Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strepsirrhini/archive1

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 Ian Rose 00:38, 9 December 2012 [1].

---

Strepsirrhini

Strepsirrhini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Strepsirrhini/archive1

Nominator(s): – Maky ^« talk » 10:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC requirements. The article is a top priority article for WikiProject Primates, and covers one of the two major suborders within the order. Most importantly, the article addresses many common misconceptions about the "lower primates" (as they have sometimes been called). I will admit that the article was very challenging to write, especially since most of the sources conflicted due to a lack of agreement on terminology. In some cases, this inconsistency resulted in incorrect statements in the sources, and even contradictory information on the same page. Because I was starting to have the same problems on other lower-level Wikipedia articles (such as Toothcomb), I felt it was time to address these issues and adopt the one popular taxonomy which gives a formal clade name to the living strepsirrhines (lemuriforms). (To read more about this taxonomic mess and my proposal to fix it, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates#Opinions needed: Infraorders within Strepsirrhini.) Anyway, I'm eager to see any concerns people might have, but otherwise it should be neutral and written in a language that is accessible (and accurate) to both primatology and paleoanthropology. (I also have plans to re-write Prosimian soon, in which I will elaborate more on the history of that term as well as the anatomical differences that led to that popular distinction. Furthermore, I also plan to create a distinct article entitled "Lemuriformes" soon, removing the redirect to Lemur. Once that is done, I plan to add a link from this article.) – Maky ^« talk » 10:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Image check - all images are OK (CC, own work, PD-old-100, USGov) and contain source and author info, except one (Done):

• File:Geoffroy72.jpg - needs US-specific tag for the original work (PD-100 probably won't work, as the author is unknown). GermanJoe (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed up much of the description box info on the image, and it does appear that the image is in the public domain due to an expired copyright (although one library in London has listed their copy as CC-BY-NC 2.0 so that they can sell it). The image was created in 1842, which was 170 years ago, so the copyright expired almost exactly 100 years after it was created. I think it's safe to say that the author was dead by that point, even though we don't know their name. If you can suggest a better permissions tag, I would appreciate it. – Maky ^« talk » 11:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. According to the hosting website (publication info is well hidden in the image data) the image was published in 19th century, so PD-1923 should apply. Updated image tags and description. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. I recently gave the article a thorough review during the GAN, and am confident the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Preliminary comments
  • Article feels solid at the top and choppy at the bottom. This is because it has a lot of short sections and short paragraphs at the bottom. It seems to want fleshing out. What contributes to this is that...

  I think I said this below, but section length is constrained by what is published regarding this broad category of primates. Needless to say, there is a ton of information about their classification and anatomy (since those used to go hand-in-hand), as well as a descent amount about their behavior. Distribution and habitat is pretty general, although I may be able to add a statement about how some lemurs live in seasonal, arid environments. The conservation issues are mostly universal for primates, and I've discussed the major issues (for lemurs and lorises). – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Manual of style provisions for image placement are not consistently followed, particularly in that lower half of the article. Briefly:
    • Images which have a "facing" effect should be facing into the page.
    • Image placement should alternate between left and right.
    • Images should be placed below a heading only for level 2 headings, i.e. ==. In all other cases, images should displace, or be to the side of, a heading. This MOS mandate is broken in five places.

  As pointed out below, MOS:IMAGELOCATION does not require these, but instead recommends them. Even the wording seems quite flexible and dependent upon the case. I can't even find the level 2 heading material to which you refer. Anyway, I generally approve of most of your edits regarding this issue, except for the last image (deforestation). The MOS reads: "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection..." In this case, I feel this trumps the recommendation: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left...". I would like to hear your thoughts on this before moving it back in order to avoid conflict. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  Take a look at Mauritius Blue Pigeon and the amphibian article from Amphibian#Caecilians on downwards to see how neat this can look. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  In my opinion, all three articles (which includes the one in this review) look nice. It all boils down to a matter of opinion, which is reflected in MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Anyway, in your examples, there are several "violations" of the "facing the text rule"... So when are these "rules" enforced, when does one "rule" override another, and why is it only being treated as mandatory for this FAC and not to the others? I'm sorry, but this is confusing me. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  I find that it's purely a question of effort to work on an article until both rules can be satisfied. Samsara (FA • FP) 20:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Two images should be edited or replaced to remove potentially fixable flaws that affect the overall impression of the article:
    • File:Loris lydekkerianus nordicus 003.jpg is overexposed.
    • File:Galago senegalensis.jpg has poor white balance.

