Talk:Conservation of slow lorises/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 21:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll claim this review. Ucucha 21:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The conservation of slow lorises is a challenge"—I don't think "challenge" is very encyclopedic wording. Perhaps just omit "is a challenge that".

  Removed. Thanks. I don't know why that lead sentence caused me so much grief. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• 'Their conservation status was originally listed as "Least Concern"'—which Red List version is that?

  Details added. Let me know if it looks alright. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks. Not sure you need the version number, though: the year is most important. Ucucha 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you need a "Background" section to briefly introduce the habitat, distribution, ecology, and appearance of Nycticebus. The article should be able to stand on its own; I'm afraid readers may find it hard to understand a discussion of conservation without some basic knowledge of slow loris biology. There is some of this scattered throughout the article, but it may not be enough.

  I will work on this tonight. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Background section has been added. Please let me know if it is sufficient. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Great! Could you add some brief discussion and listing of the species there? Ucucha 22:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but could you clarify? If you're talking about listings for the IUCN and CITES, those are covered in depth in the article. Wouldn't that be redundant? Anyway, once I know exactly what you want, I will get to work on it. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think the "Background" section needs a brief listing of the species and their ranges; that way, you can remove some of these details from the rest of the article. Ucucha 03:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  The native ranges for each species have been added, and I have removed all the redundant links and text that I saw. Let me know if you catch anything else. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The gall bladder of the Bengal Slow Loris (Nycticebus bengalensis) has historically been used to make ink for tatoos by the village elders in Pursat-Koh Kong Provinces."—of what country (the link is red)? Also, why specify the species here when you don't do so for the other records in the same section?

  I tried to provide specific detail when given in the sources. Otherwise, general detail is provided. Also, some species overlap in range, so it may be whatever species is available. If you have suggestions on how to make it look more presentable, I'm open to what you have to say. Also, I didn't realize it, but "Pursat-Koh Kong" was two neighboring provinces, so I split them. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Great work getting so many pictures released.

  Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• "which can be fatal in 90% of all cases."—that is rather vague; do 90% of cases of dental infection lead to death?

  Going by rules of grammar, I don't see how it's vague, although I do see how it could be misinterpreted. Yes, you interpreted it correctly. I don't think it's know what percentage (exactly) get infected. But of those that are brought to clinics with dental infections, 90% die. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  In that case, "can be" should be "is"; I've made the change. Ucucha 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the fix. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• "A report in 2010 by Nekaris et al. reported that Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand were the primary exporters of slow lorises, with Singapore and Malaysia also involved."—does Singapore still have native loris populations, or is it a transit port?

  I was about to say it must be a transit port, but higher up in the source article it reads: "We focus on the period 1978–2007 (inclusive) with 2007 being the last year for which data are available, and focus on all 15 loris range countries (Sri Lanka, India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, China [excluding Taiwan, Hong Kong, andMacau], Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam, and the Philippines)." – VisionHolder « talk » 01:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Apparently, there are lorises there, though the population is at least partially exotic. Surprising. Ucucha 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing to the source. I will be sure we reference it in that species' article. However, do you suggest a change in the article? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think so. The article suggests (or at least, implies) hybridization with non-native slow loris species as a possible threat, but that's already mentioned in this article. Otherwise, it's not too important for this larger-scale article. Ucucha 01:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Alright. If others disagree, I'm sure it will come up at FAC. Thanks for your input. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Under "Conservation efforts", is there anything to say about N. pygmaeus?

  Thanks. I also didn't get anything about the Bengal slow loris there, so I found a common issue and noted them both together. Let me know if that's sufficient. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• You say almost the same thing about the Bengal slow loris under "Conservation efforts" ("The outlook for the Bengal slow loris is more optimistic than for other species since it can be found in more low-risk areas.") and about the Bornean under "Threats in wild" ("The Bornean Slow Loris (N. menagensis) was in a better situation since much of its range consists of low-risk areas.")

  Amazing catch! Your memory is phenomenal! I revisited the sources and have made the correction. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, but is there any reason to keep the same information in both sections? Ucucha 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  I'm most tempted to remove it from the "Conservation efforts" section, which negates the previous point. Do you see any problems with me deleting the newly added statement and the duplicated info? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  I think the information is more appropriate for "Threats in the wild" than for "Conservation efforts", so I agree. Ucucha 01:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  In that case, the redundant information has been removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, the article is very good, and I'd be at least close to supporting at FAC. Ucucha 22:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes; I'm now passing the article as a GA. Ucucha 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)