Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sumatran Rhinoceros

< 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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Sumatran Rhinoceros

edit
Check external links

Using the lessons learned doing Javan Rhinoceros I'm comfortable that this article is at FA or quite close. I had more and better sources for this rhinoceros, and hopefully the greater detail in this article reflects that. Before nominating I also used the checklist at User:SandyGeorgia/Article_review which I recommend as a resource for anyone working toward FA content on Wikipedia. As always, I look forward to your feedback and help in improving any remaining weak spots. JayHenry (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:SandyGeorgia/Article_review was deleted as it was still a work in progress. My apologies for linking before it was ready. For those curious, it was a simple checklist of copy editing and MOS-type tips. --JayHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments I just read through the article and, IMO, it is beautifully written with some great sounds and decent images. It is very informative and I did not see any gaping holes. However, I do have a few issues with the article that I would like to see addressed before I support it.
  • In the last sentence of the lead, “even worse conditions than in the wild” just sounds strange to me. Could you rephrase?
  • Conditions was just the wrong word. Changed to "decline". Is that good?
  • In the subspecies D.s. lasiotis, did the words lasiotis come from Greek, Latin, or what?
  • Greek. Fixed.
  • In the first paragraph of Diet, could you rework the sentence discussing the variety of plants it eats? The “, over 100 different species,” doesn’t seem to flow for me.
  • Rewrote into something more direct.
  • While on the topic of plants, is there a specific one that it eats more than the other 100?
  • There are a handful identified as common plants. There's no single plant that makes up the bulk of its diet or anything like that, but I listed the common species.
  • In the second paragraph of Reproduction, it mentions how rhinos bump each other in the heads and genitals. Do they use the same body part to bump the identical part in the other rhino or does one rhino hitting the others head with its side count? Could you clarify?
  • Clarified.
  • In “In Captivity,” the article mentions that the longest surviving captive rhino lived for over 32 years. However, earlier the article says a flat 33. Which is it?
  • She lived 32 years and 8 months in captivity. Fixed.
  • Is there any discussion on how the small and fragmented population could lead to problems in genetic diversity down the road?
  • For the majority of the sections, there is only a single reference at the end of each paragraph. Does this mean that every bit of info in each paragraph came from that source, or is the article (IMO) undercited?

Obviously, the biggest of these is the one about references. Other than a few minor problems and the possibility of being undercited, the article looks absolutely fantastic and is definitely one of Wikipedia’s best works. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your insightful comments Rufous. I'll research answers to these question this afternoon, but want to begin a discussion about citations now. I wrote it this way because I tend to think that some articles end up being cited beyond what's necessary. So what I did in most cases was take the most detailed/recent source on a topic and use it as the citation for that section. So, for example, with the paragraph on wallowing (second paragraph in behavior) there was a quite detailed paper written in 2001 on the subject. Rather than attach multiple references about wallowing, I used this comprehensive paper, as I think this will be of more benefit to any researcher wishing to build off my work. In areas where there are conflicting theses, such as in evolution, I presented the conflicting sources. But when there's general agreement, I used the most current, detailed scholarship as my reference; every paragraph is informed by having read all the works in the references. That said, I'm happy to add references to specific sections that you believe need additional support (such as communication, which I'll do this afternoon!), but I'd be somewhat reluctant to add citations on non-controversial sections. If we feel it's necessary, I can certainly add citations almost indefinitely; I have all the papers readily available. --JayHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added more references. Please let me know of any additional sections you think are weak. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at my comments. I am about to support, but let me go through the article one more time to check up on what else I think needs refs. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went through the article and put 8 cite needed tags. They may be treated in the refs at the end of the paragraph, but I'd like to see them put there too. If you address these, then I'll happily change to support. Great job on this article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added citations. Though I don't write with many citations in the middle of paragraphs I'm happy to supply them when asked. Thanks for the review, Rufous! --JayHenry (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for writing this article. Out of curiosity, whats next? Another rhino (black or Indian?)? Oh, and I supported at the beginning of my comments. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I agree, it's quite good. I made lots of little changes (mainly linking), and added one citation-needed, which is probably included in the footnote later in the paragraph, but it's enough later and it's a distinctive enough claim that it should probably have its own. I agree with Rufous-crowned Sparrow that there could be more references, even if in some cases it is the same source being repeated a few times. Other concerns:
  • What in particular convinced the Joshua Brookes in 1828 that this belonged to a different genus than Rhinoceros?