  I have done my best to fix these. The second photo was low-quality to begin with and didn't look that bad as a thumbnail (after my initial edit to remove the vent in the background). Anyway, the colors seem a little better, and shadows are a little sharper. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  I overwrote that with a different version. It seems a marked improvement to me that way. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 04:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

These are my thoughts for now, there may be more later. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just FYI, the MoS says "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left" not that they should be placed so. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• But I'm saying they should be. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look, but I find it odd that other successful FAC candidates place 100% of their images on the right without alternating. In fact, I couldn't even find this rule the last time I checked. I will double-check everything soon and try to fix the images I can. If MOS does not mandate that images be staggered a certain way, then I may opt to leave them. I will definitely try to fix the heading issue, though, if that's an issue. – Maky ^« talk » 11:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Scent marking image is not very clear, and can easily be omitted. That will solve your layout problem. Samsara (FA • FP) 02:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this. I can see how the image is "not clear" if you've never watched lemurs before, but with the way you've moved things around, this image is both staggered and facing the right way. Deleting it would break your staggering "rule" but not the "image can displace level 3 headers" statement. Are you just being flexible in this case and preferring to see it removed because it's unclear? – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to rearrange some of the other images, which I've just done - please check that this is okay. It would be great if an unambiguous image of scent marking could be provided in the future - I'm sure such images exist, and someone might be willing to donate, if it isn't already available somewhere under an appropriate CC license. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Driveby I've a very busy few days coming up, so it may be a while before I review properly. Just for now, there appear to be 25-30 duplicated links in the body of the article, excluding the lead, more than I am prepared to list Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think there was any overlinking (except for repeats in the lead), but I will double check either tonight or tomorrow. – Maky ^« talk » 11:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've found and removed a few extra links in the body and one in a caption. Otherwise I generally treat the lead, body, and captions separately because people will often read selectively. (Most people I've met or know personally admit to only reading the lead and/or the image captions. If it's important, I can thin out the links in the captions a little bit. However, I do prefer to link the main topic of the caption at a minimum. Between the lead and the body, I generally avoid overlinking very common terms (like Madagascar, grooming, etc.), but will redundantly link the rest so that people have the option to follow the link when the text has gone into more detail on the topic. But just let me know what you think is excessive, and I'll try to adjust. (Btw, I linked the two types of placentation even though they point to the same article because they are difficult to explain succinctly.) – Maky ^« talk » 17:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose On closer inspection, the text has a number of major flaws.
  • The strepsirrhine rhinarium can collect non-volatile, fluid-based chemicals known as pheromones and transmit them to the vomeronasal organ (VNO), - Not convinced we need a definition of pheromones here, when they are also wiki-linked, and most people have heard of them by now.

