JPG, however.
Can't find a new source link. I suppose we had better redo the collage with a different image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link works for me. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
added on Commons and in article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:American Beaver with dam.JPG - You need to create the original author as well, not just the person who made a crop. Otherwise this violates the terms of the upload. I'd link to the source image as well, rather than forcing people to search for it.
Done (on Commons) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We editors discussed this earlier, and preferred this image for its "town" appearance, illustrating rodent societies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing else on Commons (for that species). Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
source corrected. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not, the original page seems to have been deleted. If you think this an issue we can look for another image. Done that anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't quite gone that far! Result is [2]: but it contains the new image that's now in the article, not the original one. The original survives in a few places such as [3]. If you'd like it put back, just ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
added English description on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Castoroides Knight.jpg] - The book was published in 2012. How do we know that this painting was published (not completed) in 1904?
removed image from table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
removed image from table; we could possibly use it elsewhere in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
removed image from table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rodent species pie chart.png - Got anything more recent? This is going on ten years old, and I'm concerned that paleontological discoveries / discoveries of new extant species may have changed the balance somewhat.
removed image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lightened the image; Grönvold died in 1940 so it's indeed PD-70. Volumes of book were published between 1921 and 1928: if the latter, US PD is uncertain so removing for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image has been removed from Lightmatter. Have replaced image with a user's (Rama's) own work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Potatoes feeding damage HC1.JPG - Fine
    • Now that that's done... I highly recommend removing some images. Personally, I'd take out all the extinct species from the table (you don't have illustrations for all examples, after all) and the bird drawing. Perhaps one or two more. This will both save bandwidth for people on slow connections, allow the page to load faster, and make it look less cramped. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
removed extinct species image column from table, and the bird drawing; awaiting further edits from team. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your image review Crisco. Now that we have dealt with most of your points, I'll have a go at replacing the mouse image in the collage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
many copies (prob. from WP) but none on nih.gov. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! I have done that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

    • rōdere - Should be italicized as it is both a non-English word and a word as a word (WP:WORDSASWORDS)
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Antarctica - is this overlinking? (x2)
links removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • , but rabbits, hares and pikas are now considered to be in a separate order, Lagomorpha - reason for this being included is not immediately apparent. No indication in text that some people think rabbits et. al are rodents
said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
said and linked whiskers directly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • re-ingests the food from its anus - You mean it ingests pellets, right? It doesn't commit autoanilingus, one would assume (and pass the brain bleach, please). Might want to rework this.
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the incisors do not stop growing, the animal must continue to wear them down so that they do not grow far enough to reach or even pierce the skull. - Repetition of "growing"
sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • like the blade of a chisel - iron and pounded on by a hammer? Something less idiomatic would be preferable
added "shaped", which is the intended meaning here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This lets rodents suck in their cheeks or lips to shield their mouths and throats from wood shavings or other inedible material, and discard this from the side of the mouth. - "This" last referred to the diastemata, suggesting that the second "this" is also diastemata. I'd add "waste" after the second "this".
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rodents have also thrived in human-created environments such as agricultural and urban areas. - I wouldn't challenge this, and I don't know anyone who would, but considering your experiences at Tree I think you might agree that a citation would be useful (just to be safe)
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prairie dogs can also lead to regional and local biodiversity loss, increased seed depredation and the establishment and spread of invasive shrubs. - A sentence like this should be contrasted with the positive roles mentioned before
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also practices coprophagy, eating its own fecal pellets. - See, this is handled much better. Also, if you defined the term on the first mention, you wouldn't have to define it here.
rm definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So roughly what percent of rodents are carnivorous or omnivorous?
Unsure about this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duplicate links: caviomorphs, fur, naked mole rat
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's half of the text. Rest tomorrow. Very nice read. Simple enough for a literary major to understand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the young emerge in front of their mother." - In front of their mother ... this is ambiguous. Could be "from the mother's front parts", "in their mother's presence", or "with their mother facing them". Or do you mean the direction in which the young move after being birthed?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • alien - I know what you mean, but I can also imagine someone deliberately misreading this as "extraterrestrial". Perhaps another term?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • which causes stress, thus causing the young to abort. - can we avoid the double "cause" in close succession?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • we know a great deal about their cognitive capacities. - passive voice would be better, to avoid the human subject. "much is known about their cognitive capacities", for instance
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • some of them were handled whereas others were tickled by the handlers - I feel "handled" could be better expressed. Tickling is a form of handling, IMO
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "joy" - what's with the quotes?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar tests on birds have been inconclusive. - at most worth a footnote. Not really pertinent to rodents
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The author has a M.S. and Ph.D. in Animal Behavior and has studied rats in depth. The site backs up its information with citations from the scientific literature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and up to ten re-colonizations of Eurasia. - does this mean Rodentia is thought to have first evolved in Eurasia?
