Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mesopropithecus/archive1
- 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 promoted by Karanacs 19:34, 7 September 2010 [1].
Mesopropithecus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FAC criteria. I have covered all of the literature that I have found for this genus (and all 3 species). – VisionHolder « talk » 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is another fine lemur article; I've seen it develop and believe it meets the FA criteria. Ucucha 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
Fix typo "KcKenna"- Good catch! Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5: please state language if this source is in French. Likewise ref 16.- Another good catch. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Borror 1960: books published in 1960 don't have ISBNs. If this is a subsequent edition please give the later date. You can add a note ("originally published in 1960").
- According to the book's copyright page (which can be viewed on Amazon.com), this is technically a "1st edition". It makes no mention of a printing number. There is a "renewed copyright" of 1988. Should I use that? Otherwise, I'm not sure where to place "originally published in 1960" using {{cite book}}. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of the given information I imagine this is a 1988 reprintof the 1960 book. I usually place "originally published" notes outside the template - see, e.g. Tosca. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the note, and I changed the "year" to 1988. If this is acceptable, then I may change the ref name as well. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of the given information I imagine this is a 1988 reprintof the 1960 book. I usually place "originally published" notes outside the template - see, e.g. Tosca. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the book's copyright page (which can be viewed on Amazon.com), this is technically a "1st edition". It makes no mention of a printing number. There is a "renewed copyright" of 1988. Should I use that? Otherwise, I'm not sure where to place "originally published in 1960" using {{cite book}}. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a read through, see what I can see.
- "Mesopropithecus was" As there are several species in the genus, shouldn't that be "were"?
- Mesopropithecus is a genus, so: "the genus was..." When I mention Mesopropithecus, I'm referring to a single genus. That's how I see it. Do you agree? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This used to come up on the main page from time to time, I think it's actually a British/American thing, now I think about it. I can't remember the details, and 30 seconds of searching didn't throw anything up. Ok, no objection. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mesopropithecus is a genus, so: "the genus was..." When I mention Mesopropithecus, I'm referring to a single genus. That's how I see it. Do you agree? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Extinct species by human activities?
- I didn't know this category existed. It's not very well populated, and looks like it was created about a year ago. I guess the question is whether I should include each subfossil lemur genus/species in this category (individually), or simply add Category:Subfossil lemurs to the category and leave it at that. (Note: I did go ahead and add Category:Subfossil lemurs as a subcategory since that seems appropriate.) – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, makes sense. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know this category existed. It's not very well populated, and looks like it was created about a year ago. I guess the question is whether I should include each subfossil lemur genus/species in this category (individually), or simply add Category:Subfossil lemurs to the category and leave it at that. (Note: I did go ahead and add Category:Subfossil lemurs as a subcategory since that seems appropriate.) – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally really nice. Not really my subject area, but looks like a great little article. A good length, a good level of detail, interesting subject matter, well written, carefully sourced. Nice work on the illustrations, too. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review! I'm glad you found it interested, despite not being your subject area. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- support
Comment. Another excellent and informative article. One comment for now:--Egmontaz♤ talk 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]The second paragraph of section "Distribution and ecology" seems bit redundant. I think that either all relevant information about distribution and diets should be transfered there and removed from section "Species" or remove the whole paragraph (or leave it as it is, not really a strong opinion)--Egmontaz♤ talk 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- This was one of the harder issues to deal with, and I'm glad you pointed it out. If I delete that redudant paragraph, the section would just be about distibution. There would be no "ecology" section, and all of that information would be under "Classification and phylogeny"... not the most appropriate place, but easier to keep information about each species together. Should I also split the "Species" subsection out and slightly rename it? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed hard. As it is, section "species" has anatomy and morphology not present in the relevant section, and more detailed information about distribution and ecology also not present in "Distribution and ecology". Do you consider keeping only etymology and a briefing in species and move everything else to respective paragraphs?Well since I wrote this, I read the article again and can now see more clearly the pattern you used, sections "Anatomy and physiology" & "Distribution and ecology" have only generic info leaving relevant specific info for "species". As it's inevitable not to mention each of the species in "ecology" for the genus (that caught my attention) it's better to leave it as it is. I am anyway happy with the article. --Egmontaz♤ talk 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- It's not a problem. Every article presents its own unique challenges, and I'm always learning. Thank you for your time and comments. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was one of the harder issues to deal with, and I'm glad you pointed it out. If I delete that redudant paragraph, the section would just be about distibution. There would be no "ecology" section, and all of that information would be under "Classification and phylogeny"... not the most appropriate place, but easier to keep information about each species together. Should I also split the "Species" subsection out and slightly rename it? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One more minor comment: "The dental formula of Mesopropithecus was the same as in the other indriids and sloth lemurs ...": better rephrase as "... other sloth lemur and indriids ..." as the subject is a sloth lemur. --Egmontaz♤ talk 05:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, an excellent catch! Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I rephrased one more instance of this that I found later [2], hope it's not a problem. --Egmontaz♤ talk 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, an excellent catch! Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no significant concerns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Query, has there been an image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be a very easy review. The images are very similar to the ones that passed during the Babakotia review. The range map is my typical Malagasy range map made from the same template I always use. The skull was acquired and uploaded around the same time (and the same basic permissions) as the Babakotia skull photo was. That's it! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems in the images as far as I can see. Ucucha 20:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.