Talk:False potto

False potto is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 3, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 22, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
June 27, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 26, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the false potto may be a true potto (pictured)?

Current status: Featured article

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Link of Jeffrey Schwartz's name is to the wrong Jeffrey Schwartz.130.49.147.40 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:False potto/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 20:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm claiming this review. Comments coming shortly. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Excellent article, and very clear to read for a taxon article with a lot of discussion of anatomy.

Thanks. Ucucha 21:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"excavation in the skull" – any alternative wording? Not a traditional statement for the people who aren't anatomists.~~
- "Excavation" is probably not the right word. I changed it to use "depression" instead.
~~Nowak 1999 and Leutwyler 1996 are listed in short footnotes, but not in the "Literature cited".~~
- Nowak added; ref = harv added for Leutwyyler.
The link to "Oates et al. 2008" doesn't work, and probably won't unless we start adding that feature to the various IUCN Red List ref templates. Personally, I just put news and web refs in the References section, then use notes for journals and books. It's up to you how you want to do it, though.
- Added an anchor to fix this.
  - Unfortunately, the anchor doesn't highlight the ref, but this will have to do. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~I've never used {{Sfnm}} before, but for some reason the first short footnote in ref #17 doesn't work.~~
- It's because I misspelled Schwartz's name as Schwarz. Fixed (also on a few other occasions).
  - Funny... I could swear I checked the spelling. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~"citing C. Wild" – Do we have any information about who this is or what publication it's referring to?~~
- It's a personal communication; clarified.

Other than that, it looks good to me. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Great job! Thanks for writing this primate article. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Well, boys and girls, we have our first controversy over the text of this article! Maky and Complainer have a disagreement about the inclusion of explanations for certain unusual words in the text (boldfaced):

In the introduction:

The false potto generally resembles a small potto, but according to Schwartz it differs in having a longer tail, shorter spines on its neck and chest vertebrae, a smaller, less complex spine on the second neck vertebra, an entepicondylar foramen (an opening in the humerus, or upper arm bone), a lacrimal fossa (a depression in the skull) that is located inside the eye socket, a smaller upper third premolar and molar, and higher-crowned cheekteeth, among other traits. However, many of these traits are variable among pottos; for example, one researcher found entepicondylar foramina in almost half of the specimens in his sample of pottos.

and, in the "Taxonomy" section:

In a series of potto (Perodicticus potto) skeletons in the collections of the Anthropological Institute and Museum of the University of Zurich at Irchel, anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz recognized two specimens with traits he believed distinct from all pottos, and in 1996 he used these two specimens to describe a new genus and species of primate, Pseudopotto martini.^[1] The generic name, Pseudopotto, combines the element pseudo- (Greek for "false") with "potto", referring to superficial similarities between the new form and the potto.^[2] The specific name, martini, honors primatologist Robert D. Martin.^[3]

Complainer calls this "pedantic etymology and explanations we have wikilinks for" and "annoying cruft". Maky notes that the text in question passed the Featured Article review, arguing that this is good evidence of its appropriateness. Let's head off an edit war (see Criterion 5 above) and get an early consensus. Thoughts? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have to clarify a couple of things. First I do not question the "appropriateness" of the content. I question its utility, and argument that the article reads much, much better without it. In the meanwhile, another, anonymous, user has re-inserted all the cruft because "people don't know what a lacrimal fossa is". I'll point out that I myself did not know what a lacrimal fossa was until a little while ago. I followed the wikilink (something anybody without severe arthritis can easily do), and I now know. This is not a paper encyclopedia but, most of all, it is not a collection of essays: the articles are not self-contained entities, and the explanation of everything is a click away. People have to get used to this; not linking lacrimal fossa is a crime. Putting a cranked, short explanation of it in the text of an article that has nothing to do with physiology is, well, pedantic, annoying cruft and confusing to both subjects.

Then there is the matter of etymology. Yes, every scientific name is in Latin (which makes it quite silly to say anything "comes from Latin": it never left Latin to go anywhere else), and scientists have to pull something out of their arse every time they name a new species. However, people reading about an alleged simian species would hardly be interested in a pedantic, detailed decomposition of each word of the name; also, technically speaking, Pseudopotto martini does not mean anything but this particular alleged species of tarsier. The rest is just how people got there. complainer (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To address the first point, the descriptive text was (and still is?) a requirement to get anything technical passed at FAC. At first I opposed it, preferring wikilinks... but we work by consensus, and the editors who did the reviews for this and many other articles required more details in the text itself. If you have a problem here, you'll have a problem with countless mushroom, bird, and primate FAs. They all do the same thing. As for the etymology, a detailed breakdown of each part of the scientific name is standard. They do it on Wikictionary, too. It also helps to explain (as best as the sources can) as to why the authority named it a "false potto". Also, I'm not sure what's up with Complainer's tone. If he read the article, he obviously knows we're not talking about simians here, nor this is a tarsier. I suspect trolling. – Maky ^« talk » 12:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we have now heard from the parties involved. Any outsiders want to weigh in? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on False potto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this featured?

The lead section has no sources. The article doesn't contain any images either. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 15:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Schwartz 1996, pp. 2, 8.
^ Schwartz 1996, p. 8.
^ Schwartz 1996, p. 9.

[FOOTNOTESchwartz19962,_8-1] Schwartz 1996, pp. 2, 8.

[FOOTNOTESchwartz19968-2] Schwartz 1996, p. 8.

[FOOTNOTESchwartz19969-3] Schwartz 1996, p. 9.

[1]

[2]

[3]