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 SandyGeorgia 05:54, 27 May 2011 [1].

Slow loris[edit]

Slow loris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC); Sasata; Rlendog; Ucucha[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC critieria. This was a collaborative effort as part of WikiProject Mammals Collaboration. Like my previous FAC nomination, Conservation of slow lorises, this is article has been receiving a lot of traffic from due to controversial viral videos on YouTube. However, aside from reverted vandalism, the article has been stable, which in my opinion demonstrates its comprehensive and neutral nature. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak[edit]

  • Sorry, I missed this question. I think a small piece of bamboo is threaded through the wire mesh ceiling just behind where the slow loris is clinging. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stockholm: Impensis Direct. Laurentii Salvii. — I don't like this, you've translated Holmia, but left the rest in Latin, including the publisher's name and the book's title. Either the original Latin (best, I think) or translate the lot. Also there's an abbreviation.
  • It looks like Sasata switched "Stockholm" back to the "Holmiae" for consistency. What's the abbreviation?
  • "Direct." As it stands, it's not a Latin word, I assume it's something like directus, giving "printing directed by"
  • Removed it, publisher is Laurentii Salvii. Sasata (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is IPPL News a reliable source? It is the newsletter of a campaigning charity, no evidence of peer review or references. I'm not unsympathetic, but we are being asked to take a lot on trust
  • A little bit of background on the research: When I first took on the "Conservation" section, my first (quick) searches turned up the IPPL newsletters, which were rich with information, but (as you pointed out) were clearly non-neutral. I originally had citations for as many as 7 issues, but fortunately, McGreal herself and others helped put me in touch with researchers who provided academic journal articles that offered nearly identical information. Once I managed to track down Nekaris and open a dialogue with her, I obtained access to numerous articles as was nearly able to replace the IPPL newsletters as sources. The articles that remain mainly revolve around Dr. Sanchez of the International Animal Rescue (IAR), which has a sanctuary in Indonesia. Some of the photos were taken by Sanchez herself. I suspect this veterinarian keeps her own records, as many veterinarians do. As for the differences between 85% and 90%, I suspect it was an estimate, and that's why I used the number from Sanchez's article rather than McGreal's. However, if numbers are published in a peer-reviewed source, I would promptly replace the information. But otherwise interviews with Nekaris also mention very high mortality rates. And also, news articles will also mention facts without citing sources, but that's considered okay. To me, that's more disturbing. I'd trust someone in the field who's actively involved in what's going on over a news story written by someone who might have done their research by searching on Google. I should also mention that McGreal works directly with CITES and other publications that are not cited in this article have referenced data from CITES and news reports about smuggling attempts.
  • That's fair enough, I suppose my concern was the figures which seemed to have been plucked out of the air by someone committed to a cause. If they're based on her practice, that is a proper professional opinion rather than a guess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''Hundreds of Indonesian lorises are traded domestically every year — Where is IPPL's data from?
  • I don't think this was stated in the article, but in Conservation of slow lorises, there are several peer-reviewed sources that talk about the prolific domestic trade and give sampling data that support these claims. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • mafia, poor animals, brutally don't inspire confidence that we are getting objective research-based information
  • Again, not used in this article, but "mafia" may be accurate for these black markets. There was an Animal Planet video on YouTube that showed undercover operations to expose the middle-men in the trade. Also, peer-reviewed sources also talk about organized trade. As for the language, they are allowed to express their opinions, as long as they are not introduced into Wikipedia. If the opinions are introduced, they need to be sourced. But as far as I can tell, this article does not introduce their bias. If you feel that the article does not represent both sides, then please help me find a source that either favors the illegal trade or disputes their numbers. I haven't found any opinions to the contrary, unless you count rants in YouTube video comments. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Often, the buyers are Western tourists or expatriates who sometimes pay up to 1,000,000 rupiahs — Where is IPPL's data from?
  • Again, this is not used in the article. However, the information is not out of the ordinary. It is common in lesser-developed countries for foreigners to pay more for goods than the locals. The people know Westerners have more money, and they charge more. In Madagascar, it's called the "vazaha price." In fact, the families I stayed with insisted on doing the shopping for me when I bought food for the family because they knew I would have to pay at least 10x what they do. Otherwise, other reliable sources mention that internationally, prices for slow lorises in pet shops range between $1,500 and $5,000. I think 1,000,000 rupiahs (~$110US) is likely to be accurate for a street price. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''captive lorises often die of nutritional problems, pneumonia...dental infections, with a death rate of up to 90 percent Where is IPPL's data from? Other IPPL source, quoting Sanchez, says 85%. Why is the figure different?
  • including the Borneo — why the?
  • I think it originally was intended to read "the island of Borneo", but either way, Sasata fixed it. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • chocolate plantation — a lovely image (pick your soft centres here), but I think it's more likely to be cacao (:
  • Nice. Looks like I was following the source a little too closely. Anyway, Sasata fixed it. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see which ref cites McGreal 2007
  • Changed to support above, I'll see if I can get a page number for Linnaeus (I might only have the bird ones) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Source review

