Talk:Small-toothed sportive lemur/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Lead, "concealed tangles of vines and leaves." Are the tangles concealed, or does the lemur conceal itself in them?

   • I have attempted to clarify. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Conservation, "It is hunted with spears and is also captured when trees with sleeping holes are cut down." Is it then eaten, or is it killed for other reasons (pest? crop destruction?)?

   • There is only one source that mentions this, and it does not explicitly answer those questions. From my own personal understanding of Madagascar, it would most likely be killed for bushmeat and possibly as a pest. Without a source, though, I cannot clarify. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Conservation, "No small-toothed sportive lemurs were maintained in captivity as of 2009." How is this known? Is this just in public zoos? What about private collections?

   • The source cites the International Species Information System (ISIS), which keeps an inventory from participating zoos. However, it doesn't explicitly state this. It only says, "As of 2009, this species was not being kept in captivity (ISIS, 2009)." I just happen to know because I'm very familiar with ISIS. If I clarified, it might quality as WP:OR. Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   • I agree that without new sources it would be OR. Do you have a source that states the ISIS keeps inventory from participating zoos? If so, you could say something like "According to ISIS, which keeps inventory from participating zoos [cite], no animals were maintains in captivity as of 2009[current cite]." Or, if the ISIS database is available to the public - even through subscription or through certain association memberships - you could directly cite that too. Just thoughts. If the information isn't out there, it's not out there. Dana boomer (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A very nice article! Although I had a few queries (see above), they are nothing that stands in the way of GA status. Because of this, I am passing the article to GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I have made a fix and left replies to your comments above. If you have further comments or suggestions, they are always welcome. Best, – VisionHolder « talk » 23:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)