Well, in Laurasia, the precursor of Eurasia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why "re-colonization"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as the giant beavers, Castoroides, and a giant dormouse, Leithia, attained great size. - yes, we get that they were big. No need to say it three times in a single sentence. Also, you use "Giant" too much in this paragraph. I count three instances
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceara and Sierra Leone Rises - links?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hares, rabbits and pikas (order Lagomorpha) have continuously growing incisors and were at one time included in the order. - since this is the first mention in the article body (as opposed to the lead), I'd link. Also, consider starting the sentence with "As with rodents," to remind people why this is important
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • based on an attempt (Wu et al., 2012) - perhaps "based on a 2012 attempt by Wu et al."
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While these disagreements have been going on - "have continued" or "remain unsolved", perhaps? Have going on feels hopelessly non-formal
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monophyly versus polyphyly - unless you develop this section even further, I recommend merging it with above. I have little love for one-paragraph sections
This would not fit in a section titled "Standard classification" and I think it is best left in its own subsection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking species upon first mention (brown rat, black rat, etc.). You may need to review the entire article for this, as you name drop a lot of species
Done all I could manage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were fed walnuts, chestnuts, and acorns for fattening. - might want to rework, as your subject was "Romans", and I don't think the Romans were being fattened
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among indigenous Amazonians, when large mammals are scarce, - I should think that there are no large mammals living in the indigenous Amazonians. "In the Amazon," perhaps
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rodents make convenient pets where space is limited, and the different types exhibit differing qualities as pets - Pets - pets. Can we avoid this?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some rodent species are agricultural pests, - feels like this can be expanded. I mean, what we have there is two sentences. That's barely a paragraph
Added a whole lot more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a whole lot more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the image is considerably clearer. Thank you for doing that and for your support. (I'll do some more linking shortly.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dank's comments

  • "nose - these": en-dash
done
  • "fore-limbs": My dictionaries show this as forelimbs
done
  • "Rodents exhibit a wide range of types of social behavior ranging from the first known mammalian caste system of the naked mole rat,[21] the extensive "town" of the colonial prairie dog,[22] through family groups to the independent, solitary life of the edible dormouse.": Missing and
seems not to need an "and" anywhere?
  • "co-operation": The hyphen is rare in AmEng.
removed
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie's comments

  • Update for the coordinators. I was concerned about the comprehensiveness and balance of the article, but I don't have the expertise to assess it fairly. It appears that Ucucha does; since my other concerns are structure and prose, I will wait for Ucucha's pass to be completed before making another pass. I don't feel I can fairly oppose on the grounds of comprehensiveness and balance since I can't speak to those from my own knowledge, so I will leave this as a comment. Once Ucucha's comments are addressed and he either supports or there is no more work being done to address his comments I will take a look again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. The last of my comments below have been addressed. My support doesn't include comprehensiveness as I don't have enough background to verify that. I have done some checking for accuracy of representation of sources, and close paraphrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add comments below as I go through the article. It's likely to take me at least a day or two to get through this. First pass done. Since this is a gigantic subject, and I have no background in biology or zoology, I started by looking at the structure of the other FAs at the same level of generality -- bird, primate, and (arguably) ant. Here's what I found for the first few sections:

  • Bird:
    • Evolution and classification
    • Distribution
    • Anatomy and physiology
  • Primate
    • Historical and modern terminology
    • Classification of living primates
    • Evolutionary history
    • Anatomy, physiology and morphology
  • Ant
    • Etymology
    • Taxonomy and evolution
    • Distribution and diversity
    • Morphology
  • Rodent
    • Characteristics
    • Distribution and habitat
    • Behavior and life history
    • Classification and evolution

Some comments about structure first.

  • The other three FAs, with some slight variation, start with terminology and evolutionary history. Physical characteristics come later. Can you comment on why you chose this particular organization for this article? This article's layout doesn't seem as logical to me as the others.
We did the same with Crocodilia and starfish. We feel that with the way the section is structured, it would be unattractive as a leading section. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take a look at those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A closely related point is that the characteristics section reads rather choppily to me, and I think it's because it shouldn't be the first section in the body. Paraphrasing the sequence of sentences: "They're mostly small. Some are very big, like the capybara. They're generally squat. Forelimbs and hindlimbs are such and such; the elbow is like this; they're plantigrade. They not good at running, but some are. Some can hop fast. Semi-aquatic species are like this. Most have tails, some of which are prehensile or vestigial. Flying squirrels can glide." This doesn't feel definitional, or like an introduction or an overview; it feels like an assemblage of facts. I don't think this is the right section to start the article with. It goes straight into details about characteristics with giving any context: nothing about evolutionary history or taxonomic placement. I think it would read much less choppily if it were further down the article. As I said, I have little or no background in biology, and I don't spend time on the bio articles, so this is the opinion of non-expert reader, for whatever that's worth.