  • Thanks for catching this! I thought I had fixed all of these. Fixed now. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I stopped using ((cite doi)) and moved the reference back into the document, I could change the years from 2010 to 2010a & 2010b. However, Sfn does link these citations separately, so is it really needed? – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to the Hagey, et al. ref, it's been added. If there are others missing it, please let me know. I didn't see any. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll check again, but some of this is template-related. Sasata (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the citation templates create double periods when there is an "et al.", particularly in editor lists. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be handled consistently by the citation templates we're using. ((Sfn)) shows up to three authors, but if there are four or more, it truncates to one author + "et al." The citation templates seem to truncate after about seven or eight authors, and possibly less for editors. Either way, it's beyond the control of this article and more of an issue for the widely-used citation templates. If you know of a specific counter-example, please let me know. I didn't see any. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed unneeded retrieval dates. Sasata (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added all the one I could do without having to mess with a template. VH, you'll have to add this info to the templated sources for this article to have consistent ref formatting, but I don't know if that's going to mess with the consistency of formatting of other FAs that use the same templates ? Sasata (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is done as far as I can see. Sasata (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Axl[edit]

Okay, now I understand your reasoning. However the sentence may seem odd to someone who doesn't know that reason in advance (like me). Would it be reasonable to use the plural forms ("pottos" and "false pottos")? After all, there are many individuals within each species. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This used to be a lot clearer when WP:PRIMATES used upper case for species and lower case for genera. Anyway, I've discussed this topic with another trusted editor who writes about mammal species, and although we both prefer the original usage, we don't see a harm in changing it if it makes things clearer for people who are new to lorisiform primates. Let me know if I missed any. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do lemurs/lorisiforms possess a toothcomb because they are closely related to slow lorises? The reasoning is back-to-front. Naturalists assign slow lorises as closely-related to lemurs/lorisiforms partly because they have toothcombs.
In general, there are two types of answer to the question "why does this species have this particular (functional) anatomical structure?": 1. Their genetic constitution leads to development of the structure during the individual's growth. 2. The structure has a particular function that helps the individual/species in its life and/or reproduction. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I understood what you meant, but at the time I was in a rush and didn't have time to fidget with the wording. Anyway, I've made a change, so let me know if you like that better. Feel free to tweak as needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have adjusted the layout. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new caption includes "The three individuals designated N. coucang were only tentatively identified, and their origins are unknown." But N. coucang is a species, not an individual. The diagram is supposed to represent phylogeny of Nycticebus. Perhaps you mean "The three branches"? This new caption is actually more difficult for me to understand. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How's "The three branches labeled N. coucang were based on individuals of unknown origin that were only tentatively identified." ? Sasata (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram still doesn't make sense. There is no difference between the three branches with respect to the positions of the non-coucang branches. Can someone look at the original reference (Chen et al. 2006, p. 1196) and confirm the correct diagram please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram is a simplified version of one phylogram presented in the article, simplified in that more individuals were tested than indicated here, but I grouped together end-nodes of identical species (for example, four pygmaeus individuals were used, but I've grouped them as one). The coucang branches differ with respect to the bootstrap values associated with them. I have not included bootstrap values on the phylogram here, as that would unnecessarily complicate the diagram, and is not normally done on Wikipedia. I've added a bit more about the results to the text. Sasata (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what "bootstrap values" means in this context. None of the articles "Phylogenetic tree" (redirected from "Phylogram"), "Phylogenetics", "Computational phylogenetics", "Clade" or "Cladistics" use this term.
The most helpful statement is "In the latter subclade, N. bengalensis and N. coucang are mixed together; the N. coucang sequences do not form a clade." However three coucang branches seems unnecessary. Two should be sufficient. (The statement, together with the following info about DNA sequences, makes me wonder if bengalensis really should be regarded as a separate species from coucang—but that is just my speculation.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, bootstrapping is a statistical technique that is used in the context of phylogenetic trees to determine how strongly supported each node of the tree is. In published literature, the nodes usually also show this value to demonstrate the strength of support for the node. Rlendog (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any advantage of three coucang branches over two. I understand that the original source had three branches because it included bootstrap values for each branch. