Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Small-toothed sportive lemur/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [1].

Small-toothed sportive lemur

Small-toothed sportive lemur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Small-toothed sportive lemur/archive1

Nominator(s): – 

 talk » 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Little is known about the ecology of this species (and many other lemur species). I did manage to find a scrap of information and have added it to the article. Thanks for bringing it up. – 

 talk » 14:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 19: can this page range be narrowed at all? Over 70 pages for one footnote seems like a lot

• Fixed. – 
   talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sorry I missed that when I reviewed it last night. Fixed now. – 
   talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The only reference that lists a publisher is a template that affects multiple articles. (This issue is similar to the problems created by using {{cite doi}} and related templates. Basically, Wikipedia needs a global/standard citation style if we're going to start holding people to any sort of standard.) I guess I can start using the location tag on all my book references... but first I need two questions answered. 1) Am I correct in assuming that we use only the first location if multiple are given? 2) What do we do if we can find the location information for all but one or two book references?

• How are you ordering literature entries with the same first author? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad... I had them in reverse order. It's supposed to go: last1 -> year (oldest first) -> last2 -> etc. – 
   talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Images are perfect. Great work on getting those releases. J Milburn (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good.

• There's some inconsistency as to whether you spell out the genus in species names or just use L.- for instance, compare the last two paras in "Taxonomy and phylogeny"
  • I've tried to standardize this to using the full name the first time the name is mentioned in a paragraph and the abbreviation afterwards. Ucucha 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps the species split off from this one would also be very similar in appearance? Worth mentioning in the description section?
  • This was mentioned in section on taxonomy, and I didn't want it to be redundant, especially since it's already discussed in the lead. In general, though, (and FYI) sportive lemurs (and most genera of nocturnal lemurs) are very hard to distinguish visually—one of the reasons why there were only a few species for many decades, only with the blossoming of molecular phylogenetics have we seen an explosion in the number of species. – 
     talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "for food (interspecific competition), by living in more" Not sure about that comma
  • Removed. Ucucha 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I assume you have nothing on breeding? Lifespan?
  • No, little is known about their behavior and ecology because very few long-term field studies that have been conducted. If I find anything, I will be certain to add it. – 
     talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Why's it hunted? Food?
  • The source did not say, but generally, yes, most lemurs are hunted for food. One species is also considered a bad omen (the
     talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Hmm, that's awkward. Without clarifying why they are hunted/by whom, the mention seems a little out of place. If you could pinpoint a group that hunted them, that would be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess I don't understand how it's out of place. The paragraph its in talks about the human activities that threaten it, as well as the protection it receives from being found in national parks. Also, what types of "groups" are you talking about? Are you referring to the people in general ("Malagasy"), or are you looking for the names of specific communities? Either way, all the source gives me is: "Hunting pressure is also known to be high, and includes hunting with spears, and by chopping down trees known to have nest holes." – 
         talk » 23:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • By "groups" I was meaning "loggers" or "rural communities" or something- sorry, I don't have anything near the contextual knowledge required here. By "out of place", I mean it comes across a little as an "oh, by the way...". I guess we're getting a little bogged down here- perhaps wait to see what others think. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well written, very engaging. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and kind comments. Thanks also to Ucucha for the help in addressing the issues. – 

 talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. After some more thought and seeing the below comments, I'm happy that this is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If you have any lingering thoughts, or something comes to you later, just let me know. – 

 talk » 12:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support: this is not an area of Wiki that I have been involved in much, however, I remember this article from last year (before I left teaching to rejoin the Army) when I had students in my primary school class research lemurs and I see that it has been greatly improved since then. I would like to congratulate the editors who have made this possible. In regards to the FA criteria, I have read over the article a couple of times and I believe that it is well written and researched, comprehensive (I'm not an expert, though), structured, appropriately cited, well-illustrated and is of an appropriate length. I have also run it through the Earwig tool and no copyright violations were found. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and review. – 

 talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I misread the part about the premolars, and have removed the material from the article. Does it sound better now? – 

 talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I've moved it around. I guess I didn't intend for that paragraph to focus on identification, but rather the similarities it shares with other sportive lemurs. Either way, I've moved it to the next paragraph. Hopefully it doesn't sound awkward. – 

 talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Ucucha 01:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only information exclusively from Forbes involves the diagnostic tooth size (from which it got its name) and the mention of the bony palate. Everything else was duplicated in the other source that's cited with it. Do you want me to remove the mention of the palate? As for the tooth size, since no one has challenged it, I'm assuming that fact is still supported (and implied in the name). Your thoughts? Otherwise, thanks for the thorough review. – 

 talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Comments - reading through now -on prose and comprehensiveness. Only one query and it is pretty basic. queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can be found in Ranomafana National Park and Andringitra National Park. - strikes me as a tad repetitive. Would "can be found in Ranomafana and Andringitra National Parks." be okay?

Fixed. Thanks for the review, suggestion, and support! – 

 talk » 18:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]