  • Just the differences between the Sumatran Rhinoceros and the others in Rhinoceros (genus). Fixed.
  • Since you give three phylogenetic trees in the text, it's strange that only two are illustrated. I know that that may have been a spatial concern, but especially since it seems favored by the more recent data, I think it should be diagrammed as well.
  • Responded below. Let me know what you think.
  • In "Distribution and habitat," it says they are found in six areas, but only names five (presumably one is missing from Sumatra).
  • It seems strange to me to have unfree sounds as external links in the main part of the text. I'm not sure what can be done about this, short of not having them, which would be a shame. Is this done in other articles?
  • Responded below.
  • I wonder if you could discuss more about parasites. You mention that wallowing helps mitigate ectoparasites, but I wonder if you could be more specific about what plagues them. Also, I happened to know that there is at least one endoparasite (Gyrostigma sumatrensis) reported to affect them.
  • I think I found a paper on their parasites in the wild at some point. I will add a little bit more on this topic. Okay, turns out there's only one gyrostigma report in Sumatran Rhinoceros and it hasn't been seen since the 1800s. Their epidemiology is little studied, but I added what is known -- a recent paper about a population (the entire population of the Sumatran Rhino Conservation Center mentioned below, sadly!) succumbing to surra. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised that I couldn't find an article on the zoo in Hamburg, considering at that date it must have been one of the earlier zoos in Europe and of some significance to get such an unusual species. The only zoo I could find in Hamburg in the German Wikipedia is the Tierpark Hagenbeck, which was founded that early as a more conventional zoo (according to the German Wikipedia), is that what was meant?
  • Hmm, that is odd. I did some googling and found "The Gardens of the Zoological Society of Hamburg" mentioned in the 1911 EB here. Founded in 1863 it seems. I'm curious what must have happened to it, as it's clearly a different zoo than the Tierpark. Actually, looks like the English article might just have a mistake. If you look at de:Tierpark Hagenbeck it says it was founded in 1863. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been debating how to deal with the various conservation organizations related to all the different rhinos. Whether or not to write small articles about these organizations or not. I wrote one about International Rhino Foundation but it was quite difficult to write something reasonably complete. I'd also like to do one on the Rhino Resource Center which is an amazing online resource that's made this research project possible for me. --JayHenry (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article seems thorough and well-written and I think it would meet featured status once some of these concerns are addressed. Rigadoun (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks to you too, Rigadoun, for these keen observations. As with Rufous above I need some time to research some of these points.
  • I can respond about the phylogenetic trees. I used a template called {{clade}} which only allows two branches from each node. The third hypothesis is that there are three branches which can't be created by the template at this time. It'd probably be best to remove until I can figure out how to do it manually or until the template supports three branches.
  • As for the sounds, I know it's unconventional to have external links in a box like that, but describing the sounds seemed so inadequate to me, compared to simply hearing them. I could move the external links into a reference, or into the external link section, but I consider this to be very significantly less useful than having them accompanying their explanatory text. WP:EL allows for exceptions, and I think this is a good example of an exception that's very valuable to our readers.
  • Now, off to do some reading to address your and Rufous's good points. --JayHenry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. My concerns were addressed. I agree it's better to keep in the sounds, as they are really interesting and unlikely to be available as free media. The L.A. Times article seems to have moved or otherwise be unavailable, but as that was a convenience link for something that should be in paper it's okay. It's a pity about the phylogenetic trees, but I agree it's better to take them all out than to include only the two currently less-favored, and it's not really essential to understanding the phylogeny. The other concerns were addressed, and the section on epidemiology is a good addition. Good work. Rigadoun (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • Can convert template be used wherever possible. This should ensure consistency in conversion across units and also address MoS issues
    • The article would need more citations. In some cases, I see that citations for sentences in a whole paragraph are provided only at the end of the paragraph. I am afraid, individual sentences in the article may have to be cited to appropriate page numbers of the cited books or journals. This will ensure that people don't question the authenticity of sentences like: The Sumatran Rhinoceros is the most vocal of the rhinoceros species which now has a fact tag attached to it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 07:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments Amar. I was unaware of {{convert}}. I will use it, where appropriate, in the future. Thanks for adding it to the article! I just made a round of edits adding lots more sourcing. If there are specific claims or sections you'd like to see additional citation for, please let me know. I'm happy to do this to any sections where you feel the sourcing is weak. --JayHenry (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have followed up with Amar here and at his talk page. Have added citations wherever they've been requested (I also offer you my personal word that I didn't just make it up...) Unfortunately his request for the convert template prevents me from addressing Tony's request for abbreviated units. For the record, my preference is with Tony. I also don't like using templates in the text of articles. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It should not, however, be considered anti-social... - gah! makes it sound like a criminal...not sure what to replace it with (antisocial is one word anyway) but the words can probably be deleted without losing any meaning.
