Talk:Philippine slow loris/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

"produces a oily" an? Fixed. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) "arboreal, nocturnal, difficult to locate, and occurs in low densities" "difficult to locate" seems out of place Fixed, I believe. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Perhaps a non-breaking space in "Appendix I"? Added. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) "threatened by the exotic pet trade" Presumably, illegal trade? General ref added in body and noted in lead. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC) "made between 5 October and 5 November 1891, was made" repetition Fixed. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not a fan of the link in the blockquote. Links in quotes should be avoided when they could lead to confusion, and that implies that the list being linked to is the list to which he is referring. Removed. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) "In his influential 1952 book Primates: Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy, the primatologist William Charles Osman Hill placed all the slow lorises in one species, N. coucang,[9] but in 1971, Colin Groves recognized N. pygmaeus as a separate species, and divided N. coucang into four subspecies, including Nycticebus coucang menagensis.[10][11]" Perhaps split/restructure that sentence? Reworded. Ucucha 00:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Could the final paragraph perhaps specify the name it was given? And I'm no expert on nomenculture, but why is the name attributed to Lydekker? Hopefully clarified. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) What do the commas/asterisks represent on the cladogram? I removed the asterisk; we don't go into the details of where every specimen came from, so there's no need to indicate it on the cladogram. The comma is just used to separate two individuals in a list—it's a simplified version of the actual cladogram with 9 x bengalensis and 1 x coucang. Sasata (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Looking over Chen et al. (2006), I'm not actually sure whether the inclusion of the cladogram is a good idea: it's just one of a series of cladograms in the paper (based on different markers and methodologies), and the occurrence of introgression leads to a misleading topology. Ucucha 01:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Why wouldn't it be a good idea? It clearly shows menagensis to be worthy of species status based on mtDNA sequences. Introgression isn't an issue for this species; we can make clearer the limitations of the analysis in the coucang and bengalensis articles (although I thought it did a decent job of that already). Sasata (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC) We're essentially showing a gene tree (not terribly interesting when looking at species) instead of a species tree (which is what we're interested in), and we cherry-picked the only tree in Chen et al. (2006) that does not show a large unresolved polychotomy. Ucucha 01:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Don't we start out with the assumption (correct or not) that differences in the gene tree are indicative/representative of differences in species? There are only two trees given in the paper, the first one used Lemur catta as the outgroup, and wasn't sufficiently resolved. I don't think that's "cherry-picking" ... do we make any conclusions that the researchers didn't? Sasata (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC) There are two trees on p. 1197. Their "Conclusions" (pp. 1198–1199) are very tentative about interspecific relationships in Nycticebus. Ucucha 01:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Looking back at the lead at this point, is "lumped into" the best phrase? "promoted full species status"? What do you think is wrong with "lumped"? It seems the right word to me. Ucucha 00:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Seems a little informal/idiomatic- is it a technical term? J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I missed this one. Taxonomists are often referred to as either "lumpers" or "splitters" based on whether they prefer defining species broadly (with more subspecies) or narrowly (with more species), respectively. I think the term is fine, particularly in the lead where we need to keep things simple. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC) "Pygmy Slow Loris" Link? The others too? Presumably, the distinctive features they have are completely lacking on this one? Pygmy is now linked in previous section. It seems clear to me from the current wording that those are features distinguishing the other species from this one. Ucucha 00:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have an idea of fur colour, and it has patches around the eyes (though details are lacking- colour? Colour of the eyes?) but I get the impression there's perhaps a little more to be said on the subject of appearance?

Resolved

"where it occurs in Brunei, Kalimantan (the Indonesian part of Borneo), and Sabah and Sarawak" Why all the "and"s? Sabah and Sarawak together form the Malaysian part of Borneo. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Bangka is a dablink Fixed. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) "the Sulus"? Reworded. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) "the western Tawi-Tawi Group"? Reworded. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) "introduced there" the link should only be on "introduced", I'd say Changed. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) What is the nature of the protection under Indonesian law? The Red List source does not go into specifics. Ucucha 01:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC) "Nycticebus menagensis is among" Why the specific name suddenly? Changed. The last paragraph seems to be a real change of tone- previously, there was an implication it was rare I think it's merely the least threatened of a group that is generally in very bad shape. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Vulnerable is a dablink Fixed. Ucucha 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) The question of pets is mentioned, but never really expanded upon. I'm not sure what else there should be; people collect it as a pet and that is a threat, and it seems that many of the sources don't say more than that. Ucucha 01:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Category:Mammals of Southeast Asia/subcategories? Added. Ucucha 00:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure I like the double spacing on the refs. Also, shouldn't "Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects" be italicised?
  • Don't like it either, but will leave it up to VH and/or Sasata. "Developments in Primatology" is the name of the series, and therefore should not be italicized, I believe. Ucucha 00:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources generally look great.

Hope this is helpful. J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is; thanks for the review. Ucucha 00:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, yeah, I'm happy to promote now. Sorry I took so long to get to this, I've found myself quite busy of late. A few thoughts for aiming at FAC, mostly from my thoughts above-

• I think there's more to be said on the description.

  I think the literature that covers this species exclusively has been covered. Once we write the general Slow loris article, I hope to use the general material to provide a more basic paragraph or two about general slow loris traits that match all the species. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• More on the pet trade would be interesting- are they exported? Are they sold legitimately elsewhere? Is this a big problem? Why are they popular as pets?

  Again, all the material that covers this species specifically has been covered. However, the topic of slow loris trade and conservation (non-specific) is vast, and within the coming weeks I will be publishing a full-length article on just that topic. Don't be surprised to see a {{Main}} used in that section soon. I will add as much general information as I can once that is done. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• On a related note, expand on the legal protection under Indonesian law.

  I don't think there is much specific information published about it. The only sources I've seen might mention the local laws, possibly the year they were issued, and the fact that they are not strictly enforced. I'm not sure where to get more info. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• The spacing in the refs is a bit weird.

  Can you be a little more specific, please? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  In the list of references, there is a blank line between each bullet- I raised it in the review, and Ucacha said he'd leave it to you/Sasata to deal with. I've not really seen it like that before, and I don't personally like the way it looks. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• A picture would be great- I see other lorises are illustrated nicely, perhaps fire off some emails?

  Thanks for the suggestion. I've spoken to Dr. Nekaris and pretty much every other researcher, and the photos are either unavailable, used to fund their research, or coming relatively soon. (Nekaris is particularly busy, but has already promised photos.) – VisionHolder « talk » 15:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Some expansion on the groups (trios? Why in trios?) would be good, as would some expansion on the lifespan (how long is gestation? How long are they juvenile? Litter size? Etc)

  These species are poorly understood, so I'm not sure what we'll find, particularly about behavior and other aspects of their biology that require long-term study. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that all this is easier said than done. In any case, this is a fine article, and worthy of GA status. J Milburn (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass and the FAC recommendations! – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)