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the source offers several phylogenetic trees and this one is so confusing, would anyone object to me removing the cladogram completely and simplifying the body text to say that phylogenic relationship between the species is uncertain, possibly mentioning the possible introgressive hybridization between N. coucang and N. bengalensis? – VisionHolder « talk » 15:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that would be best. I don't think it is essential to include a phylogenetic tree in an FA, and if the tree in this situation is causing confusion it may be best to do away with it. Rlendog (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the tree is useful. It clarifies some of the points in the text. I ask for removal of one of the N. coucang branches, leaving two. This is sufficient to illustrate the point of the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that tree is one of several in the paper, so the presentation in this article suggests that one measure is more reliable than the other, which the paper does not suggest. By removing it and a lot of the complicated text explaining it, we can offer a more simplified explanation of slow loris relations, albeit ultimately uncertain. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you think that's best. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the cladogram and made some changes to the text. I hope it's still clear. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The key word there is "both". On the slender lorises, the stripe does not always broaden on the nose, as seen in the individual on the right. Also, the diagram isn't perfect, since it doesn't clearly show the fading the of the stripe on the forehead, as can be seen on the slow loris in the separate picture immediately below and on the right. You can see it a little better if you view the full-size image of the diagram and consider the depth you would see in real life (rather than just looking at a flat drawing). Although it's not perfect, this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios. If we remove the illustration, the information in the text becomes more difficult to follow. Anyway, I hope this explanation is satisfactory. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay. I am sure that you have searched around for free pictures, and this is the best that you found. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many shades of color within that range of the spectrum. But, to be honest, I don't see it being a big deal. I've changed it per your suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Six of one, half dozen of another. I don't feel this matters, and if we change it here will we have to change it everywhere else in the article? Thanks for the thought, but I'm going to pass on this one. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other parts of the article already use endashes, such as the subsequent sentences in the "Description" section. Using endashes throughout would give the article a more consistent appearance. For what it's worth, I am still reading through the article and I would be happy to make these changes if you (and the consensus) agree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the format is inappropriately applied in the "Diet" section, paragraph 2: "animal prey makes up 30%–40% of its diet." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think there's a requirement that you stick to one format, or that one is more appropriate than another. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. One of the three sources says perpendicular, but the more detailed texts say "nearly 180° from the other digits". I've adjusted the text. By the way, if your points have been sufficiently addressed, please strike them out so that we know what's done and what remains. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent catch. I've standardized to "Burma." – VisionHolder « talk » 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The paper talks about transect studies, where you talk along a straight path through the forest and record what you see at at exact distances along the path. Therefore, the number would be a rate for how many slow lorises were encountered per kilometer. I'll try to clarify in the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to read: "...and those of males are generally larger than those of females." And btw, not to complain—because we certainly do appreciate your meticulous review—but this FAC and your review has been going on for over a month now. Yet you are little more than half way through the article. Is there anything I can do to help this along? – VisionHolder « talk » 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I do not have as much time as I would like to spend editing Wikipedia. (I am sure that you already guessed that.) I appreciate your tolerance of my questions & comments. However there is no deadline for the article (that I am aware of). If the FA director/delegate feels that consensus has been achieved, he/she should promote the article. If my review is the only outstanding issue, I would not object to promotion of the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't something in my control that was holding you up. I understand the busy life completely. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Their behavior is not fully understand, and the source is not definite, so I don't think we can say that. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wooden substrates are things made of wood that they walk on: things like branching and wooden platforms are examples. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what "wooden substrates" are until I read your explanation just now. Can you clarify this in the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something to clarify. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the team discussed this before. Unfortunately, the source does not explain, and no other source discusses it. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the team know why a short duodenum is helpful (despite the lack of a reliable source)? If not, perhaps you would consider removal of this from the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've written to Dr. Nekaris, so hopefully she'll get back to us about it. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And 5 minutes later, I got a reply:

