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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Fork-marked lemur[edit]

Nominator(s): – Maky ^« talk » 03:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rarely studied genus of lemur. Information about them is patchy, dated, and sometimes inconsistent. I have completely re-written the article, added images and illustrations, and successfully run it through GAN. I now feel it's ready for FAC. Unless I've missed something, the article should cover everything known about these lemurs. Please note, however, that there is a discrepancy between this article and some of the source regarding the breeding information. Sources published in 1999 or earlier tend to state widely different birthing dates and infant handling because they were based on the account of a single local "informant". This information was inconsistent with what is known about cheirogaleid breeding, and the more recent material cited should be more accurate. Otherwise, the article should be comprehensive. – Maky ^« talk » 03:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review
• File:Phaner pallescens 1985.JPG - Looks okay
• File:Histoire naturelle des mammifères, Tome VI, Atlas III, Plate 259.jpg - Fine
• File:Phaner range map.svg - Would be better to include the source(s) of the range data.

Good point. Added. – Maky ^« talk » 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Katzenmaki (Chirogaleus furcifer).png - A JPG will display better in the article (has to do with how MediaWiki downsamples).

Are you sure? Following your advice and going by what I learned on WikiCommons regarding file types, I added a JPEG and changed it in the article. However, the thumbnail looks worse to me, even after a purge. – Maky ^« talk » 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Phaner pallescens 2008.jpg - Looks okay.
• File:Madagascar harrier-hawk 3.jpg - Fine.
• Also, not an image review, but could those Red List references be cut off at some point with "et al."? They're huge! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. As for the refs, I agree... but wasn't sure where to cut it off since there doesn't appear to be any precedent for it. The template Template:Cite book and others don't seem to cut off long lists, such as editors, and the IUCN template just has a general "contributors" field. The recommended citation from the IUCN shows the entire list of contributors, too. Just let me know where to cut it off and I will. – Maky ^« talk » 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Also, I added one more illustration, File:Phaner furcifer 1868.jpg. Sorry for the trouble. – Maky ^« talk » 23:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite book automatically goes first author et al. after you put four or more authors in.

I'll do that then. Thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 06:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare JPG and PNG side by side. The PNG is considerably blurrier, meaning you can't see any of the fur details.

I see what you mean, but the PNG looked smooth (because of the slight blur), whereas the JPEG looks grainy. I guess it's all a matter of taste. Anyway, thanks for teaching me about the difference between PNG and JPEG on Wiki. – Maky ^« talk » 06:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Phaner furcifer 1868.jpg - To claim PD-70, you need to know when the author died. This is certainly PD-1923, but without more information on when the author(s) died, claiming PD based on the time since the author(s) died is impossible (if this were 18th century or earlier, I'd let it slide, but it's conceivable that a young person in 1866 was still alive in 1945). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched it to PD-1923 for now. Before I added the image, I thought I had identified the artist as Pieter Willem Marinus Trap (1821-1905), but I started to have slight doubts that he was only the lithographer and not the artist. The original has abbreviated in the bottom corner "Steendr. v. P.M.W. Trap" ("Steendrukkerij van P.W.M. Trap", Dutch for "Lithography of P.W.M. Trap"). It seems like it's his... but does the lithographer count as the artist if not otherwise specified? I've noticed that a lot of artists around that time are listed as both lithographers and artists, so I suspect it's very likely his. If so, it should be PD-old-100. Otherwise there is nothing else to go off of, either on the drawing itself or in the front of the book. Your thoughts? – Maky ^« talk » 06:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not well versed in the relationship of lithograph and author (not as much as, say, Adam Cuerden, who deals with these quite often), but I'd think that, if he was the only one credited, then copyright duration would consider only his lifespan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, if it's hosted on commons, you cannot use PD-1US-923 for a non-US image. That's not good enough. You can move it to en-wiki, and use ((PD-US-1923-abroad)), but Commons requires the image to be PD in its source country AND the US, and only the US has the statutory cutoff at 1923. Oppose for the brief period it will take to fix this: It will get deleted on Commons eventually if unfixed, so this must be done. Now, the thing to remember with books is that the label doesn't need to be on the picture. So let's check the front and back matter. Nothing that appears relevant. As such, we're good. It's well-known that assistants tended to be used for these things, but as long as they aren't credited, they are pretty much the definition of anonymous, particularly this far back, and can be ignored. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your expert opinion. I'm glad to see that all my careful digging and attempt to understand what "Steendr v. P.W.M. Trap" meant have paid off. I have changed the license to PD-old-100 per what you said. – Maky ^« talk » 18:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, there we go. Images are okay (if it had come down to PD-70, you'd have had to use PD-1923 for the US licensing, but PD-100 covers both the US and the source country). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, Adam, image's fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take it, then, that you are unaware of commons:Template:PD-old-auto-1923? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, completely aware of it (a combination of PD-1923 and a date feature, which isn't quite PD-70) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose review
• nocturnal strepsirrhine primates - per WP:SEAOFBLUE there should not be this many links in a row