  When I give talks to the public, most people have not. Furthermore, people (including some primatologists) assume that they are the same as smells and don't realize that they affect different parts of the brain. As a result, many people in primatology generalize by saying that "lemurs have a long snout and VNO, so they have a good sense of smell." The two senses are related and interconnected (in the same way that smell and taste are), but they are distinct. I feel the text needs to clarify this point, especially with strepsirrhines, given that they're the textbook example. I might be able to thin out some of the detail, though, and move it to other articles. As for explaining words that are hyperlinked, that has been a frequent request from other reviewers at FAC for the last two years. I can revert back to removing explanations and just using hyperlinks if everyone agrees. But I not up for making you happy, only to piss off other reviewers. We need standards here... just like the image placement issues. I know that FAC gets progressively more rigid and produces higher and higher quality material, but I've been participating for years, and I can tell you that it's not been a slow, steady climb. Instead, it's been more like the ebb and flow of a tide on multiple issues. I'm just tired of being told to do X on one article and Y on another article, depending on who offers the review and what those reviewers opinions are that particular day. – Maky ^« talk » 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  On the point of pheromones specifically, looking around online, it seems that the general perception of these chemicals is that they are highly volatile scents that people can't smell. (Just look at all the ads that offer pheromone products where only a few drops are to be applied to your shirt.) Although this may apply to some pheromones, it appears that the VNO has evolved to detect those that are fluid-based. Given the general misconceptions floating around (and perpetuated by scam advertising), I think this brief explanation is merited, despite the link. Rationale: If people assume that they know what pheromones are, but are wrong, the information presented will be confusing. – Maky ^« talk » 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  The more I think about this, the more I become convinced that it would be best to leave pheromones out of this entirely, or to alleviate the tautology by mentioning them after the VNO has been introduced. Our own pheromone article does not succeed in giving a good demarcation of what is and isn't a pheromone. While a scientist may have an intuitive sense of what is and isn't a pheromone, the definition offered in the pheromone article does not exclude, for instance, volatile substances that trigger simple revulsion, which can be seen as a negative social response, and hence would meet the definition given in the article. Any of a number of scents associated with disease or lack of hygiene would qualify, and their perception would neither be restricted to the VNO, nor would be VNO even necessarily be involved. Hence, it may be better to avoid the buzzword and simply state the properties of chemicals that the VNO can perceive, possibly with pheromones mentioned in brackets somewhere, e.g. (traditionally categorised as pheromones) or (some of which may be classified as pheromones). Samsara (FA • FP) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  This doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, there is a bit of a blur in our understanding of the difference between pheromones and scents, and in humans, we've evolved a secondary way of processing pheromones, possibly using the main olfactory system. Anyway, the discussion of hygiene and body odor is very anthropocentric, especially since we have cultural norms that affect our perception of personal odors. (What's probably going on is that the *smell* is repulsive to the olfactory centers of the brain, but our amygdala processes the pheromones separately. For example, sex odors can be very musky and be interpreted as "unhygienic", but in the heat of the moment, they can be very arousing.) The VNO in strepsirrhines, and probably most mammals, will not detect airborne scents, but fluid-based chemicals, which could only be called pheromones. In fact, the wiring of the accessory olfactory bulb (which we lack) is wired to the brain differently than the main olfactory system that we possess. So I don't think it's really fair to hold this article up against a start-class article that covers pheromones across the entire animal kingdom. And just FYI: all chemical based senses (pheromone, smell, and taste) are closely related in their physiology and the boundaries between them often blur. Anyway, I've tried rewriting that paragraph as you suggested, but I can't find a way to introduce the VNO and indicate its relevance to the subsection until after pheromones are introduced. If I don't discuss pheromones, then the readers won't see the relevance at all. I opted to keep the discussion mostly the same, but used your suggestion "(traditionally categorized as pheromones)". I hope that's good enough. – Maky ^« talk » 13:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Sexually dichromatism - I hope you can see by yourself that this is wrong.

  Do enlighten me. – Maky ^« talk » 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  It's "sexual dichromatism", as in the title of the wikilinked article. "Sexually dichromatic" only in adjective use. Samsara (FA • FP) 11:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ah... a typo. I sometimes can't see my own typos until someone points them out. I was thinking you were referring to a factual error. Sorry. – Maky ^« talk » 11:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Reproduction in most strepsirrhine species tends to be somewhat seasonal, particularly in lemurs. The degree to which their reproduction is seasonal is affected by the duration of the wet season, subsequent food availability, and the maturation time of the species. - The information provided by these sentences can be summarised as "it depends". Suggestion: Try starting with "In longer wet seasons..."

  Couldn't find a way to word it your way, but I did copyedit those sentences. – Maky ^« talk » 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Primates primarily feed on fruits (including seeds), leaves (including flowers), and animal prey (arthropods, small vertebrates, and eggs). These provide lipids, proteins, essential amino acids, carbohydrates, and carbohydrates, including cellulose and hemicellulose. - Basic biochemistry is better covered in biochemistry-related articles. All higher life subsists on lipid, a.a.s and carbs. Primates must be eating a lot of carbs, for them to need listing twice. Look, just cut that second sentence entirely. If you can say something relevant about cellulose (hint: ability to digest it isn't all that common among mammals), make a new sentence for that.
  • Strepsirrhines have diverse diets, so the proportions of these foods and their nutritional components vary significantly between species. Same amount of information: "Diets vary markedly between species."
  • Strepsirrhines also exhibit dietary adaptations at the niche level, comparable to that seen in New World monkeys. More non-information, plus ecology buzzword bingo. Either say something specific, or nothing at all - what you're doing right now is taunting the reader with a promise of more information that doesn't materialise.

