Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gray Mouse Lemur/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 20:21, 28 February 2010 [1].

Gray Mouse Lemur edit

Gray Mouse Lemur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria and thoroughly covers the subject. (I will be maintaining the article, so any new sources or discoveries will be incorporated.) – VisionHolder « talk » 15:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text present and good. Ucucha 15:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: 3 images; all are from commons, tagged as CC-by-SA, and have the author/photographer listed. All non-infobox images have good captions. --PresN 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on 1b and 1c. The references look thin (variety, not citation density), and a check on the ISI Web of Knowledge database reveals hundreds of articles about this species. There are also many recent papers published in the past few years that investigate some interesting aspects of the animal's behavior. Any reason why these sources haven't been used? Sasata (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-->lengthy discussion resolved and moved to talk page. Sasata (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll await the expansion before doing a source review. Ping me when I'm needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The update is complete and I am ready to resume the review. Sorry that it took a few more hours than I anticipated. Admittedly, the article could probably use some tweaking from a skilled copy-editor. I will try to work on that very soon, but if a more skilled copy-editor is ready and willing, I will gladly hand over the hatchet. (I'm a novice at that kind of stuff anyway.) But as far as I can tell, the article should meet criteria 1b and 1c now. All other additional details that I have seen will have to be incorporated into a future edition of the Mouse lemur page, as described above. Personally, my only complaint about the article is the lack of quality images. Truthfully, those little primates are hard to capture on film... and I've tried. I've put out a call to experts in the field for photos, and I hope to get some material soon. I will work on publishing a range map tonight. Otherwise, have at it! – VisionHolder « talk » 00:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll review it later tonight and copyedit as I go along (tho' I wouldn't qualify myself as skilled). Thanks for the expansion. Sasata (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Ok, I made a few edits, feel free to revert anything I've done, I won't be offended. I thought it was well-done and interesting to read. Some comments: Sasata (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Tsidy, Koitsiky, Titilivaha, Pondiky, and Vakiandry: normally foreign-language words are italicized, but is this case different because its an English transliteration?
  2. "Predation pressure is as high as 25%, the highest rate among primates." The term predation pressure is introduced in the lead without a link; does this mean 1 of 4 lemurs is killed by a predator? (Ok, I see this question answered later on in the article; but my point still stands about the use of this term in the lead)
  3. "… species with overlapping ranges use distinct vocalizations to prevent hybridization." Hybridization either be spelled out (since its the lead, keep it simple), or linked
  4. "According to D-loop DNA sequence data" How about something like "Phylogenetic analyses of D-loop DNA sequences of various lemur species suggests that…"
  5. "However, more recently the distribution and diversity of the mouse lemurs has become much more complex." Has the d&d really become more complex, or rather has our understanding increased so that d&d is now considered more complex than previously thought?
  6. "Revisions throughout the 1990s and 2000s" "Revisions" vague, maybe better is "Additional field studies
  7. "… the genus is represented by a large host of cryptic species." what is meant by "host"?
  8. any sexual dimorphism?
  9. suggest to tweak the image placement in the anatomy and physiology section to remove the whitespace
  10. any useful wlinks for tropical dry forest, sub-arid thorn scrub, lowland forest, transitional forest, or degraded forests?
  11. …a high degree of feeding niche overlap." thinking a link to either ecological niche or niche differentiation would be appropriate here
  12. "…primarily defends itself from predators using strategies that do not involve direct defense or social facilitation" please clarify "social facilitation"
  13. "Studies involving the placement of predator and non-predator feces with captive populations have demonstrated a genetic predisposition for predator recognition through the detection of metabolites from meat digestion." This sounds very interesting, could you elaborate on this a little bit?
  14. maybe median should be linked?
  15. "The Gray Mouse Lemur also spends most of its time in dense vegetation, limiting its visibility and accessibility." Unclear, do you mean limiting the visibility and accessibility of the lemur, or limiting its V & A to predators?
  16. wondering about the daily torpor, how long are these naps, and how many times daily (nightly)?
