Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fossa (animal)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 19:30, 7 August 2010 [1].

Fossa (animal) edit

Fossa (animal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata, Ucucha, UtherSRG, – VisionHolder « talk » 17:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the collaboration team that wrote it feels that it meets the FAC requirements.

There are two issues about this article that have been up for discussion on the talk page for a while, one concerning the page title and one discussing whether the genus article should be separate from (or merged with) this article. Comments from a wider audience would be appreciated. Either way, these issues can be resolved quickly. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Been waiting for this one. By all means a well-written and (as far as I can tell) comprehensive account, this article is definitely worthy of the star. No disambiguation links. External links check out, though one changes path - maybe just an address thing? ceranthor 17:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've fixed the link so that it no longer redirects. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on criterion three issues:
    • File:Fossa-drawing.jpg - PMA is irrelevant for published works when determining copyright term in the US (even for works of foreign nationals). What is the status in the US?
      • Thanks for the image check! But what is "PMA"? I can't find the acronym anywhere, even in the article Public domain. Anyway, this image was published in Brehms Tierleben (reprint from 1927?) and was drawn by Gustav Mützel, who died in 1893. (This assumes the information on Commons is correct.) Per List of countries' copyright length, Germany has a standard copyright length of life + 70 years. Would that not make the copyright expired, putting the image in the public domain? If not, please provide a link to some information that would explain what we need to know. I'm not an expert at copyright, and I usually only deal with CC. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • PMA = Post Mortem Auctoris (After the author's death). In Germany, the copyright term is indeed 70+ years after the author's death - i.e. a term based on PMA. The United States, however, does not consider PMA for published works but, instead, bases the term on the date of publication. Images on en.wiki and the Commons must be PD in the United States; merely being PD in the country of origin isn't enough. Images first published in 1927 may or may not be PD in the US, and that is what needs to be determined. Эlcobbola talk 00:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So basically we need to confirm that the image was taken from the 1927 edition of the publication? What about more recent reprints, or the fact that the book itself dates back to the 1860s. I'm sorry if I seem obtuse, but what exactly do we need to verify? Honestly, I don't even know where to start. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, that it's from the 1927 isn't in question. In the US, only works published before 1.1.1923 are unconditionally PD due to age. Works from 1923 through 1977 may or may not be PD depending on whether or not they meet certain conditions (e.g. failure to comply with US formalities - formal notice of copyright be included in the work; registration, renewal, and deposit of copies in the Copyright Office). It needs to be determined (i.e. researched) whether or not this work meets those conditions. If it doesn't, it's not PD. If this work was first published in the 1860s, however, that is another ball of wax. If you have a source for that publication date, then adding that source and a supplamental license (as I've done for the image below) will resolve the issue. Эlcobbola talk 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • This 1876–1879 edition of Brehm has the same picture. I'll update the file description page. Also, this 1895 edition of Brehm has a different fossa picture (one we may perhaps prefer). Ucucha 12:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Fossa (mammal) skulls.jpg - PMA is irrelevant for published works. Please supplement current license accordingly.
      • Again, I don't understand what you mean by, "PMA is irrelevant for published works." The illustration was published in 1867, and I don't know the author. In France, the standard copyright length is also life + 70 years, which likely applies here. Again, I need more to work off of. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done this for you. Again, the license it had was only a PMA license. Because PMA is not relevant in the US for published works, it also needed a publication-based license. Эlcobbola talk 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Diademed ready to push off.jpg - Vandalism from over a year ago (!!!) Fixed, but please scrutinize images. Эlcobbola talk 20:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There's one point that concerns me: "Even other large prey items, with the average prey size being 40 grams (1.4 oz), in contrast to the average prey size of 480 grams (17 oz) in humid forests and over 1,000 grams (35 oz) in dry deciduous forests." is not a sentence. Once that is amended, my condition for support will be satisfied. However, I would note that the points on the red rut stains and mainty-mena debate are repeated, so you may like to rethink whether the sentences that repeat information could be shortened (or less likely, removed). All minor comments speedily resolved! Fascinating and well-written article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes; thanks for your support! Ucucha 13:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support comments - reading through now and tweaking prose - I'll jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I always appreciate your sharp eye for detail. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is it mongooses or mongeese?
Per Wikitionary and The Free Dictionary, it's "mongooses." – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mongooses" is certainly the standard term, but "mongeese" is used surprisingly often. Ucucha 06:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