"In my article on exudates, I bring up the short duodenum, and this was also cited by Swapna. I got the original citation from Osman Hill 1953. Gum is a hard to digest and rather toxic resource so the idea apparently is that it can sit in the stomach for sometime but go through the duodenum fairly quickly! My colleague Simon Bearder has said it is an advantage for it to sit and sort of dissolve in the stomach, but then to get it out of the rest of the digestive tract quickly...and that in many gummivores we happen to see a correlation at any rate with the short duodenum..." —Dr. Anna Nekaris

Now the trick is briefly summarizing that... – VisionHolder « talk » 19:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed by your dedication, and by Dr Nekaris' helpful & quick response. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I think this is a relic of a previous clarification. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber[edit]

Para 1 of the lead doesn't flow that well and there is some repetition (some of which I concede is necessary) - I will try and have rejigged a little. but....
this sentence "The currently recognized species are the Sunda slow loris (N. coucang), Bengal slow loris (N. bengalensis), pygmy slow loris (N. pygmaeus), Javan slow loris (N. javanicus), and Bornean slow loris (N. menagensis)." I think is a bit listy. Can anything succinct be added to embellish it? "e.g. species separated by geography/distinguished by size/long considered only one species etc. I might get ideas as I read.
I agree. Would it just be just be better to say "There are currently five recognized species, ..." and then merge with the next sentence? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slow lorises sleep during the day, usually alone but occasionally with other slow lorises - ouch. hmmm. tricky. How about replacing first SL with "Individuals"?
Excellent suggestion. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nearly a thousand locally sourced slow lorises exchanged hands in the Medan bird market in North Sumatra - over what period? Also, can Medan be linked somewhere...
The first part of the sentence reads: "According to 59 monthly surveys and interviews with local traders taken during late 2000s, ..." Otherwise, thanks for suggesting the link! I completely missed that one. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha yes, my bad. I was tired when typing that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can't get a feel for the taxonomic history from that section - I was just trying to get a timeline on how we ended up with five and it isn't clear from the body of the text. Was it the molecular study or before? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Some stuff got mistakenly left out. I've made some change, so please let me know if this clear things up. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. I will reread. Most of it flows fine, there were just some tricky bits flow-wise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The stubby Etymology section is one reason I often combine it into taxonomy as "taxonomy and naming" - the facts in it slot nicely into early taxonomy material. Also, I envisage "evolution" as a subsection of "taxonomy" not the other way around . In this case I would (1) incorporate etymology material into first para or thereabouts in "taxonomy and naming" (2) move that up to top under lede, and (3) make "Evolutionary history" subsection, so it flows naturally - discovery --> names --> infrageneric relationships --> extrageneric relationships/evolution. But for me that's a style thing. Otherwise looking ok, so I will support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. I have attempted to integrate the etymology information into the rest of the text. If it looks worse or doesn't read clearly, anyone is welcome to revert or make corrections. Otherwise, I prefer a reverse approach to talking evolution and taxonomy: start general and become more specific, integrating taxonomic history along the way. But as you said, that's more of a style thing and not an issue for FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor[edit]

Comments from Ceranthor

This was changed for other comments, but the use of "range" as a verb is quite common. I guess I don't see how it sounds odd. Please let me know if it reads better, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I re-worded it slightly, but I prefer to keep the mention of "low sea level" in for clarity. (Otherwise was the shelf exposed due to geological uplift, or what?) – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source did not go into details. I think it was comparing related primates and used galagos to compare the folds. Do you want us to explain the relationship between lorises and galagos again? I'm not sure what you're asking. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again this is fairly standard for these types of articles. If it's important to you, can you offer an alternative that you're more comfortable with? – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Foraging" almost exclusively refers to finding food. I think changing it to "...spend most of the night foraging for food alone" only makes the sentence more bulky and redundant. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, peer-reviewed journal articles, not popular books, news stories, etc. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Captive slow lorises eat a wide variety of foods including bananas and other fruits, rice, dog-food, raw horse meat, insects..." - Maybe better as slow lorises in captivity? I've never seen it used as an adjective I don't think. Or is it fine?

