Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden-crowned Sifaka/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 22:23, 19 June 2010 [1].
Golden-crowned Sifaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 05:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA criteria. I have covered what I have found regarding this species, including recent events. If I've missed anything, please let me know and I'll quickly update the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—no dab links, no dead external links, images look good. I just passed this as a GA and think it meets all FA criteria. Ucucha 05:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources comment: A couple of formatting issues:-
Consistency is required in the use of "pp." for page references. The templates you have used to reference your journal sources do not automatically print "pp." - you have to to do this. As an example, I have fixed ref. 13Publisher locations: these are optional, but for consistency either all, or none, should be given. Thus the Kappeler book is the odd one out.
Otherwise, all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I never realized that {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} treated pages differently... but it makes sense, I guess. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Esuzu) On a first look the article seems very good to me, I will read it through and list the (possible) problems I find below. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Personally I do not like when you use the same reference in consecutive sentences. For example in the first paragraph [3] and [4] is used a lot. Just placing one of them in end of the paragraph would be enough (for [4] at least). It would clutter much less if you did that.
- Does above mean sea level really need to be linked?
- There are some red-links in "Conservation". Do you think these will be an article some time?
- Delicacy and smoked are rather common words. Do they need to be wikilinked?
- Otherwise it looks very good. One of the most comprehensive zoological articles I have read so far. Will add support as soon as my comments are addressed. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the "above mean sea level" stuff because the sentence makes it clear we're talking about elevation. Some other links were also removed to minimize red links. (I believe that what's left merits an article.) The comment about references is a lot trickier. If the paragraph in question only used those two references and nothing else, I would have no problem putting them at the end of the paragraph. Unfortunately, other four other references are used, and for verifiability, we need to be clear where the material came from. As it stands, if the reader wanted to verify a sentence in that paragraph, they would know exactly which sources to look to. Pulling the refs out and placing them at the end of the paragraph, in my opinion, would give the impression that only the last sentence or two is supported by those refs. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are, of course, right in what you say. But most readers do not care about verifiability that much. As long as there are good reliable citations most are happy. What most care about is readability, if one can decrease the "clutter" one will increase the readability. It doesn't have to be this way though, we can see what other editors think. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if most readers do care about readability more, the way to go for a respectable encyclopedia is verifiability. Furthermore, the negative effect on readability from those references is small; the negative effect from verifiability of just placing all refs at the end of a paragraph is large, as a reader now has to read three or four sources instead of only one. Ucucha 15:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it is fine as it is. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if most readers do care about readability more, the way to go for a respectable encyclopedia is verifiability. Furthermore, the negative effect on readability from those references is small; the negative effect from verifiability of just placing all refs at the end of a paragraph is large, as a reader now has to read three or four sources instead of only one. Ucucha 15:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are, of course, right in what you say. But most readers do not care about verifiability that much. As long as there are good reliable citations most are happy. What most care about is readability, if one can decrease the "clutter" one will increase the readability. It doesn't have to be this way though, we can see what other editors think. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the "above mean sea level" stuff because the sentence makes it clear we're talking about elevation. Some other links were also removed to minimize red links. (I believe that what's left merits an article.) The comment about references is a lot trickier. If the paragraph in question only used those two references and nothing else, I would have no problem putting them at the end of the paragraph. Unfortunately, other four other references are used, and for verifiability, we need to be clear where the material came from. As it stands, if the reader wanted to verify a sentence in that paragraph, they would know exactly which sources to look to. Pulling the refs out and placing them at the end of the paragraph, in my opinion, would give the impression that only the last sentence or two is supported by those refs. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A fine article worthy of FA status. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — nothing significant I can pick up on Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Overall, a good read, but some work is still needed.
- "However, it was not formally described until 1988, after a research team led by Elwyn Simons observed and captured them.
- Mixed numbers.
- "Attempts have been made keep"
- Made to keep
- "The only predator known to target this species is the Fossa, although the Golden-crowned Sifaka also responds to birds of prey."
- Probably should explain this better. I know what this means, but not everyone will know what the "responds to" is referring to.
- "With the depletion of dead from the forest patches,"
- Missing 'wood'.
- "the six years preceding the study had seen a 5% of the small- to medium-sized forest fragments disappear due to increase human encroachment."
- A 5% what?
- "Although mining operations are small-scale,"
- No hyphen here.
- "only ten forest patches remained that could support viable populations"
- Awkward. I suggest recasting as ""only ten forest patches that could support viable populations remained."
- "Around the time the photographers were released..."
- I think "photographs" is what is meant here.
- More later... Firsfron of Ronchester 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the aid of your keen eye! I've fixed all that you pointed out, and will try to review the article tomorrow for more mixed number errors. If you find any other problems, please let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked through the article and failed to see any more "mixed number" errors. Admittedly, I am not the best as spotting my own errors in grammar. If something leaps out at you, just point it out. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the aid of your keen eye! I've fixed all that you pointed out, and will try to review the article tomorrow for more mixed number errors. If you find any other problems, please let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Taxonomy and phylogeny: "was scientifically discovered in 1974 by Ian Tattersall north of Vohemar in northeast Madagascar, who...". Since "who" no doubt refers to Tattersall, this would read better if his name was moved to right before the comma. Example: "was scientifically discovered in 1974 north of Vohemar in northeast Madagascar by Ian Tattersall, who...".
- Behavior: "It is also emits...". Here, "is" should be cut.
- Human interactions: Very minor point, but I found it a bit odd that the deforestation link occured on the word's second use in the section. It could potentially be moved up.
- "disappear due to increase human encroachment." "increase" → "increased".
- Conservation: "Suggested conservation action aimed at protecting this species and its habitat have focused...". The tense appears off in this sentence. There is a conflict between singular ("action") and plural ("have"), meaning one should be changed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:59, 17 June 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.