Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/False potto/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 15:29, 27 June 2011 [1].
False potto[edit]
False potto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Did you know that the false potto may be a true potto? This African primate was described in 1996 with some fanfare, but people can't agree on whether it is in fact distinct from the potto or not. Things are complicated by the fact that there is probably more than one species of true potto. I have covered all sources I could find on it, and the article was improved by a GA review by Visionholder. Ucucha 07:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: No citations to Stump (2004) that I can see. Otherwise the references and citations look fine, though no spotchecking done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're quite right; I've removed that reference. Thanks for the check. Ucucha 09:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image is unproblematic, caption looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment article mentions a number of people, by name, without wikilinks, without explaining who they are or why we should care about their opinions. If I made a statement about the potto or false potto, it shouldn't be included because I know nothing about the subject... so who are Ronald Nowak, Simon Bearder et al? Also, "records in Zurich" sounds very odd and imprecise. Also, can we have some information about when the two specimens lived? --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a bunch of "primatologist"s, though a bit grudgingly. Those people's opinions are important (and yours or mine is not) because they published in peer-reviewed journals, as the reference list indicates; I think it diverts attention from the topic of the article to go on about the professions of the biologists who worked on the animal.
- I've specified the "records" to those of the Institute where the specimens reside. No reference says explicitly when they lived (Nowak 1999 says "many years ago"). I suspect that the time they were collected is not recorded, but in the absence of specific references, I'd prefer not to include that in the article. Ucucha 10:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sasata comments
- Support—Not much to complain about. Another well-executed mammal FA. Sasata (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lead: link lacrimal fossa- Thanks to Dweller and you for the reviews. The trouble here is that lacrimal fossa is a dab page, and I think neither meaning is appropriate here. The term is explained inline anyway. Ucucha 22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Jeffrey H. Schwartz recognized two specimens with traits distinct from all pottos" -> with traits he believed were distinct ...link family, Simon Bearder (seems notable enough for redlink), Esteban SarmientoB.S. Leon - should be full name like the others?"One of the specimens, AMZ 6698, is an adult female that lived in Zürich Zoo." do we known approximately when?Who is C. Wild? What expertise would they have to be able to distinguish a potto from a pseudopotto in a field sighting? Is tail length the only easy field characteristic available to distinguish them?Sasata (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Given that no Pseudopotto skins are known, we have no idea what external characteristics may distinguish them (if they are distinct at all). Perhaps it has black and white stripes. However, tail length is the only allegedly diagnostic characteristic that is likely to be visible in a live animal. I don't know who Wild is; the sources only give his name. I suspect it is someone who saw long-tailed pottos and got all excited about it. Ucucha 22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, one comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO image concerns.
- Article seems deficient in not having any picture of the subject of the article (the skeletons, or a reconstruction of what the animal would look like). I realize this is tough on Wiki to get images...but just stepping back and looking at it from the reader perspective, it is a big gap. Have we tried writing to Shwartz or the Zurich museum to get a licence for an image? Or maybe go fair use? Seems like a really obscure topic to write an article on, but if we do, how can you really cover the controversy and not even show any visual representation? Even a drawing of the tail difference perhaps? TCO (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What difference? Showing a picture of a long-tailed false potto and a short-tailed true potto would be misleading, since some pottos actually have longer tails (Sarmiento, 1998). The only published images of Pseudopotto are in Schwartz (1996), and I highly doubt we'll get those released. Ucucha 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is more minor, but a map at the end would be helpful. Show location of countries metioned as well as Cupe. Perhaps show the range of the regular potto (is Kupe inside or outside that?) I realize, we can't draw a range map of the pseudopotto, which may not exist, but let's illustrate the geography mentioned in article.TCO (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I provided the GAN review of this article and covered it thoroughly at that time. I am still content with this article and see no obvious issues. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.