I don't think it matters, but I changed it per your request. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently I have no idea what I'm talking about. Great work with this article. ceranthor 14:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I appreciate your perspective. Maybe it's more of specialize term for the animal industry. Anyway, thank you for your feedback and support. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic C62[edit]

Lead is good. After a brief review which can now be found on the FAC talk page, I am satisfied with the lead. Should anyone voice dissatisfaction with the lead, I will happily gnaw off their arms. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha[edit]

Comments:

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point, but these range maps are not SVG files, and unfortunately before this collaborative project began, and before we all sat down and decided to recognize on Wikipedia the newest species, I asked the person who made it (using a script) to consolidate the ranges of 3 of the species for the genus article since we didn't recognize those species at the time. If these files were SVG, it would be easy to fix. I can try to play with the PNGs, but it may take a while. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Good catch. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought I had kept the history pretty simple. I started by stating what they are related to, then covered a very brief history of crown strepsirrhines to show where they originated (while also mentioning that all-important toothcomb), and quickly discussed more and more recent related fossils. If anything, I think the details about Karanisia clarki could be thinned out, particularly the details about its discovery. But given that this is a genus, not a species article, I thought a brief history of the family and how it ties in was appropriate. Of course, I welcome other opinions on this, particularly that of Sasata. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does it not mean much? Basically, there are African lorises that are very similar to the slow lorises, yet their relationship is confusing for those three reasons given. (Spelled out a little less concisely, in both Asia and Africa, there are slender and stout-bodied lorises. However, genetics suggests that the slender-framed lorises on both continents aren't closely related, nor are the stout-bodied lorises, despite appearances.) This complicates the evolutionary history. People might wonder if the slow lorises are most closely related to pottos, and this explains why that's not necessarily the case. Am I wrong? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the etymology information? There used to be a short section for it, but a reviewer suggested that we simply integrate the information into the rest of the text since it was only a few sentences long. Do you suggest restoring the section? Otherwise, am I missing something else? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where this came from. Anyway, I think I've made the correction, based on Groves' "Mammal Species of the World" (MSW3). I looked up Boddaert and also referenced the original source, but I can't read the Latin. Let me know if this is better. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave this one for Sasata, since I think he wrote this section. He'll know this material better than I. If help is needed, I'll look into it. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've removed the cladogram and altered the text to note the uncertainty, but still nothing the potential close relationship between two of the species. Please let me know if this looks alright. Otherwise, I will also try to address the rest of the concerns this evening. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the changes. The part of evolution (which I wrote) is much clearer and more up-to-date. Sorry for overlooking the literature that overwhelmingly supports what had been the leading hypothesis (among several) for lorisiform evolution. The taxonomy section is also much improved. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the large differences in weight are very clearly documented in the newest source (2010), but unfortunately they don't discuss head-body length... which from what I can find is most recently discussed in the 2007 source. I admit that it would be best to use one source for both measurements. What do you suggest? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not mention species for HB length, or find a source that states HB length for the Bengal slow loris (which I suspect is bigger than in the Sunda). Groves (1971) gives 330–367 mm for bengalensis and 265–330 mm for coucang sensu stricto. Ucucha 23:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the range for the entire genus instead of the species to avoid lack of clarity and inconsistency. If Nekaris or someone publishes something new that clearly distinguishes the sizes (both measurements) of each species, I will use that instead. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tarsiers have two of them per foot. It's the aye-aye that makes it tricky... they may or may not have one, depending on which source you use. That makes the wording difficult, so I'm leaving "nearly" in there. Otherwise, I changed it to read "prosimains" instead, per your hint. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this. I've re-worded it, but it could also be removed entirely. Opinions? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it, since it's not really relevant to this genus article where an individual species was recorded incorrectly. Ucucha 23:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-worded it, but would it be better if we just removed it? This is an element of folklore, but the topic had already been discussed above. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it folklore at all? It's true, and the fact that the Thai recognized that it is true can hardly be considered "folklore". Ucucha 23:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we agree. I've removed the sentence due to redundancy and because it's not folklore but a fact. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list of authors is what makes this a reliable source, IMO. Basically all the big-name loris researchers are working together on this project to document how to care for them in captivity. I feel that makes this a much more reliable source than a news article. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, I dislike using Primate Info Net's factsheets as sources, but not all the editors on this project agree. Even some of the lemur experts I know feel these pages are highly reliable. If you still prefer to see this source replaced, I can try to track down the references they cite and cite the peer-reviewed literature directly. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to cite the original source. Ucucha 23:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I will try to replace the sources for these six refs. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs replaced. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the critiques, Ucucha and Cryptic C62. I have been very busy of late with RL, but will make time this evening to work on these. Sasata (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in the same boat as Sasata, but I, too, will try to address the issues above this evening. I'll be watching carefully to avoid any edit conflicts. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright... I had time to look at most of the concerns, although I left one of Ucucha's questions (about Oldfield Thomas) for Sasata. The other editors, including Sasata, are encourage to review my changes and replies to all the other questions. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snek01[edit]