It seems choppy because rodents are a diverse group of animals. We can mention common characteristics but there are also exceptions and variations which fit better when mentioned right after the generalizations. The only true defining rodent characteristic is the incisors. LittleJerry (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. Elsewhere in the article you cite Stefoff's The Rodent Order; what I can see of the "Physical Features" section seems more coherently written than the "Characteristics" section of this article. (One thing I think would help, by the way, is to start the characteristics section with the dentition -- why leave it to a subsection, when it's the defining characteristic? Making that definitive general statement up top would make any choppiness in the remaining section less of a concern.)
Here's how the first five paragraphs of Stefoff's physical features paragraphs are organized:
  • Dentition - incisors
  • Dentition - molars
  • Paws, claws, and toes
  • Senses - vision
  • Senses - hearing and smell
To me this is far easier to read and more logically organized than the first paragraph in this article. A separate point is that Stefoff makes some broad statements about anatomy that you don't include -- the opposable toe, the typical types of claws. Any reason not to include that material? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the caption for the rodent tooth system, I don't think it's necessary to credit Leche.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most defining feature of the rodents is their teeth": why "most"? I'm also not sure what "defining feature" means here; in a context like this I would expect it to mean something like "the characteristic that definitively identifies an animal as being in Rodenta", but that doesn't really work with "most". It's also not stated what's defining about them -- the next sentence says they continue to grow, but doesn't say that's the definitional feature, though I suspect that's the intention.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather that the distribution map in the infobox shows only original distribution, since there are now rodents on New Zealand. I think this should be stated in the caption (or you could colour NZ differently to show the increased range).
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare the first paragraph of the Feeding section in this article with the first main paragraph of the equivalent section in the bird article. The paragraph in the bird article begins with a high level breakdown of bird feeding strategies, then gives a list of specific strategies with examples of birds that use them. The rodent article starts with a general statement too, but then starts listing individual rodents with specific strategies. I think this is the wrong way to present this information; general statements with specific examples is better than specific rodents which are not treated as examples of strategies -- of the four listed in that paragraph, only the field vole is described in terms of a strategy: "a typical herbivorous rodent". The reader isn't given a clear statement of the relative significance of the other three examples. For comparison, the social behavior section in rodent is better at this, though I think it could be tweaked a bit. It starts with a description of the range of social behaviours, gives a couple of examples, then the next paragraph again described a general set of behaviours and follows with examples.
I am not sure I agree with you. I have rephrased the general sentences on feeding slightly. I think 95% of rodents are probably herbivores, a range of the feeding behaviours of which are then illustrated. I'm not sure about the omnivores, but a certain chipmunk was said to have some insect wings among its stomach contents, but whether this is the result of omnivory or the accidental swallowing of insects with plant matter is unclear. As for carnivores, I think there are very few. The teeth are adapted for gnawing after all. So I think it is inappropriate to deal with rodents in a similar way to birds as the latter have a much wider range of feeding strategies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found it hard to believe there's not much on omnivory or carnivory of rodents, so I looked around. I found this on JSTOR, which seems pretty unambiguous. It's from 1970, so perhaps you'll tell me it's superseded, but if not could this or something similar be used to supply a little more detail? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good source! I have now added a paragraph on omnivory and a bit more on carnivory. These practices seem more widespread than I had previously thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table in the auditory section, the mouse higher limit is given as 91,00; I assume this should be 91,000 but didn't want to change it without checking.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The visual section spends most of its time on UV sensitivity. Is there more that could be said about their visual sense? I know this is within the section on communication, but there is no separate physiology/anatomy section (should there be?).
Senses are touched upon in "Characteristics". LittleJerry (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest linking "conspecific" (in the noun usage, at least) to something explanatory on first occurrence.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In obligate monogamy, both parents care for the offspring and play an important part in their survival. This occurs in California mice, oldfield mice, Malagasy giant rats and beavers." When you give a list worded in this way, the reader can't tell whether these four species are the only examples or just some of the species in which the behaviour occurs. I would make it clear in this case and any similar sentences.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Females play an active role in choosing their mate": I can't tell if this is a general statement about all rodents, or just about the species with flexible mating systems. If the former, I think it should start a paragraph and the general nature of the statement should be clearer.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "altricial" twice and "altrical" twice; the latter does seem to be a valid alternative spelling but I would suggest being consistent.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resulting stress causes the young to abort": suggest "fetuses" for "young".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am doubtful about the value of including the study demonstrating cognitive bias; in a survey article, like this, wouldn't it be better to rely on secondary sources? It's a great result to quote but without secondary source commentary I don't know how to tell if it is regarded as a noteworthy (or even a valid) result by the academic community.
