Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giant mouse lemur/archive1
From 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a lesser known group of nocturnal lemurs, closely related to the fork-marked lemurs that recently passed FAC. Everything should be in order, and I plan to do additional proofreads over the coming days. I am also trying to acquire more photos from experts in the field, but I may not be able to acquire anything new until March. – Maky « talk » 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by FunkMonk
[edit]Seems like you're still doing some tweaks, so I'll come back in a few days for a full review. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaks are now done. I just had to do a second proofread and copy edit (to the best of my abilities). I also added new material from an older source that initially I thought had been sufficiently summarized by other (newer) sources. Thanks for your patience and sorry for the delay. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images are user created and CC-licensed, apart form one, whose author died in 1905. No problems, but potential additional images will have to be checked later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments: (Of these seven specimens, the lectotype was selected in 1939 as MNHN 1867–603, an adult skull and skin.)" Why does this have to be in parenthesis? It is not within another sentence.
- I think when I started writing it, it started inside a sentence. Since, it's had the feel of a footnote, and I've wavered on how to handle it. Parentheses have been removed. If you feel it belongs in a footnote, just let me know. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'm not too fond of footnotes, so keeping it in the article is ok for me. FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think when I started writing it, it started inside a sentence. Since, it's had the feel of a footnote, and I've wavered on how to handle it. Parentheses have been removed. If you feel it belongs in a footnote, just let me know. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "similarities with fork-marked lemurs (Phaner), which he considered to also be a member of Cheirogaleus." Fork-marked lemurs is plural, so shouldn't be "also be members of"?
- Good catch. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "nd coincidentally gave it the same specific name, coquereli" Why was this name so popular? Who is Coquerel? Would normally be relegated to the species page, but since you mention this fact here, the reader would be curious to know.
- It refers to Charles Coquerel. As you said, I was going to go into it more on the species page, but that gets tricky when discussing a genus that until very recently included only one species. I'll attempt to clarify briefly. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Giant mouse lemurs were first described by" Could you make it clearer early on that only one species was known? I thought both species were known early on until I reached the fourth paragraph of taxonomy.
- Good point. I've tweaked the opening sentence to clarify. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "They noted a significant difference in coloration between Coquerel's giant mouse lemur" What about comparison with the other new species?
- I'm not quite sure what you mean. I was just saying that this possible new species has different coloration patterns from the other two species. I saved discussing the details for the "Description" section (3rd paragraph), where it was most appropriate to go into details. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You only mention its difference with Coquerel's, not zaza, in the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. The sentence in "Taxonomy" says the coloration of the undescribed population differs from neighboring M. coquereli, and under "Description" it tells how this undescribed population differs in appearance from what the other two species look like (in general). I have some details on the coloration for the two known species, but they are only slightly different. For that reason, I only included a general description of their coloration, and was saving the extra detail for the species articles. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I was just expecting something like "They noted a significant difference in coloration between the two known species and the new specimen they observed" or something like that, but not if the source doesn't say to, and only mentions coquereli. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The source says: "according to the researcher Charlie Gardner exhibits 'significant differences in the coloration of its coat from the other two species. The specimen that we observed appears to have a lighter dorsal coloration than is noted for M. coquereli, and has conspicuous reddish or rusty patches on the dorsal surface of the distal ends of both fore- and hind-limbs. The ventral pelage is also conspicuously light in color, and the animal possesses a strikingly red tail, also becoming darker at the end.'" So, yes, it says that it differs in appearance from both known species, but only gives direct comparison to M. coquereli. Basically it differs by having a lighter belly, reddish patches on its back, and a red tail. Sorry—I had forgotten that they mentioned both species and only remembered that they directly compared it to its closest neighbor. I've made the change you suggested. – Maky « talk » 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I was just expecting something like "They noted a significant difference in coloration between the two known species and the new specimen they observed" or something like that, but not if the source doesn't say to, and only mentions coquereli. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. The sentence in "Taxonomy" says the coloration of the undescribed population differs from neighboring M. coquereli, and under "Description" it tells how this undescribed population differs in appearance from what the other two species look like (in general). I have some details on the coloration for the two known species, but they are only slightly different. For that reason, I only included a general description of their coloration, and was saving the extra detail for the species articles. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You only mention its difference with Coquerel's, not zaza, in the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure what you mean. I was just saying that this possible new species has different coloration patterns from the other two species. I saved discussing the details for the "Description" section (3rd paragraph), where it was most appropriate to go into details. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The caption of the illustration does not mention what species is shown. Would of course be obvious from reading the article thoroughly, but not at a glance.
- Actually, that's kind of deliberate. The illustration comes from Schlegel and Pollen, who described their M. coquereli based on the northern species. Therefore the illustration is supposed to be M. coquereli, but is actually M. zaza if they drew it based on their specimens. That's a little complicated to explain in a caption, so I was just making a general statement about giant mouse lemurs and their original description using art from around that time to illustrate. Your thoughts? – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'd explain that fact in the caption (rather than repeating what's already in the article), as it has historical significance in itself... FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem there is that it would be original research. I may have sources noting that Schlegel & Pollen described specimens from the north, but I have nothing saying what the lithograph was drawn from. Most likely it's a drawing of M. zaza, but I don't have a source. Thoughts? – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps note that it was not noted which locality the illustrated specimen was from? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written a new caption, but it was difficult to explain so succinctly. I didn't really have room to discuss the ambiguity over the specimen's identity, but I feel the statement is ambiguous (though supported) enough to get the same idea across. Agree? – Maky « talk » 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps note that it was not noted which locality the illustrated specimen was from? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem there is that it would be original research. I may have sources noting that Schlegel & Pollen described specimens from the north, but I have nothing saying what the lithograph was drawn from. Most likely it's a drawing of M. zaza, but I don't have a source. Thoughts? – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'd explain that fact in the caption (rather than repeating what's already in the article), as it has historical significance in itself... FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's kind of deliberate. The illustration comes from Schlegel and Pollen, who described their M. coquereli based on the northern species. Therefore the illustration is supposed to be M. coquereli, but is actually M. zaza if they drew it based on their specimens. That's a little complicated to explain in a caption, so I was just making a general statement about giant mouse lemurs and their original description using art from around that time to illustrate. Your thoughts? – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Had it been suspected prior to 2005 that there were multiple species?
- No, the genera was poorly studied. Even Tattersall and Groves didn't speculate at other species. For a long time, it was just considered to be another type of mouse lemur... though considerably larger. – Maky « talk » 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything on when the two species diverged?
- Thanks for asking! I went back and looked, only to realize that I had overlooked some divergence dates. Added! – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "young males begin to exhibit early sexual behaviors." What is implied by this?
- Done. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "a mating system best described as scramble competition polygyny" Perhaps briefly explain?
- Done. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the original descriptions under external links have additional images or info that could be added to the article?
- No addition images, and the details were covered elsewhere. If anything, extra details belong in the species article. I provided the links in the "External links" section in case people wanted to see/read the original descriptions for themselves. These original descriptions used to be inaccessible to the general public, and I feel the digital libraries offer a wonderful service to the public. – Maky « talk » 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - alrighty, all comments addressed, looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Sorry but with no commentary for three weeks this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.