The problem is that in many cases I'm limited by my sources. Secondary sources often throw out information like this without specific details and then do a poor job citing specific sources... particularly when they are written by experts in the field and published in peer reviewed books. I will take another look at this case and see if I can dig up anything more. – Maky ^« talk » 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made fixes to the first two, and I am working on expanding on the third point. I now have access to the primary source thanks to a friend. I will see what can be gleaned from it and summarized easily for readers. – Maky ^« talk » 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the third statement because it turned out to be too lemur-centric and not particularly informative for strepsirrhines, especially if I'm going to go into detail explaining it. – Maky ^« talk » 21:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Diet section reads much better now. Well done. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, these examples show what you've been missing, and you can fix the text to a higher standard by yourself/ves... Samsara (FA • FP) 02:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I will try to work on this either tonight or tomorrow night when I have time. If there are a bunch of issues like the last point, I'll see what I can do. Providing highly specific examples can bog the article down with too much detail and inflate the size of an already large article. As for an earlier point about the latter sections being too short, that has a lot to do the high variability within the suborder. I can talk about the specifics of a variety of strepsirrhines, or I can cover the information that applies to all of them. I usually try to do a little of both, stating the general statements and giving a few examples. If a section is not long, it's not because I'm being lazy. – Maky ^« talk » 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Jim An impressive amount of work, but some comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Looking again at duplicate links, the script overestimated because, although it ignores the lead and captions, it treats the cladogram as text. Clade and Georges Cuvier perhaps could still be reduced to one link in the body of the text

Good finds. Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• I found the lead heavy going, and I have a science degree. I appreciate that there is bound to be technical language, but is there any way of making the lead a bit more user friendly. This isn't a deal-breaker, just asking you to take a look

It's come up before, so I made some changes. Please let me know if it reads better. I did leave in the list of the technical anatomical traits, only because they are mentioned extensively in textbooks, but very difficult to summarize in layman's terms. However, they are linked, so people can follow those if interested. – Maky ^« talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• (56 to 34 million years ago—mya) — (56 to 34 million years ago (mya)) probably more normal

Sasata and I have gone back and forth on this one. I've switched it back to your suggestion. – Maky ^« talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• have it supplemented in their diet—reads oddly, obtain it from their diets

Good suggestion. Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• whether or not adapiforms —do you need the "or not"?

Good point. Fixed. 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• exception of the aye-aye, which has a modified structure—I don't quite follow this, does it have a modified toothcomb, a different dental modification, or some other structure altogether?

More details provided. Please let me know if it's understandable. 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Like all primates, their orbits—I think you need to repeat the subject at the start of a new paragraph

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• If Groves, C. P. and Groves, C. are one and the same, can they be initialised similarly. Or both as "Colin" since we know his name

Fixed in the template. Hopefully it doesn't cause a conflict in other articles. – Maky ^« talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! – Maky ^« talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with all the changes (I won't lose sleep if the next reviewer wants "— mya" either!). Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Distribution map: A brief web search reveals that bushbabies occur at least as far South as Pretoria and the Umlalazi Nature Reserve. I would be very surprised if your source disputes this, but perhaps you need to incorporate newer sources as the range would be expected to currently expand southwards. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about bushbabies around Pretoria, but I did find mentions of museums and research on them from that urban center. The original map already covered Umlalazi Nature Reserve at its most southern tip. I am uploading a new map based on a different page in one of my existing sources. Apparently the general map I based my map on was hand-drawn, and one species has a range that extends slightly beyond it. Hopefully that covers what you are thinking of. Someday I hope to create an SVG based on the IUCN Red List data, but I'm not sure how to do that. – Maky ^« talk » 14:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