This study was December 2012 so difficult to find much in secondary sources. I have rewritten the paragraph to cut down on the amount of detail included. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it again; please revert if you prefer the original wording. One reason I rephrased it was that in an article like this we should be making general statements about rats more than giving specific examples of experiments, so I think it's better to say "rats trained to do X are more likely to ..." than "Researchers trained animals to do X .... it was found that they were more likely to ...". I also checked other sources on cognitive bias in rats, and found enough to convince me that this isn't controversial, so I'm striking this. One minor suggestion, not necessary for FAC, is that it might be a good idea to choose a study cited by a secondary source; I found a couple of books with titles like Encyclopedia of Animal Behaviour that cited rat studies on cognitive bias, so this shouldn't be hard to do. The benefit is that there is (presumably) less risk that a study will be found to have flaws if it is being cited in this way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into this in detail but I doubt that we should cite data based on a single primary paper examining a single species in the overview article for an entire order. Ucucha (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several studies on cognitive bias in rats. Being a scientist, I am a little perplexed as to why a secondary source would be considered more robust than the primary source. If a news-paper reporter interviews me about my science, there are almost always flaws in their articles, and they are simply not trained to analyse whether the science is good or bad. I also believe scientists should get recognition for their work, rather than reporters for writing about other people's work. So, should I provide other primary sources, or is it wikipedia policy to use secondary sources in preference. I have discussed previously the problem with us knowing a considerable amount about laboratory rats and mice but considerably less about other rodents, but only because they have not been tested. This makes it difficult to know whether we can generalise to other rodents, or whether it is species-specific information. I do not know the answer to this problem...__DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In scientific articles, an appropriate secondary source is generally not a newspaper article, but a survey work by a scientist. For example, in the article on radiocarbon dating, which I've been working on recently, a suitable secondary source is Taylor's Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective; it reviews and summarizes the history of the discipline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification - that makes sense.__DrChrissy (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have similar doubts about the metacognition discussion -- fascinating, but hard to be sure what weight it should receive. The fact that countervailing studies are cited is good but then that diminishes the interest of the original result.
This could be removed altogether but that seems a pity to me. The study was on rats because of their convenience for use in research, but the behaviours may well be replicated in other groups of rodents. In this case follow-up research is available whereas it was not in the cognitive bias example. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read through it again, and I think it's OK. One minor suggestion before I strike this: change "Rats may have the capacity" to "A 2007 study suggested that rats may have the capacity". The next sentence starts "The researchers" without previously indicating that we were talking about a study. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a FAC issue, but I really think you should give the possible weight of Leithia. Saying "enormous dormouse" and not saying how enormous is just cruel to the reader and guarantees they're going to click away from the article.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give "caviomorphs" in parentheses after the first use of "hystricognaths"; I'd move it to the first use.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; I meant it was after the second use, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "old endemics" and "new endemics" need glossing, either inline or in a footnote.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to Australian mammals says they're all Murinae; the linked article says Muridae. Can you just confirm that you meant Murinae here?
Murinae is correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the derivation of "rodent" in the lead; I think it could be cut from there, but that's a matter of opinion, not something I think is necessary for FAC. However, you cite it as "rōdere" there, but as "rodere" further down in the "Standard classification" section. If the accent is necessary (I don't usually see accents on Latin, so I'm doubtful) then it should be in both places.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Ceará and Sierra Leone rises in the Atlantic": I think this is worth a couple of redlinks, per WP:REDYES: perhaps "the Ceará and Sierra Leone rises in the Atlantic"?
Removed as unnecessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "mya" once and "million years ago" several times; I think you should either introduce the abbreviation before using it, or (probably better, given that it's only used once) just replace it with "million years ago".
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the picture of the East African springhare should be removed; I imagine there aren't many good pictures of the Anomaluromorpha available, but this is quite poor quality and I don't think it's suitable for a featured article.
Please reconsider. We have to get the images we have available. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FA criteria don't specifically see images need to be high quality, nor that they should be present to illustrate everything that can be illustrated. I wouldn't oppose over this; I just think it's a mistake to use a poor image when you could leave it out. However, I also noticed there's a better spring hare picture embedded in the rodent collage at the top -- could you use that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't look right to use the same picture again. LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking this because it's not an FA issue; I do think it's a mistake to use a poor quality image though. It would be better simply to have no image of this suborder. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typically in a high level article written in summary style many of the sections should have hatnotes pointing to the more detailed articles. That isn't the case here. If there are no suitable sub-articles, of course you can't link to them; can you just confirm that there are none? Evolution, classification, behaviour, list articles?
That's right. There are no sub-articles on these. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The naked mole rat is the only known mammal that is poikilothermic and also does not produce the neurotransmitter substance P": it's the only mammal for which both statements are simultaneously true? Or the only one which is poikilothermic, and also the only one that does not produce substance P?
Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I tweaked it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while in South America losses have reached ninety percent": surely this needs some qualification such as "while in South America some local harvests have reported losses of ninety percent"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First pass through done. My main concern is whether the sequence of sections is right; most of the points I raise are minor, and I'm sure will be fixed quickly. This is an excellent article; I will have a read through the Crocodilia and starfish and see if that changes my mind about the structure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. We are working to resolve the issues you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that I'm out of time tonight but will try to return to this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I think one of the problems we are encountering is that while we might know a great deal about 2 rodents in particular, the rat and the mouse, we know less about the other species. Added to this is the huge diversity of rodents beyond the rat and mouse. There seem to be exceptions to every "characteristics of rodents" making this difficult to write about. There is even one exception to the rodent dentition from which the name Rodent is derived! In my own speciality of animal behaviour and physiology, we know many facts about rats and mice, but whether we can generalise these to all rodents or only some, is difficult to judge. For example, mice and rats have UV visual sensitivity. I doubt very much this has been tested in beavers and capybara, but I would not be surprised if they had this capacity. However, rats appear to have meta-cognition, and although this has almost certainly not been tested in beaver and capybara, I would be staggered if they had this ability. I guess we need to keep editing but discuss these and try to distinguish differences that are interesting and robust. For example, the meta-cognition study is contested (perhaps reducing robustness) but I believe it is the only non-primate to have this ability (increasing its interest....at least in my humble opinion).__DrChrissy (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me that the metacognition study is worth keeping. I've modified my comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified deletions In the last 24 hours, an editor has deleted both newly added text and long-established text on gliding by rodents. This was done with no justification by the editor and in my opinion, this deletion and the continuing disruptive behaviour of this editor jeopardises the assessment of this article for FA progression.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the edits I think you're referring to, the editor in question is one of the nominators of this FAC, and I think those edits were in response to a comment of mine further up, though I didn't specifically ask for the removal of that material. I'll wait to review that change till I see agreement that it's a consensus edit.
Also, you mention a single species that doesn't conform to the standard rodent dentition -- I assume you mean Paucidentomys? Does the existing description of rodents as characterized by a single pair of continuously growing incisors include Paucidentomys? I'm not clear if "single pair" refers to one tooth in each jaw, or one pair in each jaw. On reflection I would have thought the former, in which case this is accurate for Paucidentomys, but surely not the best way to describe most rodents, which have two pairs of incisors? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I was referring to Paucidentomys. Because this animal was only discovered in 2012, It could not have been included in the definition of a Rodent according to dentition which must have been used for many years. I have just re-read the reference and this states there is one incisor per quadrant. This means the animal has two incisors on the top and 2 on the bottom; 4 teeth in total. This appears to be corroborated by a plate in the article. If I am correct in this, it means the Paucidentomys article is a little mis-leading by implying it has only 2 teeth in total.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Mike. I would just like to say that I agree with your concern about the "choppiness" of the article. My own style to avoid this is generally to have more sub-headings, but I know some editors disagree with this approach. Yesterday, I spent some time looking at other animal Order pages and below is my "wishlist" if the article were to be re-structured today. Maybe we can take some of these on-board, although I realise wholesale changes are not what is expected at this stage.
Taxonomy
Evolution
Distinguishing features
..Dentition
Anatomy, physiology and morphology
..Sexual dimorphism
..Locomotion
Habitats and distribution
Senses
Behaviour
..Reproduction and life history
..Mating strategies
..Social organisation
..Communication
..Diet, feeding and hunting
..As prey
..Cognition
Conservation
In human culture
..Domestication
..Uses
..Fables
..Images

__DrChrissy (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not opposed to rearranging sections, creating subsections or changing the names of sections if appropriate, DrChrissy's suggestions imply that we should have sections such as "sexual dimorphism", "locomotion" and "fables" which we currently do not. The first of these could be created by making a subsection within "characteristics", but not the others which would require much extra work. I think it is a bit late in this candidacy to start making substantial reorganizations to the article on this scale. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for considering these - and I understand about the (bad) timing regarding major restructuring. In my own opinion, in dealing with such extensive knowledge at say the Order level of taxonomy, Wikipedia would benefit from having a template for guidance in creating such articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interposing regarding Paucidentomys—I don't think it has any bearing on the standard morphological characterization of rodents. The important synapomorphy is a single retained, evergrowing pair of upper and lower incisors, and Paucidentomys still has that character, even though it has lost all molars. Ucucha (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments. As Ucucha has struck his oppose and the article is no longer being revised, I'll read through again and leave any additional comments here.

  • I'd suggestion changing the mating behaviour links in the lead to polygyny in nature and monogamous pairing in animals, rather than the current link targets, which are less specifically about animal behaviour. I'd like to suggest an alternative to the promiscuity link, but I can't find a better target.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The earliest fossil record of rodents dates to the Paleocene": you don't need both "earliest" and "dates to"; I'd suggest something like "The earliest rodent fossil records are from the Paleocene", or "The rodent fossil record dates back to the Paleocene".
