Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cryptoprocta spelea/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 SandyGeorgia 02:47, 26 June 2010 [1].
Cryptoprocta spelea edit
Cryptoprocta spelea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Visionholder, Ucucha 14:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was the largest carnivore known from Madagascar, large enough to eat some of the giant extinct lemurs. We don't know much about it, except that it was quite big and that it is probably no longer there. I got some help from Visionholder, who also made the map, in finding information and Sasata gave a great GA review. We hope that its smaller, surviving cousin, the fossa, will follow this species into FAC soon. Ucucha 14:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues: Minor matters only.
References: No. 5, Goodman et al 2001? Not listed, perhaps 2004 misdated?- Yes, 2004, corrected.
- Literature cited
Page total given for the Turvey book but not others. This isn't particularly useful info so I suggest drop it.- Added also for The Natural History of Madagascar, in keeping with the style I use generally.
- I also wonder whether the page ranges need to be given in this list of sources, since the relevant pages are included in the citations. If you want to keep them I suggest they are given a "pp." so that people know what these numbers are.
- Those are formal long-form citations, so they include the page ranges.
- OK, but please add "pp." so that it is clear what these numbers are. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's necessary, as we can expect readers to know some basic citation formatting, and if you are referring to the places I think you are referring to, even the regular citation templates do not use "pp." there. Ucucha 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a general encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, and you should not assume that your readers will be familiar with citation formatting. Templates are imperfect creatures, and should not be referred to as though they had special merit. Why are you so reluctant to clarify something that could be done so simply? If you can't spare the time, I'll do it for you. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not quite sure we're referring to the same thing—are you saying things like "BioScience 44(1):12–18" should be replaced with "BioScience 14(1) pp. 12–18"? The reason for my reluctance is that I have written many articles with a consistent citation style. I am hesitant to make changes so as not to lose this consistency. But I would make a change when I see the benefit, and I don't see it here. Formatting citations as they are in this article is perfectly standard—a similar style (without "pp." or similar) is used by all major citation styles and academic journals I know of for journal citations—and I doubt it's much more opaque than "pp." is. Ucucha 15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My basic point is that Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and its readership may be less familiar with the citation styles of scientific publications than you are. The fact that you are following a previous practice is neither here nor there. Unexplained numbers at the end of a citation may or may not signify page numbers to a less informed reader; my suggestion is that these numbers should be made explicit. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your argument, but can't agree. We assume a certain minimum knowledge in our readers. In this article, the term "Africa" is not linked, because such a link would be more disruptive to the vast majority of readers who know what Africa is than it would be helpful to the few who don't. I think it's the same with this point; you can't gloss over the fact that it is a very common practice not to use "pp." for journal references as easily as you do. Ucucha 15:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian, medical articles follow the same citation style used here (no page numbers on journals); there have been several discussions on that, but I can't recall where to find them, but I'm OK with this for journal articles that aren't gynormous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your argument, but can't agree. We assume a certain minimum knowledge in our readers. In this article, the term "Africa" is not linked, because such a link would be more disruptive to the vast majority of readers who know what Africa is than it would be helpful to the few who don't. I think it's the same with this point; you can't gloss over the fact that it is a very common practice not to use "pp." for journal references as easily as you do. Ucucha 15:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My basic point is that Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and its readership may be less familiar with the citation styles of scientific publications than you are. The fact that you are following a previous practice is neither here nor there. Unexplained numbers at the end of a citation may or may not signify page numbers to a less informed reader; my suggestion is that these numbers should be made explicit. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not quite sure we're referring to the same thing—are you saying things like "BioScience 44(1):12–18" should be replaced with "BioScience 14(1) pp. 12–18"? The reason for my reluctance is that I have written many articles with a consistent citation style. I am hesitant to make changes so as not to lose this consistency. But I would make a change when I see the benefit, and I don't see it here. Formatting citations as they are in this article is perfectly standard—a similar style (without "pp." or similar) is used by all major citation styles and academic journals I know of for journal citations—and I doubt it's much more opaque than "pp." is. Ucucha 15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a general encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, and you should not assume that your readers will be familiar with citation formatting. Templates are imperfect creatures, and should not be referred to as though they had special merit. Why are you so reluctant to clarify something that could be done so simply? If you can't spare the time, I'll do it for you. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's necessary, as we can expect readers to know some basic citation formatting, and if you are referring to the places I think you are referring to, even the regular citation templates do not use "pp." there. Ucucha 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but please add "pp." so that it is clear what these numbers are. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are formal long-form citations, so they include the page ranges.
