Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lemur species/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [1].

List of lemur species

Nominator(s): Visionholder (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/List of lemur species/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is complete, given the latest academic literature, and because it meets the FLC requirements. I also plan to maintain the list. Visionholder (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative text has been added for all images. Thanks for pointing this out. –Visionholder (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great list! My only concern is that for all species, both the scientific and common names are linked, but the scientific name just redirects to the common name. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent list. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll remove the link to the scientific name. I agree that it's a bit redundant. –Visionholder (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant links have mostly been removed. I left them under Extinct species because I wasn't sure whether to link the family name or the common name. In some cases, the common name and family name are different links, and in other cases, they are the same. If there is a concensus on how to properly clean it up, I will gladly do so. –Visionholder (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A day later, and I'm still not sure if or how to fix the redundant links in the box for extinct species. In some cases, the common name links to the same page as the scientific name. In other cases, it links to the same page as the family name. In yet other cases, it links to its own page. Eventually, two or more scientific names may point to the same page if only a genus page is created due to insufficient information. If I were to take the "pick one and unlink the other" approach, the table would look a little spotty, and people without a lot of knowledge about subfossil lemurs and lemur classification might expect links that aren't there. For those reasons, I have not made any changes to that table. (Otherwise, all other tables have been fixed as requested.) If a reviewer could offer a suggestion or simple give a thumbs-up, it would be much appreciated. –Visionholder (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent job! Rlendog (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

"which weighs only 30 g (1.1 oz), and range up to the size of the Indri" A couple minor things:
- Remove "only".

Fixed.

- Primary units (here, grams) should be spelled out on their first appearance.

Fixed.

- Inconsistent verb usage ("weighs" is singular but "range" is plural).

The verbs "include" and "range" qualify the subject ("they"), whereas "weighs" qualifies "Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur". If I'm wrong and something still needs to be fixed in this sentence, please post a suggestion.

Spell out IUCN on its first appearance.

Fixed.

"Between 2000 and 2008" I think "From 2000 through 2008" sounds better, but that's personal preference.

Agreed. Fixed.

"into separate species ~~in order~~ to develop an effective strategy"

Fixed.

", and may ~~also~~ have played a minor role"

Fixed.

I think that the third paragraph, which concerns the history, should be moved before the second paragraph, which concerns the present and future of lemur species.

I looked at this, and I'd have to respectfully disagree. The open paragraph discusses the recent increase in the number of recognized species, while the second paragraph explains the drive behind such increases. The second paragraph also mentions the threat of extinction. The third paragraph goes on to elaborate on extinction trends for lemurs, while the final paragraph pulls it all together to discuss the future. I'm sorry, but the text flows well to my mind. I may need more detailed suggestions before I can make any changes.

"since the introductions of humans" Humans weren't introduced, they evolved (my interpretation).

I guess I don't understand your interpretation. On the island of Madagascar, humans are technically introduced species. (They introduced themselves to the island). It has nothing to do with their evolution. I guess I need clarification and maybe a suggestion before I can make changes.

"They range in size from 30 g " Perhaps "size" could be "weight"?

Technically you are correct, although most sources I know measure "size" by weight. It is easier to compare the mass of animals rather than dealing with their other dimensions. For example, a large giraffe can measure 17 ft and weigh 1,800 lb, while an elephant can measure 14 ft and weigh 26,000 lb. Which is the larger animal? For this reason, weight is usually used in size comparisons. Regardless, I made the change as requested. If anyone feels that it should remain "size", feel free to revert.

In the introductory text in the Family sections, I think that "in all" is redundant.

All instances removed. Fixed.

"There are currently 25 extant species in all." "currently" is a dated statement; if you could use an as of statement that would be better. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two instances of "currently" removed. Fixed.

Thank you for the thorough copyedit!! –Visionholder (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.