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rodents have been used ... in clothing" sounds a little odd; perhaps "for clothing" would be better.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't quite make out the point that is being made about jaw musculature. The comparison to squirrels is clear: Hystricomorpha incisors are less capable of gnawing hard nuts. But why do you compare the Hystricomorpha to rats with regard to chewing seeds? Why would the ability to move the jaw further sideways correspond to a softer diet?
    Rephrased sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't follow. I scanned the cited article and from what I could see there's nothing there that relates the pterygoid muscle to the nature of the diet. Can you point to the part of the source that you're drawing this from? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
End of the abstract and page 920. I have removed the last part of the sentence as it does not seem to be included in the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You list chipmunks and jumping mice as having female-bias sexual dimorphism, then digress for a sentence, and then add bank voles to the list. Any reason not to just include bank voles in the first list?
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted this because I was mistaken; the reason it was structured the way it was is that the prior sentence discusses voles in general. Here's how it now reads: "In some species, like voles, sexual dimorphism can vary from population to population. In bank voles, females are typically larger than males." I don't have access to those pages in the source via Google Books, but if it quotes bank voles as an exception (because the dimorphism doesn't vary from population to population), perhaps you could join these two sentences with "though" to make it clearer to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Litter size of naked mole rats is given as "x to x" in the table. If you can't source this, I think it would be OK to remove the parenthesis and just state the average.
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something has gone wrong with the note about the giant dormouse, Leithia; it now says it weighed up to 113 g, which doesn't make it a notable example of a giant rodent. As I recall this was thought to be the heaviest ever rodent.
    I think the dimensions were correct but the reference didn't back it up so I removed and gave some dimensions for the giant beaver. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "infraorbital" linked to a dab page; I couldn't find a better target and I think this should probably be delinked.
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Where large mammals are scarce in Amazonia, pacas and common agoutis can account for 39 percent of the annual game taken by the indigenous people, but in forested areas where larger mammals are abundant, these rodents comprised only about 3 percent of the take": I changed "When" to "Where" at the start of this sentence, but there's another issue -- the first half is present tense; the last clause is past tense. I'd suggest making it all past tense and mentioning the date of the cited study -- the highly specific percentages make it hard to phrase this in a way that could be stated in the present tense as an ongoing generalization.
    Rephrased in past tense. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this pass is done. I think the article is much improved. I'm ready to support once the remaining minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the fixes look good; I have indicated my support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha's comments

Oppose. It is difficult to write large overview articles like this and I appreciate the effort that has gone into it, but I think there are some issues of organization and coverage in the article, and I also found some factual errors.

  • For example, the article does not discuss several important adaptive strategies followed by rodents, such as semiaquaticity in e.g. Crossomys and Oryzomys, kangaroo-like form in e.g. Dipodomys, Jaculus, and Notomys, and fossoreality in mole rats and gophers.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of evolutionary history is very abbreviated and does not mention rodent's closest relatives (lagomorphs and some extinct groups) or important extinct groups such as ischyromyids and eomyids.
I have started expanding this. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of extinct rodents is dominated by Pleistocene giant species for some reason and hardly seems representative.
Removed this table as being too arbitrary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on conservation does not mention any of the rodents that have gone extinct through human actions, such as Caribbean giant hutias and rice rats.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, the section on behavior (especially communication) seems overly long on balance, and I'm not sure the "Monophyly versus polyphyly" debate even merits a mention—this was briefly a topic of discussion in the 1990s, based on bad molecular analyses, but I don't think anyone has supported rodent polyphyly for over a decade.
Removed the subsection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ucucha: Thank you for your comments. What are the factual errors you mention? We can work on the article with a view to dealing with the issues you raise above and below and I am happy to do so, but your "oppose" seems rather definite and makes me think we should just give up on this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With "factual errors", I was mostly referring to the first two points below. There were a few other things I noticed that I haven't mentioned yet (e.g., the sentence "During the Eocene, rodents began to diversify; some fossil species were very large compared to modern rodents, including the giant beavers, Castoroides, and an enormous dormouse, Leithia, which is estimated to have weighed up to 113 kg (250 lb)." strongly and incorrectly implies that Castoroides and Leithia are from the Eocene). I plan to read the article more thoroughly and come up with more feedback. Ucucha (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have rearranged this paragraph so as not to give a false impression. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few other small points (I haven't read everything in detail):

  • "The Sciuromorpha, or squirrel-like rodents, have a very simple jaw muscle that extends onto the snout in front of the eye. The Myomorpha, or mouse-like rodents, have jaw muscles that anchor on the side of the nose – these are the most efficient chewers amongst the rodents. The Caviomorpha, or cavy-like rodents, have very large cheekbones and muscles that anchor to the side of the face." This refers to morphological patterns known as "sciuromorphous", "myomorphous", and "hystricomorphous", which do not correspond perfectly with the names of suborders like Sciuromorpha. (For example, glirids are not sciuromorphous even though they are in Sciuromorpha.)