Especially to someone with a medical background ;) Agreed and fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also communicates through marking soil with its feet, twisting saplings into patterns, and excrement - here you have verb/verb/noun in the 3 last bits. Better make the last a verb. :)
Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
''of London, who published a paper about the rhino. - last 2 words looks repetitive but chopping them makes it too abrupt. Can we slot in the year Banks wrote the paper and thus allow the removal of the 2 words?
Clarified this section. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and it may therefore be indeterminate which group diverged first - 'unclear' better word here?
Works for me. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

female who lived for 32 years and 8 months in European zoos - which zoos? more than one? a little ambiguous as is. If you can add specific zoo(s) all the better.
Clarified this. A female named "Begum" captured in Chittagong in 1868, brought to London in 1872, survived until 1900. Btw, did you see that in getting to the bottom of these early specimens I wrote two DYKs: Zoological Garden of Hamburg and Tierpark Hagenbeck... --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:While the number of rhinos in Ujung Kulon has remained relatively stable - not clear to me which species this refers to - J or S.
Javan. I forget that not everybody read 40 papers about Sumatran Rhinos last month. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking ok - tweak the above and we should be over the line. Another issue is one of repetition of nouns (which can be tricky to avoid). I've gotten rid of a few. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking in Cas. I've been busier this Holiday than I thought (probably should have waited until January to nom.) Might not be able to get to these until next week, but I agree with all your points. --JayHenry (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Support: Can you fix the formatting and hyphen in refs 12 and 26? And first names spelt out and initialised variously. In the main text, please consider abbreviating main units after first occurrence (you're allowed to do this now; it's inconsistently applied at the moment. I want to see this promoted, but it needs work on the writing first. Here are just a few examples at random from the top. Please arrange for someone unfamiliar with text to sift through it in detail.

  • MOS: no hyphen after "-ly".
  • Can you avoid repeating "Sumatran Rhino/ceros" quite so many times in the lead? "The species", "individuals", otherwise recasting ("Their numbers are difficult to determine ...".
  • Metric conversions, please. (miles ...)
  • Remove OF: "outside of". Don't even use it in speech. Horrid habit.
  • "who published a paper about the rhino"—"on".
  • " However, it was not until 1814 that the Sumatran Rhinoceros was named by Johann Fischer von Waldheim, a German scientist and director of Moscow's Museum of Natural History." So how many other people named it before Fischer did?
  • "The scientific name Dicerorhinus sumatrensis comes from"—"is from".
  • False comparison: "the record time in captivity is a female who lived for 32 years and 8 months"—a female cannot be a record time.
  • "Two thick folds of skin circle the body"—encircle might be nicer?
  • ".4–.6 in"—MOS breach: leading zeros required.
  • "it climbs mountains easily and can comfortably traverse steep slopes and riverbanks"—not "can" for one of the two in this list ... just "and comfortably traverses"? Tony (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony. I will definitely work on these fixes. I'll go look for a copy editor right now too. I think the whole article needs to repeat "Sumatran Rhino" a little less, so I'll take a stab at this myself. Like I said, might be next week, because I haven't had much time this weekend on my computer. My apologies for nominating when I was going to be on vacation. Next week at the latest. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, María and I both have given it a once over. I checked for units again, think I got it right this time. Trimmed a lot of redundancy (had been using "in captivity in zoos" and a couple other really bad constructions). Smoothed out a bunch of other sentences too. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed those references. I might eventually strip my text of cite templates and convert templates and such as I'm growing to like them less and less. Need to ponder. If I do this, I'll certainly convert units the way you suggest. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was asked by the nominator to give the article a copy-edit, and although I'm not familiar at all with the biology of the subject matter and cannot help in that regard, I believe I smoothed out some of the repetition and awkward phrasing. I also addressed various points brought up by Tony and Casliber above. I don't have many detailed comments, I'm afraid, because I believe the article is comprehensive for the most part, but there are several things that could use clarification to really make this article excellent.
