Talk:Puna mouse

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 SL93 talk 00:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Puna mouse
• Eastern puna mouse

)

• ... that the mammal species found at the second-highest known altitude may be either the Puna mouse or the Eastern puna mouse?

• Source: https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/104/5/1144/7224643, "With this new specimen-based elevational record, Punomys is second only to P. vaccarum as the mammal taxon with the highest known elevational range limit .... Although specimen UACH 8478 is clearly referable to the genus Punomys, it is difficult to make a species-level determination, largely because diagnostic differences between P. kofordi and P. lemminus are not clearly defined .... [we] provisionally recogniz[e] the Chilean Punomys specimen as P. lemminus"

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Herța, Template:Did you know nominations/Paper Chained
  • Comment: Two more obscure small mammals! I don't foresee running out of these stubs before my patience for expanding them runs out. I don't love the wording of this hook, suggestions for rephrases for clarity welcome.

5x expanded by Rusalkii (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

Rusalkii (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC).

• Doing... I'll be a little busy today, but I'll try to get it done by tonight or tomorrow. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Both sources say the puna mouse (the first article) is "medium-sized", but Puna mouse says it's large. Where is it said that P. kofordi is heavier than P. lemminus? Academia.edu refs should have page numbers because they're hard to find with search. And how is "This is the third-highest known range of any species of mammal, after the Punta de Vacas leaf-eared mouse and P. lemminus" verified? It's hard to find, and I'm sure the article isn't bad without that info. All the sourcing is otherwise reliable.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Both pages expanded on nom day at least sevenfold (Puna mouse from 212 to 2223; Eastern 281 to 2072). Neutrally written and no evidence of copyvio. I added a ref per V; it says "Tail absolutely and relatively longer in kofordi than lemminus (34% of total length versus 27% on average)". @Rusalkii: Fix the issues and you're good to go. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: Not sure where I got "large" from, fixed. I distinctly remember reading about a size difference between the two species, but I now can't find it anywhere. I have removed that line for now. Thank you for the careful source checks, I see I need to slow down some.

I've swapped out the academia.edu refs for searchable ones.

The information about Punomys kofordi having the third-highest range is in the source I quote above to support the hook, I've moved it after the relevant sentence in both articles per DYK hook guidelines, completely forgot about that requirement. It can be found in the first sentence of the Discussion sentence (P. vaccarum is the scientific name for the Punta de Vacas leaf-eared mouse, happy to change to the scientific name in the article as well if you think that's better). Rusalkii (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: Oh, you meant Punomys the entire genus. And BTW it helps to source every claim if possible. Better safe than sorry. Although I noticed an inconsistency between the pages - PM page says PM is second-highest, but EPM page says EPM might be second-highest, which might imply PM page should say "might" - it's based on provisional scientific assignment, but I won't mind a second eye on this. (nevermind, it's actually contradictory, so I fixed it to prevent a potential hook pull) So ALT0. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)