You may well be right about this, but the present content of the article follows the source. Can you cite a source to back up what you say and then I could amend the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be read in context. How do you know your source uses the definitions of Sciuromorpha, Myomorpha, and Hystricomorpha used in this article. Also, the source cited for this fact (http://science.jrank.org/pages/5920/Rodents.html) is not a high-quality reliable source. Ucucha (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have rewritten the sentence from a 2011 anatomy paper (Cox & Jeffery), naming the animals studied. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brandt (1855) was the first to propose dividing the Simplicidentata (rodents and their closest extinct relatives) into three suborders, Sciuromorpha, Hystricomorpha and Myomorpha, based on the development of certain muscles in the jaw." The name Simplicidentata is currently used for a taxon that includes rodents and a few extinct relatives, but this is not what the word meant in Brandt's day. At the time, lagomorphs were still considered rodents, and the order was divided into Duplicidentata (lagomorphs, with two pairs of upper incisors) and Simplicidentata (rodents as defined now, with one pair). I'm not sure this subtlety has to be discussed in the article (you can avoid by just not mentioning the term Simplicidentata), although it would be interesting to discuss the historical classification of lagomorphs as rodents.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phylogenetic tree in the "Standard classification" section has an overabundance of dipodids. That is in agreement with the source, but that study probably overrepresented dipodids because the first author got his PhD on dipodids (I remember attending his defense :) ) and so had a lot of them available. This article should give a good representation of the relationships among rodent families, not blindly reproduce a single source.
I have reduced the number of dipodids mentioned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the rodent families themselves have remained relatively stable," "Relatively" can mean a lot of things, but there are several areas where disagreements over the family-level classification of rodents have persisted until recently (e.g., muroids, dipodoids, echimyids and related groups).
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more comments:

  • The infobox says rodents first appeared at 61.7 Ma. What is the source for this very precise number?
Replaced with a conservative 56mya, the very end of the Paleocene, since we know rodents lived in that epoch. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name is derived from the Latin rodere, to gnaw." Is this really important enough to be in the second sentence?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "They are the most diversified mammalian clade" Placental mammals are more diverse. They are the most diverse order though.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are species that are arboreal, fossorial, and even semi-aquatic." Why "even"?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is a gap, or diastema, between the incisors and the molars." In many species, it's between the incisors and the premolars. This is also technically not true for Paucidentomys, which has no molars or premolars.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The molars are relatively large, intricately structured and covered with convoluted ridges of enamel, which are arranged transversely." This is an oversimplification, though it is true for many species. For example, "shrew mice" (e.g., Pseudohydromys) have small and simple molars. I am not sure what "convoluted ridges" mean exactly. Many species (e.g., most murines) have distinct cusps that are not arranged in ridges.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The smallest rodent is the Baluchistan pygmy jerboa which averages only 4.4 cm (1.7 in) in head and body length, and adult females weigh only 3.75 g (0.132 oz)." Hmm, always thought it was Mus minutoides, but from the figures in our article this does appear to be correct.
No action needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scaly-tailed squirrels and flying squirrels, although not closely related, can both glide from tree to tree". This is also true for some extinct species of Glirulus and Eomys, though whether to include that is a matter of judgment.
No action taken. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In males, the penis contains a bone and the testes can be located either abdominally or at the groin". This is not true for all rodents.
Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Texas pocket gopher avoids emerging onto the surface to feed by seizing the roots of plants with its jaws and pulling them downwards into its burrow." Why are these random species listed?
As examples of different types of herbivory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "numerous members of the Sciuromorpha and Myomorpha and a few members of Hystricomorpha". Note that this old source likely used these words in a different sense than this article does.
Even so, this statement is likely to be accurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shrewlike rats of the Philippines". There are similar but not closely related "shrew rats" in Sulawesi and New Guinea (e.g., Echiothrix, Pseudohydromys).
The source uses "shrewlike rats" so it seems best for the article to do likewise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the eusocial naked mole rat and Damaraland mole rat." The only source cited for this paragraph does not mention the Damaraland mole rat. Also, I haven't checked the literature but it seems unlikely that it is the only species of Fukomys to be eusocial.
Added source for Damaraland mole rat and removed unsourced statement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been reported that brown rats and shrews" Shrews are not rodents.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The table below shows the ranges of several species." "Mouse" and "rat" are not species.
Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rodents have just two types of light receptive cones in their retina," The source cited a few sentences later does not seem to support this statement (and is not a high-quality reliable source).