  17. "Ironically, no difference in mortality has been shown between hibernating females and active males." Is it the encyclopedia's place to point out suspected evolutionary irony?
  18. "During torpor, the Gray Mouse Lemur's metabolic rate slows and its body temperature drops to the ambient temperature, as low as 7 °C (45 °F)." Wow, that seems pretty cold (but then again, I know little about mammalian biology). Any idea what temperatures are like in the winter (both external and internal)?
  19. "For example, it is thought that lemurs colonized Madagascar by rafting to the island approximately 60 million years ago." How was this number determined?
  20. "This varies by gender, season, and location." Not completely clear what "This" refers to
  21. some content duplication: scent marking with urine and faeces is mentioned twice in consecutive sections
  22. I'm tempted to link "broadband" and "frequency modulated", but the linked articles aren't totally helpful
  23. a sound sample would be awesome (but probably unlikely?) as well as the dist map you're working on (and more images...)
I hope you don't mind, but I changed your bullet list to a numbered list to make it easier to reply to individual points. In regards to your edits, they were great! I can't believe I missed most of that stuff.
The following points from your list above have been addressed and (hopefully) fixed: 1–7, 11–15, 17, 20, and 21. Please verify that the changes are satisfactory. Everything else has been looked at, but will need to be discussed individually.
For #8, no sexual dimorphism is mentioned in the literature, and from personal experience, I can say that there is none. If you want, I can cite a source that states that sexual dimorphism is rare or absent in lemurs, but I don't have anything specific for this species.
For #9, I tried to address this last night (before your review) by adding "upright" to more appropriately size the images. I agree that there is still a lot of white space, but I was also trying to keep images within or close to their appropriate sections. If you feel you can find better placement for the image, please adjust them. I won't contest it.
For #10, I tried to wiki-link these multiple times, but there don't appear to be an standardized names for the various habitat types in Madagascar (some of which are unique), and I suspect that the various authors for the secondary sources are using different terms for the same habitat. So until I can find an authoritative source that will allow me to clean up Ecoregions of Madagascar and the habitats listed at Category:Environment of Madagascar, that may be the best I can do. My biggest concern here is that the list may contain redundancy, but I lack the knowledge and sources to clean it up (and wiki-link it) properly.
For #16, the secondary literature does not contain this information, and I strongly suspect that the reason involves wide ranges of variance, not only among but between populations (making it nearly impossible to summarize). If it were possible, I'm sure they would have done it. If you want me to look into it, I will try.
For #18, again, the detail you are looking for is lacking from the secondary literature. Dormant states such as this (i.e. hibernation and estivation) involve greatly reduced metabolism and body temperatures rise and fall with the ambient temperature. I have not seen anything in the literature about the normal body temperature for this species nor the body temperature for the individuals active during winter. I might be able to find temperature ranges for the habitats during winter months, but since the species is widely distributed, the list could be difficult to obtain and list succinctly.
For #19, this is the date that more recent secondary sources use based on molecular phylogenetic studies that date the split between the lemurs and the lorisiforms. I've cited the paper that gives that date range, so hopefully that's sufficient. I didn't want to go into much more detail because it's not appropriate for the section, and (soon) there will be an entire page dedicated to lemur evolution and diversification to which I can link.
For #22, I have also considered the links you suggest, however, I am neutral on this point for the same reasons that cause your hesitancy. If anyone feels strongly, please make the appropriate changes.
