Template:Did you know nominations/Archboldomys kalinga

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Archboldomys kalinga

(

)

... that Archboldomys kalinga, a rodent of the genus Archboldomys, is found throughout the Central Cordillera in north central region of Luzon, Philippines?

Reviewed: Dakshayagnam (1938 film), Tata Jagriti Yatra, Under the Tree (film), Garin Nugroho, Dronningegården, Chairil Anwar, Geomagnetic pole, IRAS 17163-3907, Goethe–Schiller Monument (Syracuse)

Created/expanded by Vibhijain (talk). Self nom at 16:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominator informed of QPQ requirement. Harrias ^talk 00:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I have corrected the grammar to "genus Archboldomys" from the original "Archboldomys genus". This is standard grammar for scientific taxa, much like it is standard grammar to say "city of Paris" and not "Paris city", or to say "he wrote under the name Twain" instead of "he wrote under the Twain name". The head of the noun phrase is the scientific name; the rank of that name (e.g. "genus") is an attributive noun modifying the head. To reverse these is to say that "genus" is modified somehow by the proper noun Archboldomys. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Article is long enough and new enough. Although the hook is not awfully interesting, I find that the hook fact is supported by cited sources. However, as a whole, the article is not as well-supported by sources. The second paragraph of "Description" has no footnotes. Also, much of the content of the "Distribution and habitat" section is cited to the IUCN redlist page, but that source does not contain the information attributed to it. This is important, since it seems inconsistent to indicate that the species is widespread if only 22 specimens have ever been found. Better sourcing is needed before this can go to the main page. --Orlady (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Referencing issues are still present. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I left a note on the contributor's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing issues have been resolved. AGF on journal source that I cannot access. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)