Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thylacine

Thylacine

Self nom. I've rewritten this article over the past couple of weeks - there's a little of the original left but it's mostly new material. It's had a peer review and several other people have looked it over to help me clear up any problems before bringing it here. I think it's ready now. Yomangani ^talk 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, another fine effort and interesting read. (I looked at the article earlier, and made a few small edits.) Sandy (Talk) 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great article. - Tutmosis 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ditto. comprehensive, neutral, easy to read, lead good..Cas Liber 00:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above Jay32183 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a good, informative read, but it could use some citation in the lead. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought the general feeling was that citations be kept out of the lead (as it is a summary of the artcle body anyway) and linked through the article proper. Cas Liber 02:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I found this a fascinating read. I'm not really in a position to comment on the factual content, but it is well cited and reads well. It'd be great to get it featured on the main page as an FA. It thoroughly merits such status. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent article. (I was one of the 'other people' who looked it over for Yomangani) Jasper33 09:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you eliminate some of the red links, they are quite annoying. Even the stubs would suffice. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. To quote Giano: "Redlinks are one of the benefits of a wiki - they encourage others to contribute material to make the redlink turn blue. Many people think it is more helpful to leave a link red than to create a bunch of one-line stubs which provide a misleading impression of Wikipedia's (lack of) comprehensiveness." I have actually filled or redirected or eliminated a few of the redlinks already, (Henry Burrell for example), and have some of the others on my list to do at some point, but I'm not going to create a one liner that doesn't add anything to the encyclopaedia just so the link is different colour. Yomangani ^talk 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good update and good to see more images added. I have made some minor edits and added the quote from "The ancestors tale" please amend it if you think it is appropriate to. Maybe the lead should say that it is "the largest known Carnivorous Marsupial in modern times" --Mutley 11:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kind of in a hurry so these are my comments for the first two sections. Will continue my review later. Joelito (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "The modern Thylacine first appeared about 4 million years ago, but closely related species date back to the beginning of the Miocene." The second part of the sentence does not contradict the first, hence "but" should not be used. Use a semicolon or separate into two sentences. Also, what does closely related species refer to? I presume it is of the same family so why not state it clearly. e.g. (Some) Species belonging to the Thylacinidae family date back to the beggining of the Miocene
  Fixed
- "...is the oldest of the seven discovered fossil Thylacine species" This is confusing since Thylacine is the common name for T. cynocephalus and by refering to Thylacine species one may think you are talking about 7 fossil individuals. I believe you wished to refer to members of the Thylacinidae family. Re-write as "is the oldest of the seven discovered fossil Thylacinidae species".
  Just dropped the "Thylacine"
- "the Powerful Thylacine,Thylacinus potens,". "the Powerful Thylacine (Thylacinus potens)" for consistency.
  Fixed
- "The animal was rare even in Tasmania by the time the first explorers arrived." European explorers? Weren't the aborigines explorers also? Why "even in Tasmania"? We have not established (aside from the lead) that the animal was extirpated from mainland Australia.
  Well, "indigenous peoples" suggests they weren't explorers and European is mentioned in the next sentence. Since we have established in the lead that it is extinct I don't think the "even in Tasmania" is too much of a leap, but maybe I'm missing your point.
- "However, it was not until 1805..." Again this sentence does not contradict the preceeding one. Just eliminate "However"
  "However" doesn't imply a contradiction. It emphasises that nine years passed between it being reported and the first description being sent.
- "Recognition that the Australian marsupials were fundamentally different from the known mammal genera led to the establishment of the modern classification scheme, and in 1796 Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire created the genus Dasyurus where he placed the Thylacine in 1810, and to resolve the mixture of Greek and Latin nomenclature the species name was altered to cynocephalus." Damn. This is what Tony calls a snake. Chop the snake!!! (e.g. Divide into two sentences around "scheme, and in")
  Snake arose from a poor bit of cutting and pasting, but the action in the second clause is a result of the action in the first, so breaking where you suggested isn't really a good idea. I cut off the Greek/Latin section instead, but other suggestions for a prettier rendition of the first section would be good.
  
  Thanks for the comments so far. Yomangani ^talk 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Excellent!--Yannismarou 10:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Overall, it's very good; I'll support it when the writing has been polished. Here are examples of the need for this.
- "The Thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) is a large carnivorous marsupial native to Australia which is thought to have become extinct in the 20th century." Since Australia didn't become extinct in the 20th century, why not make it smoother: "The Thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) is a large carnivorous marsupial that was native to Australia and is thought to have become extinct during the 20th century."
  First couple of sentences have been rewritten.
- "Heavy hunting"—Should be "Intensive hunting".
  Fixed.
- "Widespread throughout"—better "in".
  "throughout" was used to indicate that it was widespread in the whole of Australia rather than in certain areas. It did have "in mainland Australia" but it was pointed out that this could suggest it was not in Tasmania.
- "The animal was rare even in Tasmania by the time the first explorers arrived."—Reverse the clauses and separate with a comma? "By the time ..."
  Fixed.
- "The animal was first definitively encountered by"—awkward wording.
  Fixed(ish - struggling to find an alternative that conveys the same meaning).
- "Marc-Joseph Marion du Fresne, arriving with the Mascarin in 1772, reported meeting with a "tiger cat"." So it was a chat with a cat, was it?
  Fixed (although I think "meeting" is an acceptable synonym for "encountering". It didn't say "arranging a meeting" after all).
- Can you transliterate the Greek term in parentheses?
  Done.
- "100 to 180 cm (39–71 in) long, including a tail of around 50 to 65 cm (19.6–25.5 in)"—En dashes for all?
  I used a mixture to break it up a bit, but I'll change it if there is a general objection to that style.

Plus more. Tony 15:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. Yomangani ^talk 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice article, it is! Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]