Talk:Silky sifaka/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 06:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you have nbsp's between genus name and species name (for example, Propithecus candidus)

  I think I got carried away. I noticed that things like P. candidus didn't look good split between lines, so I added the nbsp to help keep them together. But they definitely don't matter with the full name. Do you feel I should remove them from the abbreviations as well? – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  No, they should be there when it's abbreviated. Thanks for the fix. Ucucha 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think they live in pairs, not in pair bonds. If you wish to link to pair bond, the sentence will need to be reworded.

  Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you're going into too much detail with the tours made by local children.

  I'm open for suggestions. I've trimmed a lot of details out of Patel's work as it stands. The source does go into such details about Silky Sifaka conservation efforts. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Well, let's leave it. Not sure though. Ucucha 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some citation niggles: you cite one Fieldiana Zoology ref with "new series", the other without it. Also, both of those are available at the Biodiversity Heritage Library, so you can link them. Some abstracts are cited with their page numbers in supplements, others without.

  The first point is fixed. I searched the Biodiversity Heritage Library and couldn't find anything related to them. How did you search for them? Also, the ones that don't have page numbers are PDF files and link to a conference, yet Patel's citation lists them as published in a journal. So is it {{cite conference}} or {{cite journal}}? I can't do both. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  They are listed as parts of larger works; see here, for example; you'll have to open the Marojejy paper and find the primate part. Ucucha 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  I still have no idea how you found these. Anyway, they've been linked. But with those citations, it raises the question of whether they should be listed under books or remain with the journals. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  I know that all Fieldiana volumes are at BHL; is that what you meant? Ucucha 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  No, my citations use either {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}}. I'm not sure which to use in this case. I thought they were journal articles, but these look like books. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  That's the problem with those templates. :-) I'd use journal; it's easier. Ucucha 18:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• File:Pd_candidus_AGrandidier.jpg should specify who the author is in order to claim PD for death of author + 70 years.

  To do so, I would have to determine the year of the author's death. But is that Becquet (whoever that is?), who did the lithograph, or Bocourt and Faguet? If it's the latter, which date of death do I go by? The most recent, I assume? – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Everyone who made a copyrightable contribution to the lithograph must have been dead for 70 years. What did Faguet do?

  Faguet & Bocourt are listed as "authors". Neither of them are a problem, and I assume that I use the latest date. I'm just not sure who Becquet is and how to determine that person's year of death. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, it's probably a company. Ucucha 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  I've adjusted the licensing. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  What do you mean? I see no edits at Commons. Ucucha 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  I think Visionholder made the edits from an IP address, and they were reverted. I've added all the appropriate information now. —innotata 17:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. I think everything is looking good now, so I'll pass the GA. Ucucha 17:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 06:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing (I guess I hadn't looked below the references yet): there are probably too many external links. I think some are used as references, or should be, and do the others all add something that is not in the article? Ucucha 17:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get home from work. If I can expand the article using some of those links as sources, then I will. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)