For #23, funny you should mention it! I do have 4 audio files containing Gray Mouse Lemur vocalizations; and if I can find the email, I have a release to put them on Wiki. The reason I've held off is because I can't provide any information about the context or meaning of the calls. (No one's published a paper that analyzes their calls yet, unlike those for the Ring-tailed Lemur and the ruffed lemurs.) Therefore I could include them, but I'm not sure what to call them or how to introduce them into the text. Suggestions? As for the range map, I'll try to work on that next. (I got distracted by the girlfriend last night.) The biggest hold-up here will be that I will need to relearn how to use Inkscape. Lastly, the pictures on the page suck. In fact, I tried removing the "specimen" photo during the re-write, but it was added back (I think during the GA review) due to a lack of photos. If I can get some from people in the field, can I add them during this review, despite the sad fact that the OTRS request will take 2 or 3 weeks (at least)? Another option is to include Image:Microcebus rufus 001.jpg, a photo I took in Madagascar within the known range of the Gray Mouse Lemur. I labeled it as the Brown Mouse Lemur because that's what a local expert and I were able to determine based on a very, very slight hints from coloration patterns. In other words, the classification is not official, and it could very well be a Gray Mouse Lemur (since they are cryptic species). Thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The range map has been created, however I cannot upload it onto Commons due to an error I'm getting with derivativeFX. When I try give the name of the original work, it says "File does not exist!" I have tried many valid file names, and none seem to work. I've left a note on the author's talk page, so hopefully it will be working again soon. Once it's up, I will add the range map. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The range map has been added to the page. Still no word from any of my sources about potential images for the page. But honestly, those sources will be asking people in Madagascar, and hearing back (and getting the pictures) could literally take weeks or months. It all depends. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded the audio files and will try to include them as best I can. Adjust as needed. Hopefully there won't be an issue with the files having a pending OTRS requests. As stated previously, it's been taking over 2 weeks to get the OTRS reviewed and approved, so if needed, the audio files can be removed from the page. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just created and added a new illustration to show the size difference between a human and a Gray Mouse Lemur. I want to note that the arrowheads in the illustration are incorrect, and I hope to have it fixed ASAP. The file looks fine offline in Inkscape, but once uploaded to Wiki, it gets screwed up. I have tried to fix it multiple times with no luck, so I've posted the problem at the Graphic Lab and hope to see a fix very soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes http://www.myetymology.com a reliable source?
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the references, most readers aren't going to have the slightest clue what UNEP-WCMC or CITES is.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you had to expand abbreviations in the references, especially if it was already expanded in the text (in the case of CITES). Anyway, it's been fixed. As for http://www.myetymology.com, you're right... it's not a reliable source. What else should I use? No secondary source or research article that I know of spells out the etymology of scientific names. Or can those statements go unsourced? ... Hmmm... in this case, the academic source by Dr. Gene Trapp (also used in the article) appears to indirectly support most of the statements, so we should be good with this article. I'll still need to find more sources for other articles, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally a good idea to spell out abbreviations when it's not assured that someone has run into the "expansion" in the article prior to encountering the abbreviation (which would be the case in footnotes). On the etymology, I would think that the Oxford English Dictionary or other such large dictionaries would be helpful in that regard. (I don't usually have to do etymologies in my articles, I'm afraid...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... don't have the $1200 to buy that dictionary (set), so maybe I'll just have to make a special trip to the Duke campus someday to look up all the scientific names for all the lemurs. Just do it once and get it all over with. Thanks, though! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: On the topic of the Etymology section, can Wiktionary be used as a reference somehow? I've noticed that it seems to have a lot of the Greek and Latin roots (but unfortunately no sources). If it can be used, it would offer a much cleaner (and more reliable) reference than what I'm using now. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments beginning a read-through now. Support - I massaged teh prose a little and it could do with a bit more, but nothing stood out as particularly ungainly. Feel free to revert any changes I make inadvertently in prose-smoothing. queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the largest-lemur-but-smaller-than-smallest-monkey a bit much for the lead. My personal preference would be to leave the detailed comparison and monkey size out of the lead, but if you feel strongly about it I wouldn't see this as a deal-breaker for FA status.
Maybe use 'ancestral' for 'plesiomorphic' (or in brackets afterwards?)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested changes have been made, and your changes mostly look good. The only one I'm shaky on was changing the first "austral" to just "Southern Hemisphere". It just sounds a little awkward to me. But it's not the end of the world, and I'm not going to revert it. All-in-all, I like the look and feel of what the article has become over the last few days, thanks to everyone's edits and suggestions. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
The new additions (range map, sounds, expansion from current literature) are excellent. Now I'll know what those highly annoying sounds are next time I'm wandering through the Malagasy forest :) Maybe for the geographically challenged, the range map caption could state that it's a map of Madagascar?