  • I'm also interested in a little more information about the record holding female in captivity.
  • The first paragraph in the "Taxonomy" section seems unnecessarily rushed; what was done with the shot animal? Was it put on display? When was Banks' paper written? What was the reception, if any?
  • After being shot it was sketched and described, as mentioned in the article. What they actually did with the specimen doesn't appear to be known. Clarified when it was written (same year). --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2004 deaths of rhinos from surra is mentioned in the "Behavior" section, but only mentioned in passing (as "a disease outbreak") in the "Captivity" section. In the first section, it is not detailed where it took place, and in the second section the disease itself is not named. It would be nice to have all of the information in one place rather than separated by four other sections.

I'm definitely leaning towards support, but I'll wait until vacation is over and more time can be spent sprucing the article up. Good luck! :) María (habla conmigo) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I too would like to see this article promoted; however, in spite of María's superb copy-edit, the article has some significant problems of terminology (and perhaps of organization). For example:[reply]

  • In the lead paragraph, the horns are referred to as the "front" and "back" horns; the names used in the literature are "nasal" (for front) and "frontal" (for back).
    • I had deliberately avoided this usage because, to the common reader, "frontal" suggests "in front" and this will be confusing to readers approaching this from a non-technical background. Would you object to "posterior" and "anterior" which is also used in the literature but would not be confusing to non-zoological readers? --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me first say that I'm traveling and supposedly on vacation (and likely to get into trouble if keep getting back on Wikipedia. :)). So, I won't make more comments after this these. I trust that you will make appropriate changes.
Sure, "anterior" and "posterior" are fine. Please note though that the 1911 Britannica "rhinoceros" article uses "nasal" and "frontal." True, "frontal" can be confusing, but given the name of the beast, "rhino"+"keras", "nasal" is apt (and it doesn't hurt the average reader to learn a thing or two). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I adapted this to use the Mammalian Species terminology. I think I kept it clear enough for the non-technical reader too. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised too that the standard reference on the topic, the Mammalian Species account Sumatran rhinoceros, is not even cited, let alone used in the writing.
    • I didn't use the Mammalian species source because of its extreme age and obsolescence -- nearly four decades old, with observation of a single dying specimen in a cement pit in the Copenhagen Zoo. I'm certainly aware of it (Mammalian Species was among the first sources I used in Indian Rhinoceros#Footnotes where the species was already well-documented and it was 1984). I can certainly add it here as a supporting reference. --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the Mammalian Species account for the Sumatran rhino is 35 years old, but I wasn't aware that it is based on "observation of a single dying specimen." Mammalian Species accounts are summaries of existing literature, which in this case goes back more than a hundred years and is evident from the bibliography. It certainly should be updated, (for example in the genetics) but I would imagine it's an important reference. As you know, Groves (one of the co-authors) made important contributions to the species taxonomy. Fowler&fowler«Talk 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it in multiple places as a supporting reference. By "...single dying specimen" I meant that the authors had observed only it; not that their paper was based only off their own observations. I am aware it includes a literature summary, but surely you can understand my reservations about citing any of these sections that are based off 19th century sources and no direct observations. The Mammalian Species account is very out of date and comically wrong a couple of times (8 month gestation) and I'm reluctant to use it any more than I've done. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence reads, "The Sumatran Rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) is a member of the family Rhinocerotidae and one of five extant rhinoceroses." It's hard to imagine that a similar article on the Sumatran tiger would begin with, "The Sumatran tiger is a member of the family Panthera tigris and one of five extant tigers." (Best not to use lower-case "rhinoceroses" to mean "species of rhinoceros.")
  • The animal most certainly doesn't have any "fur" (see the Mammalian Species account).
    • Does "fur" have some precise meaning in zoology of which I am unaware? I'm willing to call it a "hairy coat" but I thought these were synonyms (my dictionary actually defines fur as "the hairy coat of a mammal").