I've done my best, by trying to find a new home for the mention of nocturnality. Unfortunately, "strepsirrhine" and "primate" can't be split. I could link them together and point to Strepsirrhini and not have a link to primates. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd hope "primate" is common enough to not need to be linked, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link to primate. – Maky ^« talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• who named it - named what? You've been using "they" to refer to the lemurs

Fixed – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They sleep in tree holes and nests. - most recent subject was "females", implying that only females sleep in tree holes and nests

Fixed – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are currently four recognized species: the Masoala fork-marked lemur (P. furcifer), the Pale fork-marked lemur (P. pallescens), Pariente's fork-marked lemur (P. parienti), and the Amber Mountain fork-marked lemur (P. electromontis). - do we have to make this explicit after you state that all of them have been upgraded to species status?

Good point. It was something I preserved from the original article (before my re-write). It's been removed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fork-marked lemurs were originally called "fork-marked dwarf lemurs" by Scottish naturalist Henry Ogg Forbes in 1894 and "fork-crowned mouse lemur" by English naturalist James Sibree in 1895. - do we need "originally" here?

Gone. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:REDLINK, we shouldn't redlink names of people

Didn't know about that one. I use the red links to make sure the first names are preserved for when I go to make the article. Anyway, a few redlinks have been removed, and otherwise I created articles for the others (hence the delayed reply). – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to jump between using "they" and "it" to refer to the lemurs a lot. Please standardize

Very good catch! Thank you. I hope I've fixed it. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (On each side of the mouth, top and bottom, there are two incisors, one canine, three premolars, and three molars—a total of 36 teeth.) - Footnote? Or remove the parentheticals in place of a semi-colon?

I opted for the semi-colon. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The testes of males are relatively small compared to those of other lemurs, and their canine teeth are the same size as those seen in females. - The subject of the previous sentence was "testes", so unless lemur testes have teeth, I'd recommend reworking this sentence

Lol! Fixed, I hope. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are currently - Per Wikipedia:As of, we should use an alternative phrasing that will not "date quickly".

Good catch. Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I see quite a few duplicate links; you should check for that.

Most of my articles (FAs, GAs, and all) tend to link items in the lead, image captions, and body *independently* of each other. (The reason is that people tend to read the lead only, skim the images only, or skip directly to a pertinent section in the body. I did find a few true duplicates, even by my standards, and they've been removed. If you want to discuss further or name specific cases, please do. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So do I. I still see a duplicate link to Adansonia (the tool also picks up three links to Molar (tooth) and two to anatomical terms of locomotion, but I see what you're doing there) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed extra link to Adansonia. Thanks for catching it. – Maky ^« talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "bleating" call when they have infants. - I doubt the sound itself is "bleating". Per WP:WORDSASWORDS, this is not a word as a word, but a description of the sound. As such, it shouldn't have italics or quotation marks.

I put all the calls named by the source in quotes and italics. If I removed the quotes and italics, should I do that for the other calls, too? Or do I have to judge them individually? – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I take it that they identified it as a bleating noise, and not the noise "bleating". The others (ki, kiu, and kea) are all onomatopoeic representations of the sound and thus alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "Bleating" (quotes and italics), just like with ki, kiu, and kea. – Maky ^« talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Females have not been observed giving birth in consecutive years - Even in the case of a young dying prematurely?

Sources don't say... sorry. I'm guessing that losing young will result in new breeding opportunities... at the right time of the year only, though. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Shame we can't ref that. Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These trees are often parasitized by beetle larvae that burrow beneath the bark. - relationship of this sentence and the rest of the paragraph is unclear, suggest removal

Clarified. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, works better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Other nocturnal lemurs are sympatric with fork-marked lemurs, and in western Madagascar, interspecific competition is reduced by restricting activity to specific levels of the canopy, such as using only the highest sleeping sites at least 8 m (26 ft) above the ground. - This long sentence could be split

Broken up. Thank you. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 50 to 550 individuals per square kilometer - worth having a conversion to imperial? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion added. Let me know if it reads okay to you. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine for me. I'm not really sure how the biological articles handle imperial units. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and images. Great work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review and support! – Maky ^« talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Excellent article about a difficult topic to find information on. Rlendog (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the read-through and support! – Maky ^« talk » 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Though I GA reviewed this, I'll have a look again soon, many changes seem to have been made since, and the FAC process seems to be going slowly at the moment. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "while also clumping the other cheirogaleids in Cheirogaleus" Wouldn't "lumping" be more conventional? Never seen "clumping" used... FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. – Maky ^« talk » 18:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "and the base tail is the same color as the dorsal fur[24] and is usually tipped in black[4][24] and bushy." Perhaps one or two of these ands could be snipped?