  • other ideas for images: predators - an image or two could be cool (how about a barn owl/Madagascar tree boa stacked?)
  • picture of a sleeping hole?
  • lemur scat? Seriously, I want to know what not to eat in the forest.
  • maybe a logging-related pic for the Conservation section?
  • I'd suggest using Image:Microcebus rufus 001.jpg as an example of a similar species, maybe mentioning the difficulty of distinguishing between cryptic species.
I'm happy with the new additions, and appreciate the effort the nominator has made to add them. Obviously I'd like to see more pictures, as there's a long stretch that's pure text, which is unusual for most taxon articles I've seen. Hope your contacts are able to help in that regard. One last thing, the refs need a quick edit to ensure that the use of p. and pp. for page ranges is consistent. Sasata (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted the use of p. and pp. to be uniform on the page, although technically p. should be used for single page refs and pp. for multi-page refs. If I were to do that, I would have to muck around with the MSW3 Groves template, so I just made them all pp. I hope that's okay. I have also added some of the pictures you requested, but the small section sizes and requirement for pictures to alternate left and right made it quite difficult. I (temporarily?) removed the old eye-shine photo to help with this a little bit. As a result of the edits, image placement will need to be reviewed again. I'm also not sure if I like the stacked image template since it forces you to specify image size, rather than letting the user preferences make that decision. Anyway, to answer some of your other comments and questions... I may opt to not mention Madagascar in the range map caption to conform with what I've done with Ring-tailed Lemur and Ruffed lemur. If you really want it, just say so. As for pictures of sleeping holes, I really wish I had one. I looked high and low for one while I was in Madagascar recently, but didn't have any luck finding one. Sorry. As for scat, again, I don't have any pictures, but I can tell you from personal experience, mouse lemur poo looks like mouse poo. (No surprise there, really...) Anyway, please review the changes again and adjust the image placement and alignment as needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 08:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about putting back in the lemur image that was removed? Currently there's only 1 image of the species...
  • Is it possible to fix that template to output p. for single pages? Since you'll be using this source for other articles it's probably good to do it right. I'd help but templates are beyond me... Other tweaks needed:
  • include all author in the book listed in the References section (and publisher location if available)
  • why is ref #35 1 author and et al., while #36 includes all 6 authors? There's other examples of similar inconsistent et al. usage
  • various double stops (eg. et al..) are annoying
  • suggest removing month from journal publication dates (like #11) as they are unnecessary and just make the citation formatting inconsistent
  • ref #22 has first names spelled out, most others don't
  • some refs have ampersand before the final author, most others don't Sasata (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... The refs should be fixed and standardized. Please check them. The hardest one to fix was the double stops because it's mostly an issue with the cite template (either not having a publication date or having editors in addition to authors). I fudged that one by removing the "." from the last abbreviation in those series. (Probably not the best thing to do, but the only thing I can really do.) I even fixed up the template for the Groves ref. I have not re-added the image for reasons I stated on your talk page. Basically it's too big and throws off the arrangement of the other pictures. The image has not been deleted from the page (its code is hidden), so please add it back in if you want it. I just need some help organizing the pictures on this page, and other than that we should be done. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs look good now. I've put that image where I think it looks ok, and fits in generally with the text around it. The left-right image alternation is merely a guideline, not a requirement, AFAIK. Sasata (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough! It's not terribly close to its relevant section, but that will have to do. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A comprehensive and well-written article that I believe meets all FA criteria. Comments. It's looking pretty good. I have a few comments, most minor.

  • "the Gray Mouse Lemur and its entire genus are considered cryptic species". I know what you mean, but a genus is not a cryptic species. Please rephrase.
  • "wild populations can remain healthy under the right conditions." - sounds tautological.
  • "M. murinus remained the only species of its genus" - you are glossing over a lot of 19th-century synonyms there, which were presumably recognized as separate at some point in time. Allen (1939) already recognizes only a single species. According to Mittermeier et al. 2008, the following sources gives an overview of Microcebus taxonomic history: Tattersall, I. (1982). The primates of Madagascar. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Are the external links relevant? Both appear outdated and don't offer much information.