Well, "fur" is not a synonym for non-human animal hair (as the Wikipedia article Fur seems to imply.) In biology, "fur" is sometimes used for "underfur" or "ground hair," and could be applied to deer, hyenas, lemurs, or monkeys (in addition to the usual fur-bearing animals), but I've never seen it used for the hair of rhinos or elephants. In an encyclopedia (I would imagine) there would be even less reason to use "fur." Here is Encarta: "Hair, collective term for slender, threadlike outgrowths of the epidermis of mammals, forming a characteristic body covering. No animals other than mammals have true hair, and all mammals have hair. Even such apparently hairless mammals as the rhinoceros, elephant, and armadillo have hairs around the snout, at the tip of the tail, and behind each scale, respectively. (Whales and manatees have hair only in the embryonic state.) When the individual hairs are fine and closely spaced, the coat of hair is called fur; when soft, kinked, and matted together, the coat is called wool. Coarse, stiff hairs are called bristles. When bristles are also pointed, as in the hedgehog and porcupine, they are called spines or quills." And here is OED (fur): "The short, fine, soft hair of certain animals (as the sable, ermine, beaver, otter, bear, etc.) growing thick upon the skin, and distinguished from the ordinary hair, which is longer and coarser. Formerly also, the wool of sheep." and here's Webster's unabridged (fur), which is somewhat ambiguous "the fine soft thick hairy covering or coat of a mammal usually consisting of a double coating of hair that includes a layer of comparatively short soft curly barbed hairs next to the skin protected by longer smoother stiffer hairs that grow up through these." (I think by "a mammal," they don't mean "all mammals," but it's not clear.) And here's good old Darwin: (DARWIN Anim. & Pl. I. i. 46) "All the cats are covered with short stiff hair instead of fur." (See the Mammalian Species accounts for Andean Mountain Cat, Jaguarundi ..., all have "hair," "pelage," or "coat," not "fur." The Mammalian Species "Sumatran rhino" article says, "The hair, long and shaggy, almost fleecy in the young after the neonate stage (Ullrich, 1955; Krumbiegel, 1960), is still fine and copious, reddish brown in young adults, but with age becomes sparse, bristly (almost like hedgehog spines) and black (Thomas, 1901; Hubback, 1939)." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "hair" and a more specific description to avoid any potential ambiguity. I certainly wouldn't want to give the impression that one could make a fur coat out of a Sumatran Rhino. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, the capitalization of "rhinoceros" in "Sumatran Rhinoceros" is contrary to the convention for common names in zoology. Common (or vernacular) names of mammals are never capitalized. Thus, it is "Asiatic lion," "Thompson's gazelle," or "common mongoose." See my post Secondary and Tertiary Sources and Capitalization. Capitalization of mammalian common names on Wikipeida survives in large part due to the intransigence of one editor, UtherSRG, who appears to be generalizing the convention of ornithology (and even there in field guides) to mammals and reptiles. I don't know what the MOS has to say about this, but if it supports capitalization of mammalian names, it too will need to be corrected eventually.

I don't have time right now to read through the article, but (based on what I have seen in the lead and in random sentences here and there) I feel that the terminology and organization should be made consistent with the Mammalian Species account (updated, of course, wherever it needs to be; the MS account is from 1972). The article should then be copyedited again by someone not familiar with it. I would recommend user:Finetooth, if she/he has the time. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • As for organization... can I confess some frustration here? This is my fourth animal FAC and this is literally the 11th structure that has been requested for these articles. As with capitalization, I'm genuinely happy to accept whatever. The only thing I cannot do is write articles that simultaneously use 11 different organization hierarchies. I am reluctant for this to deviate from the structure in Javan Rhinoceros. Parallel structure is a requirement for Featured Topics, which is the eventual goal.
:) I understand your frustration, but I'm curious, what ten other structures have other people asked for? Mammalian Species is published by the American Society of Mammalogists, which also publishes the Journal of Mammalogy and MSW3 ... Anyway, since this is the last time I'll be weighing in, let me just say that your organization is not bad, but perhaps "diet" and "reproduction" shouldn't be a part of "behavior." (i.e. they should be independent sections. See the Jaguarundi article mentioned above.)