Added ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Middle East blind mole rat was the first mammal for which vibrational communication was documented." No source for this paragraph.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2007 study suggested that laboratory rats". One study suggesting something about one species does not seem like an appropriate piece of information for a summary article.
Removed the phrase and reduced the paragraph involved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fossil record of rodent-like mammals". What are rodent-like mammals? Especially since the next sentence defines this as distinct from Glires.
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From Africa, fossil evidence shows that some hystricognaths migrated to South America, which had been an isolated continent during the Oligocene and Miocene epochs,". And also during the Eocene and much of the Paleocene.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article goes back and forth between mentioning geological epochs (e.g., Eocene) and absolute dates (e.g., 39 Ma). This is confusing for those who don't know the dates of the Eocene and Oligocene by heart.
I think mentioning dates as well as epochs is helpful to readers unfamiliar with the dates involved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is a dearth of fossil evidence covering the transition from the Eocene to the Oligocene, some 34 million years ago. TheTheridomyidae and Eomyidae bridged the gap but have not survived to the present day and their phylogenetic significance is unclear." All of this is cited to a 1955 article; rodent paleontology has progressed since then. I don't believe the statement is meaningful with the current state of knowledge.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 20 million years ago Miocene fossils recognizably belonging to the current families such as Muridae appear". Recognizable members of extant families such as Gliridae, Sciuridae, and Castoridae appeared long before. And I'm not sure what recognizable members of Muridae this is referring to.
Reworded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ten true rats (Rattus), of which eight are 'new endemics'". The last two are introduced by humans and therefore not endemics. This wording seems confusing to me though—people unfamiliar with the topic may infer that the last two are Old Endemics.
Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "molecular data has shown that the radiation of the hydromys division of Murinae to which these rodents belong started in south-east Asia some 15 to 20 million years ago". This cites a source from 1995. Molecular data that old is worthless given the progress in the field since then. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313945 may be a better source. Also, the "Hydromys Division" is a smaller group than the whole Old Endemic radiation.
New source for molecular data used. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Americas became joined by the Isthmus of Panama, around 3 million years ago," The arrival date of sigmodontines in South America is more controversial than this blanket statement suggests.
Expanded and explained. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is known as the "classical" arrangement." I have not heard of this term before for Brandt's system.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While these disagreements remain unresolved it is mainly the higher clades that are in dispute." I don't know that that is true.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The classification needs a separate source for Diatomyidae, which was not included in Carleton and Musser (2005). Ideally the classification should also include extinct families, but there is no recent comprehensive classification of fossil rodents.
Added source for Diatomyidae. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are just some samples of issues. I am not happy with the quality of the sourcing in general; many sources I checked for doubtful-looking statements are either websites without proper peer review (therefore, not high-quality reliable sources) or out of date. Ucucha (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are encouraged to use reliable secondary sources rather than relying on primary sources which have not necessarily been accepted by the scientific community. Please indicate which sources you feel are unsatisfactory so that we can try to improve them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha made his comments about the sourcing a week ago and since then we have been through all the article's 150 or so references, removing and replacing some sources as necessary, and think they are all now of high quality. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Introduction to the Rodentia" source is used twice (1, 116). 155.138.247.201 (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have combined them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. I don't have time right now to review the article again and decide whether I can now support, but I've provisionally struck my oppose. Ucucha (talk)

Support Comments from Jim

An impressive amount of work tackling a major topic. I'm not an expert on mammals, but I couldn't see any obvious omissions—for example I searched for the expansion of the Polynesian Rat. A few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (The columns are sortable. † denotes recorded in captive animals)—I don't like having instructions in text. Either put this in a header row, or, better, footnote the info
  • kestrels can distinguish between old and fresh rodent trails — The source refers specifically to the Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus, not all kestrels. You can't extend it to the other species, even though it's likely to be true
  • the brown rat, the black rat and the house mouse) have been dispersed in association with humans, partly on sailing ships in the Age of Exploration, and with a fourth species in the Pacific, Rattus exulans,—Why common names for three, and binomial for Polynesian Rat?
  • The use of beaver fur in Europe is misleading. It isn't the whole pelts that were used, it's the soft inner fur that can be felted. Similarly for the coypu; it's the inner nutria, not the coarse outer fur
Thank you for your comments. I have made the alterations you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No other significant concerns, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- It looks like a fair bit of time has been spent dealing with the issues raised by Ucucha, so I'd like to hear back on how things are looking now. Also there are still a few duplinks that you could review with the checker to see if they're necessary (which some may be in an article of this length). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the overlinks and removed all but one; it is a judgement call as you say. Cwmhiraeth and I believe we've addressed all the causes of Ucucha's now provisionally lifted oppose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following up, as Mike is still in the middle of a further pass at the review, I'll leave this open for the weekend. After that, assuming no remaining issues, I'd expect we could safely close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rationalobserver. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rodent/archive1&oldid=1166569867"