aaww, I like mongeese. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear whether this is purely folklore or individual variation—related to sex, age or instances of melanism and leucism—or whether there is indeed more than one species of living Fossa - ZOMG cryptozoology alert! but seriously, this leaves me wanting to know more. Can this be expanded at all?
As far as I can tell, we've exhaustively covered the literature, both here and at Cryptoprocta spelea. I know what you mean. When I was writing about "lingering populations" of subfossil lemurs, I was desperately hoping to find more material... hoping someone had gone to investigate. But, alas, Madagascar is a land of mystery with so much left unexplored. That's why I'm writing about Malagasy fauna (primarily lemurs)—to help spark enough interest in hopes that we can learn as much as possible before the mysteries vanish without a trace. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sources exhausted, until Visionholder treks into the Malagasy jungle :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the reflected light is orange in hue - is this unusual for mammals? I am not familiar with literature on this...
This is discussed at Tapetum lucidum, a article to which the sentence already links. The quick answer is that the color varies depending on the animal and the type of light. 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Females are generally a reddish-brown dorsally and colored a dirty cream ventrally and males are similarly colored. -strikes me as an odd way to write - why not just "Both sexes are generally a reddish-brown dorsally and colored a dirty cream ventrally." ?
Agreed. I went with your suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but some researchers have failed to observe this. - implies there is something wrong with the observers' abilities rather than querying the presence (or otherwise) of the phenomenon.
The source reads: "Vosseler (1929) stated that the underparts of males in rut are stained reddish, similar to that of male red kangaroos, although Albignac (1973) was unable to confirm this observation." I will attempt to re-word. If you can do better, go for it. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(testosterone, androstenedione, dihydrotestosterone - any reason why these aren't linked? I think they are specific enough to be.
Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..that hunts small to medium-sized animals, from fish to birds. - ? Is there a continuum with mammals in the middle? I thought we were talking about lemurs before..if you mean all vertebrate classes then maybe best to say so or somehow rephrase. Actually you could probably just lose the sentence without any problem.
I cut out the end of the sentence. I believe it needs to be noted that it hunts "small to medium-sized animals". – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several pathogens have been isolated from the Fossa, some of which, such as anthrax and canine distemper, are thought to have been transmitted by feral dogs or cats - does this mean they have succumbed to these illnesses at all?
The source reads: "A number of diseases and viruses have been isolated from wild and captive Fosa. Several of these (anthrax, canine distemper, canine parvovirus, feline calicivirus, and Toxoplasma gondi) presumably were transmitted by dogs and cats that live in forested habitats and are in contact with Fosa." I would assume, given the nature of those diseases that the animals were either found dead or eventually succumbed. Given this is the only source to make a mention, we may have to leave it at that, unless you have a suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also read that fossas are robust animals that don't get ill easily—it's somewhere in the article. Ucucha 06:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we can't assume so leaving it thus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there a reason why fossa is capitalised throughout? Sources tend to spell the word in lower case. --JN466 17:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species. I typically write under WP:PRIMATES, so I normally capitalize names. Given that sentence case is the normal for most other mammal articles, I'm willing to convert all instances if everyone agrees. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also prefer sentence case, for the same reason JN466 gives—it's what's normally used by the sources. UtherSRG disagrees, though. Ucucha 18:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    UtherSRG also writes under WP:PRIMATES, so keep that in mind. With this article, it comes down to the sources. You have my support to change it. If Sasata agrees, then let's do it. I won't be able to do it today, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer following the capitalization of the sources, but don't really care a lot either way. However, don't we need a greater consensus to change the capitalization conventions followed by the WikiProject? Haven't there been endless discussions about this in other Projects? Sasata (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's been argued, but it seems like only WP:PRIMATES has made it a rule to not use sentence case. The rest of WP:Mammals seems to use sentence case. I'm going to make the switch. Revert me if you feel that it's premature. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been changed. Ironically, the article did have some sentence-case use of the word already. Now the only tricky point is whether or not to switch the lemur names to sentence case. I've never seen any discussion on how to handle cases where two projects with different perspectives overlap in this regard. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article should be internally consistent, and therefore should also use sentence case for other names. It's not true that most of mammals uses sentence case, by the way. (Cetaceans do, and some rodents.) I slightly prefer sentence case, because that is what the scientific literature usually uses in running text, but I don't feel strongly about it, unlike some others, and don't like the endless discussions that sometimes result from it. We'll see what happens here. Ucucha 14:23, 7 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fossa_(animal)/archive1&oldid=1091467625"