      • I hope I don't seem combative. I'm tired from travelling but very open to discussion of all these points. Thanks for the recommendation of User:Finetooth. I had been working with User:Andplus to copy edit, but he seems to have quit after User:!! got hit with the banhammer and I've been hoping to make some new talented copyediting friends. I'm genuinely happy to have your feedback and look forward to improving this article and adapting your suggestions across other rhino articles. --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. (I am traveling myself!) Well, since I likely won't comment again in this FAC, I've changed my "oppose" to a "comment." All the best. I hope this article does become an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I just remembered somewhere (early on) in the lead, "largest" was used when only two things (horns) were being compared. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for structure and capitalization, I'm genuinely happy to continue these discussions as I can see you are informed on this subject matter. But perhaps we should do so at WikiProject Mammals rather than the FAC? For structure and capitalization I am using standards that are widely accepted in Mammal FAs, and fall outside of the Featured Article criteria at any rate. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for now. On the whole, the article is very good! However, I saw numerous problems in the section on evolution. Some I went ahead and fixed but others require checking references; those I have noted in the text, in inline comments that can be removed once the problems are fixed. I stopped reading there. --Una Smith (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments Una. I was able to respond to all your points but one: it's not known if the female rejects a calf before becoming pregnant again in the wild and this is just because of the extreme difficulty in observation. Indian Rhinoceroses do not necessarily reject an older calf when a younger is born, so even inferences can't be drawn. --JayHenry (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the "seems like extremely bad management" that's really not a Sumatran Rhino specific comment, but rather a comment about whether or not it's appropriate to put species which such wide natural ranges in ex situ conservation situations at all. Ecology is a consequence of millions of years of evolution, rather than an animal's personal preference for pretty scenery. Whenever you take them from their ecological niche there are consequences big and small, predictable and not, but this is widely known and hardly controversial, so no point, in my opinion, going into the larger ex situ issue here. I feel that the estrus question is technical enough that the estimated weaning age and birth interval address it sufficiently. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support Overall, quite impressive, but there are a few things that could still stand to be addressed:
    • The references could use some proofreading. Just in the first column, there's a ref. without a year (15) and a journal article without a journal (17). There's also some inconsistency of formatting including italization of journal names and use of year or year and month for reference dates.
    • Since sumatrensis was not originally placed in Dicerorhinus, "Fisher, 1814" should be in parentheses in the taxobox.
    • Under Evolution, terminology of epoch subdivisions need to be standardized. Early/Late is preferable used than Lower/Upper.
    • The first sentence of the last paragraph under Evolution needs some work. It should probably mention that morphology was the original basis of a postulated relationship to the Wooly Rhino. The only clear reference to morphologic hypotheses in the paragraph is the one contradictory study by Cerdeno. In the same sentence, "similar" may not be what you're looking for. "Closely related" would probably be more to the point.
    • Finally (although it may be a big one), if possible I'd really like to see the genus split off to its own stub. There are plenty of fossil species at least tentatively referred to Dicerorhinus. It wouldn't need to be much. Nyctereutes (Raccoon Dog) would be a good model to use. A quick statement of what the genus is plus a dump of fossil species from the Paleobiology Database should be adequate. --Helioseus (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments Helioseus. I started a stub at Dicerorhinus and made your fixes as suggested. I have to stop using those citation templates... they seemed so convenient at first but I've realized they're more trouble than they're worth. I'll go through someday and convert out of them.
Looks good (I've changed to support above) and happy to help. I've gone ahead and made a couple of quick changes to the taxobox to account for the genus stub. One really minor change that could still be made would be to link the genus somewhere in the text, wherever you think is most appropriate. Let me know if you decide to work on either of the African rhinos. Both genera have fossil species, but they're much easier to deal with (only one or two each, all thoughtfully reviewed in the past couple years). As for the templates, I've started to move away from them myself. They seem to be a much better idea in theory than in practice. --Helioseus (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the link where I first mention the naming of the genus. I am planning on doing the African Rhinos in the not-too-distant future; probably will do Indian Rhino as my next unicorn though. I'd also like to get the family-level article at Rhinoceros into good shape. For Rhinocerotidae I think it'd be essential to have a good overview of the fossil species. At the moment I'm not even sure whose systematics are in place on the rhinoceros article. --JayHenry (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sumatran_Rhinoceros&oldid=1138472300"