Support and comment: Cladogram can be in 100% font size instead of small 70% size. Although it is not a prose, it can improve readability per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Font size and this cladogram still will be in reasonable size. --Snek01 (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and support. I previewed the cladogram at 100% text size, and it takes up too much space and requires the eye to do too much backtracking when following the body text around. I did bump it up from 75% to 85%, which should be a decent compromise. By comparison, most of my FACs and the previous WP:Mammals collaboration (Fossa (animal)) used 75% on their cladograms. I'm also bumping up the font size at the Lemur article to reduce eye strain, and may do it for other soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it reads a bit better. If the cladogram gives only additional and less important information than its surrounding text, there should be keep it as it smaller as it is. Then it says to a reader: "Hey, reader! You have to read the text to fully understand it and do not stare at this intentionally small cladogram." A reader can bump up the size of cladogram relatively easily, but not as easy as images with one click. But if this cladogram gives infomations of the same importance, there is no objective reason, why the text should not be at standard size. (If you would decide for standard, you can either keep it in the box or you do not need to have it in a box, you can place it unboxed under the "... evolved into the slender and slow lorises of today." sentence such as this test.) In the Fossa article may be the situation different and I presume, that there is need to have two cladogram next to each other for comparison in all viewing devices. You can not expect that a reader will write to talk page "Could be so kind and could you bump up the size to standard. I can not see it." Sometimes it it not so easy for practical reasons, but sometime it is easy to use standards that are within the spirit of free content. --Snek01 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to defer on this topic to the other collaboration team members. I prefer it the way it is now. I figure that if anyone has problem reading the cladogram as is, they'll have enough of an issue to regularly bump text size up and down on their browser. (85% is very, very close to full size.) What does the rest of the team think? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent article, but Oppose, standards are not met. Small font is reasoned only when the cladogram would be too large to fit on screen. Following style guidelines is required for Featured articles. There is no reason to broke guideline in this case. --Snek01 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen any article italicize "IUCN Red List" ... it's an online database, but whether that counts as a "publication", I don't know. Again, other opinions from the collaboration team? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Online publications shouldn't be italicized. Ucucha 15:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checking a number of current mammal FAs, not italicizing seems to predominate. The only place I found "IUCN Red List..." italicized was in the footnotes to Lion. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/faq#No_hardcopy_of_RL per Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Websites_and_webpages it seems that it is OK without italics. --Snek01 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The LEAD seems a tad long ... it's supposed to entice the reader with a concise overview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can trim it up if needed. Normally I get told to lengthen the lead or cover more material from the body, not the opposite.  ;-) I'll try to do it tomorrow when I'm more awake. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ... we should all get more sleep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Nekaris et al. 2010, p. 157.
  2. ^ a b Ankel-Simons 2007, p. 82.
  3. ^ Phillips & Walker 2002, p. 91.
More