Good call. Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "has also suggested that undescribed varieties may also exist elsewhere on the island." Double also, could perhaps be snipped.

You're finding lots of these little gems. Thanks for the careful eye! This has been fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, at this point it's just, uh, ant-loving... I'll no doubt support when I've read it through. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate the effort. After the article Lemur passed FAC, someone found an obvious typo two years later. Some are just bound to slip by, but I'm glad to see that you and the other reviewers are catching them. It's just one of those things about the human brain—it's specially wired to fill in the gaps when our attention is overloaded and omit extraneous details—all before any of it is passed to the conscious mind. (Read about the Invisible Gorilla Test.) Hence all the duplicated or omitted words and other weird typos, even after I carefully proofread. – Maky ^« talk » 21:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I read the rest, and no gorillas. Incidentally, "half-apes" (halvabe) is the common Danish term for Strepsirhini... Unlike English, the word for ape and monkey is the same... FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - looking good - couple of quibbles: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Males females usually form monogamous pairs, and females are dominant. - grammar - also consider some way of not having two "female" in one sentence.

Fixed. Thanks for spotting the typo! Let me know if it's better. – Maky ^« talk » 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source of this specimen is thought to be Antongil Bay, but remains speculative. - "speculative" always makes me think of the one doing the speculating, not the object.......

Also fixed. Clearer? Anyway, thanks for taking a look! – Maky ^« talk » 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

otherwise looking fine. hence support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha[edit]

Note: I'm a co-author on one of the cited references (Dunkel et al. 2012).

• " who named it after a character in the British comedy The Palace of Truth by W. S. Gilbert." This was really fun to discover, but I don't think it's important enough for the lead. Similarly, you may have put too much weight on the etymology in the body of the article—it's not that important in the grand scheme of things.

Removed from the lead. I wasn't sure how much of the story to trim when I wrote the etymology section up. I felt all three names had to be mentioned to explain how it was shown to derive from the play, and I felt your original ideas about being a "feigned Lepilemur" merited mention because that may have had something to do with the name selection. Admitted, I did not want that story to span two paragraphs. What would you suggest trimming? Maybe the "feigned Lepilemur" stuff? – Maky ^« talk » 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should trim a bit anything about Mirza and Azema and about the other etymologies we initially suggested. Ucucha (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been trimmed. However, brief mentions of Mirza and Azema were needed to explain why the play could be definitively labeled as the source of the names. If you have a moment, please read it over and let me know what you think. – Maky ^« talk » 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "their own genus, Phaner, within the family Cheirogaleidae". Not true, he put them in Lemuridae.

Thanks for catching that. The newer source makes no mention of this dated family assignment, so if I want to include that history, I'll have to cite Gray himself... which I know can sometimes be seen as borderline OR. Does Gray's family assignment need to be included in your opinion? – Maky ^« talk » 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's important. Ucucha (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For "Distribution and habitat", is there any published research about the biogeographic pattern formed by the species? For example, do they occur in areas of endemism that also have endemic species of other lemur genera? Also, any subfossil records?

I checked all of my sources for the topics you mentioned, and none mentioned Phaner. In one (the book "Natural Change and Human Impact in Madagascar"), there's a table that compares four subfossil sites and their nearby forests. In this table, Phaner is listed as extant for two sites, but not among the subfossils. However, the source does not speculate on its absence in the subfossils. – Maky ^« talk » 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ucucha (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• " Terminalia (known locally as Talinala)" If that's not a scientific name, italicizing it is confusing.

Sorry, I'm used to italicizing local names. So just quotes on local names? – Maky ^« talk » 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems clearest to me. Ucucha (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A comprehensive and well-written overview of the subject. Ucucha (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, fixes, and support! – Maky ^« talk » 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Coordinator comment: Maky, is this your first time nominating at FAC? I would like to see a spot-check of your sources for accuracy, close paraphrasing, etc. if so. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: No, I have nominated many articles as Vision Holder, all of which were promoted. I've just been away for a while. But if you want a source check still, that's fine. – Maky ^« talk » 21:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and welcome back! Since you've been away from FAC for a while, I'll request a routine spot-check on WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm going to stroll down to the British Library next week I'll be happy to do the spot check on this article while I'm there. Tim riley talk 01:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Tim. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. If it helps, I've included links in the refs to online sources. Many are Google Books previews, and with a careful search, you should be able to preview the pages I worked from for many of them. Others will require a library visit, unfortunately. – Maky ^« talk » 04:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check: I checked refs 1 a–j, 43, 46–48, 50–52 and 54–56. All absolutely fine. If I'm being hyperpicky I could have done with actual pages for refs 1 a-j. True the page range is only three pages, but it's pretty dense stuff and the ten statements took a bit of tracking down. Still, this affects only the spot-checker; the general reader won't mind a bit. The article passes the spot check with flying colours. – Tim riley talk 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 04:18, 14 February 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.