Otherwise, all sources look good, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments The technical language is no doubt correct, but leaves the article rather puzzling for non-biologists. After reading it carefully, I'm still unclear a) how big it was - eg how long, and b) when it might have survived to. The lead should be expanded on, explaining what it's family (or whatever) is for non-specialists - "related to mongooses" or something; in an FA one should not have to follow links to find this sort of basic contextual material. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good that you're still unclear about its size and the date of its extinction, because both are unknown. All we have are body mass estimates, which are in there already. The lead already says the family--it's an euplerid--and says it's related to the fossa. I've edited a little to emphasize that Eupleridae is its family. Ucucha 13:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't help. Why should the reader have to follow a link to find out what the Eupleridae are? This is not the FA approach. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, it is; current featured articles like Banksia sessilis and Galerina marginata do just the same. I suppose I could add something like "[the family Eupleridae], which includes all indigenous Malagasy carnivorans", but that starts to go from providing necessary background to losing the focus on the main points. Ucucha 14:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind "other featured articles"! Your own Noronhomys has a much more expansive lead. Trust me, there isn't much focus to lose here. The Fossa (animal), which is mentioned, is itself pretty obscure, and the lead needs to relate the species to some form of life the general reader might actual be familiar with. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I added a little. Mongooses aren't really that similar to C. spelea, but it's better than nothing, and I realized that the lead indeed did not make it clear to the layperson even that we're dealing with a mammalian carnivore. Ucucha 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I regularly give talks to laypeople about wildlife (namely, lemurs), and I often answer the question, "What is a Fossa?" In all honestly, I would argue that even most laypeople don't know what a mongoose is. Every time I say that the Fossas are relatives of mongooses, the next question that follows is, "What is a mongoose?" I agree, Johnbod, that the articles need to be understandable to laypeople, but at some point, the reading level has to go up. The more you want to understand something, the more you have to learn. Unfortunately, increased comprehensiveness inexorably results in increased reading level. Anyway, I'll review the article again and see if I can try to explain some things better in more straight-forward terminology. Thank you for your honest feedback. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried my hand at clearing some things up. If anyone dislikes any of my changes, feel free to revert. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I regularly give talks to laypeople about wildlife (namely, lemurs), and I often answer the question, "What is a Fossa?" In all honestly, I would argue that even most laypeople don't know what a mongoose is. Every time I say that the Fossas are relatives of mongooses, the next question that follows is, "What is a mongoose?" I agree, Johnbod, that the articles need to be understandable to laypeople, but at some point, the reading level has to go up. The more you want to understand something, the more you have to learn. Unfortunately, increased comprehensiveness inexorably results in increased reading level. Anyway, I'll review the article again and see if I can try to explain some things better in more straight-forward terminology. Thank you for your honest feedback. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I added a little. Mongooses aren't really that similar to C. spelea, but it's better than nothing, and I realized that the lead indeed did not make it clear to the layperson even that we're dealing with a mammalian carnivore. Ucucha 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind "other featured articles"! Your own Noronhomys has a much more expansive lead. Trust me, there isn't much focus to lose here. The Fossa (animal), which is mentioned, is itself pretty obscure, and the lead needs to relate the species to some form of life the general reader might actual be familiar with. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, it is; current featured articles like Banksia sessilis and Galerina marginata do just the same. I suppose I could add something like "[the family Eupleridae], which includes all indigenous Malagasy carnivorans", but that starts to go from providing necessary background to losing the focus on the main points. Ucucha 14:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't help. Why should the reader have to follow a link to find out what the Eupleridae are? This is not the FA approach. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentsJimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the two have not always been accepted as distinct species. — Why "however", you've just said they are similar, not differentit occurs together with remains — don't need "together", "with" alone will doHowever, living species of comparably-sized... — I'm not sure why "however" is needed here, lck of evidence isn't a contrastrecent geological past — can you give an indication of what time span this means?
- Fixed the first three. The last point is a bit of a problem. With no radiocarbon dates established for this species, and the source explicitly stating "recent geological past", I don't think we have license to say anything beyond that. I get a feeling from the material that it would date like most subfossil lemurs: as far back as the subfossil records go (~26,000 years, I think) up until the last few hundred years. But I can't go on a hunch, only on what the sources say. What I might be able to do is suggest that they might fall in the same date range as the subfossil lemurs. Let me re-check my sources and see what else I can find. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright... the best I can find is the following from Goodman et al. 2003: "The only extinct Carnivora known from Madagascar during the Holocene is Cryptoprocta spelea." In the Wiki article under question, two paragraphs up from the "recent geological past" passage it mentions that their remains are found in Holocene cave sites. Unless you can offer some suggestions, I think this is the best we can offer. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it probably went extinct (if indeed it is a separate species) during the last few thousand years, after human colonization of Madagascar, but there is nothing specific known, and the sources are correspondingly and rightly vague. Ucucha 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'd like to reopen this issue. "Recent geological past" to someone who studies the whole of Earth history can mean the entire Phanerozoic; to someone who studies the Phanerozoic, it can mean the Cenozoic, to someone who studies the Cenozoic, the Quaternary, and only to someone who studies exclusively the Quaternary would it mean specifically the Holocene. Since the source says existed during presumed Holocene and then went extinct in the recent geological past, the meaning of the latter phrase is unambiguous there, but it is ambiguous here (well, not if you read the whole section, but in its paragraph it is). Suggest changing to "Holocene" or "later in the Holocene". Awickert (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added "later in the Holocene" in parentheses after "recent geological past". I chose that method of implementation to demonstrate that the mention of the Holocence does not come from the cited source, but is inferred from all previous material. Feel free to revert of change if you disapprove. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I've just removed the phrase, as the article already says it is known from Holocene deposits and the "recent geological past" piece is so vague that it doesn't add anything. I do think the meaning of Recent as "Holocene" is fairly well-established. Ucucha 18:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added "later in the Holocene" in parentheses after "recent geological past". I chose that method of implementation to demonstrate that the mention of the Holocence does not come from the cited source, but is inferred from all previous material. Feel free to revert of change if you disapprove. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have just one concern.
- First described in 1902 and recognized as a separate species in 1935 - a separate species from fossa or mongooses?
Otherwise, it appears to be a focused, well-written article. The explanations throughout help with the jargon terms of the article; obviously a lot of research went into this. Well done. ceranthor 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and for catching that! I've attempted to re-word it for clarity. Ucucha may tweak it, but otherwise, we should be good there. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks great, only issue I had was addressed already (above). I learned a ton reading it - I didn't know much at all about this group of animals. Thanks for the great article, Awickert (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review; have images been reviewed? Please ping me when clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 22 June 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.