  • I found a paper noting dental differences between M. murinus and M. griseorufus (Muldoon et al., 2009, J. Mamm. 91(5):1111–1131). Might be worthy of inclusion, though probably too technical.
  • Would the karyotype be worthy of a mention?

Ucucha 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first 3 points have been fixed (though need checking) and one out-dated external link was removed. Regarding the mid-19th century taxonomy, I have no sources for that, although I have clarified the sentence noted in your third point. Unfortunately, I do not have access to either Ian Tattersall's book (with taxonomy info) or the Muldoon paper on dental differences. And with the Muldoon paper, nothing is stated in the abstract, and I have been avoiding adding details about skull and tooth morphology in my articles because—as you pointed out—the literature is excessively technical (even above my head). Since you apparently looked over the article, you're welcome to paraphrase. Back to the external links, I left the French page because it shows a picture of the karyotype and a few other things that I don't have access to for this article. The karyotype would be worth mentioning, but I can't find a recent source, and even if I did, I would have a hard time placing the one or two sentences it would give me. It would be nice to have a photo of the karyotype like the French page, but I don't have a source for that. Btw, thanks for the copy-edit! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can e-mail you the Muldoon paper, if you want. Did you add the 1931 date on the basis of my post above? I'll try to find something about the karyo, but have to go now. Ucucha 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 1931 date come from the source cited for the statement, and given what you pointed out about 19th-century taxonomy for the species, you were right—the way I worded the sentence over-simplified some important details. Hopefully it's better now... despite the fact that I lack the information from the Tattersall book. In regards to the Muldoon paper, if the details are too technical, then I'll pass. Honestly, when they get into talking about tooth or skull morphology, I have to look up nearly every word in the sentence, and most of the time I can't find anything. If only I had a textbook that taught the basics of that important tool of taxonomic science... – VisionHolder « talk » 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the development of the protocone on the P4 and prominent cingulid on the p4 is too technical for you, then this paper is too technical. But there are also some slightly better characters: in M. griseorufus, the M1 and M2 have a slight indentation in the middle of the posterior margin, which is not there in M. murinus, as is well visible in their pictures. M. griseorufus has m1 squared and M. murinus and M. myoxinus have it more elongated.
I found a reference for the M. murinus karyotype: [2]. I can e-mail it to you if you want (again). The karyotype is rather dull: 66 chromosomes, with all autosomes acrocentric and X looks metacentric but they don't say that. It's also almost identical to Cheirogaleus. Another paper ([3]) says there is one submetacentric pair. There are a few other, probably better sources from the 1970s that I don't have access to online. I might be able to go to the library sometime this week. Ucucha 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably paraphrase based off what you have just shared, so thanks. As for older sources, we have to be careful because without doing original research, we can't know whether they were looking at individuals currently defined as Gray Mouse Lemurs or potentially one of the new species. That's why I'm trying to restrict it to newer sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additions made today. I am supporting now, though I have a few more minor quibbles. I'm not entirely convinced yet that the French link is needed: it too is outdated (check the distribution map) and the only really new information it offers (the karyogram) won't be that interesting to most readers. What do you think? Ucucha 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was neutral leaning keep on that link, mostly due to the karyogram... but you're right. The range map is dated, as is probably the majority of the page. Anyway, it's gone now. Thanks for the feedback, assistance, and support! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The changes at FAC have greatly improved the article, and I don't see any serious issues, although the size comparison with a human (rather than say a cat or rabbit seems slightly odd) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support, but how is the comparison odd? I was actually going off the size comparisons I've seen on the various dinosaur pages, some of which were quite small. The two methods for handling these is to either zoom in from the waist down (see File:Archiesizeall1.png), or show a human full size (see File:Jinfengopteryx-scale.png). I haven't seen a comparison of an animal to a cat or dog yet. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:11, 27 February 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/Gray_Mouse_Lemur/archive1&oldid=1046367771"