But now you've included the western coastal deserts such as the Namib, which presumably are not suitable habitat. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears the Sussman (book) source is not highly accurate—that change to the map was based on another map on page 87. Admittedly, I know less about galagos than any other strepsirrhine, and my familiarity with African geography is far from extensive. I would try to create a map based solely on the IUCN Red List map data, but since I can't export the data (or use it to create an SVG even if I had it), it's very hard to create a perfectly accurate map by simply looking at 18 species' range maps and creating a bitmap range map by hand. Anyway, I will try again, this time excluding the Namib and focusing on the IUCN Red List range map for the Southern Lesser Galago (Galago moholi), since it is that species which seems to be causing most of the problems. – Maky ^« talk » 15:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Better now, thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would also recommend that this extremely terse footnote be revised: Considered close relatives of tarsiers, omomyiforms are considered to be haplorhines, yet they may have had a rhinarium like the strepsirrhines. Wikilinking should be considered where appropriate. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify what you are suggesting. Do you want extra (redundant) wikilinks added here? (The terms "haplorhine", "tarsier", "omomyiform", and "rhinarium" were already linked by this point.) Otherwise, I feel the statement is very straightforward. The text for which the footnote applies says that strepsirrhine primates are traditionally characterized by a rhinarium (or "wet nose"), yet the footnote explains that omomyiforms, which are considered haplorhines (the other "dry-nose group" or primates), may have had a rhinarium. In other words, this characterization about strepsirrhines having wet noses and haplorhines having dry noses may be incorrect. – Maky ^« talk » 14:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, I think that a lot of the rather convoluted discussion of character states and taxonomic units should be replaced with an equivalent cladogram. I think that's the one thing that will provide a leap in readers' ability to understand the contents. It's also rather quick to make in any presentation or DTP software, or with Inkscape if you want to go for SVG. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There are already 2 cladograms in the article, and if we do such things for each key trait (as discussed in textbooks, i.e. rhinarium, fused mandiubular symphysis, postorbital closure, toothcomb, grooming claws, bicornuate uterus, epitheliochorial placenta, etc.), it would be ridiculous... especially given how non-uniform a few of these traits are among strepsirrhines. Not only that, but it may come across as though we are giving these characteristics the same sort of emphasis that Franzen, et al. gave them in 2009 when they tried to use Ida to link simians to lemurs. In its current state, the article goes to great lengths to explain these traits while demonstrating whether or not they are diagnostic for strepsirrhines. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. – Maky ^« talk » 22:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your problem is that you have to mention all the characters in the text, whereas it would be super-easy if they were just mapped onto the cladograms. Here is a schematic example. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This could get very complicated with so many traits. Which traits do you suggest covering in the cladogram? Anyway, if I have time, I'll try making one tonight. – Maky ^« talk » 12:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For an internal cladogram of the strepsirrhines, it seems the rhinarium, toothcomb, and possibly the "[similar] front lower teeth of adapids" are most relevant and will eliminate text that is otherwise difficult to absorb (mostly the two footnotes). Later on, you refer to "distinctive features of their tarsus (foot bones)", which are not explained specifically - you have to decide if that is useful or necessary to include, but I think absorption of the footnotes into an easy visual format would be a great help. If you want to add to the external cladogram, you give a list of things ("long snouts, convoluted maxilloturbinals, relatively large olfactory bulbs, and smaller brains") as well as a brief reference to nose morphology that is never fully explained, and vitamin C production and SINE markers. That's more of a "nice to have" imo, but I understand you want to spruce up the prosimian article next, where that particular cladogram will be more important, and so my feeling is you might as well get it done now.

Last night I tried drawing something up on paper and ran into a whole host of problems. As neat and convenient as the idea sounds, there are several serious problems. First, some of the traits involve soft tissue, so it is nearly impossible to say definitively where such a feature appeared or disappeared from any given lineage. Second, some traits (such as the grooming claw and rhinarium) we simply don't know for certain which fossil specimens had them and which didn't. Third, traits like the fused mandibular symphysis evolved many times in several different families of adapiforms and lemuriforms. As a result, the cladogram would need to be huge to show all of these families, and then compare them to the haplorhines. In short, there is probably a reason why no such simple diagram exists in textbooks. The text may be confusing, but others may need to learn this the way that I did—by looking at the existing cladogram and refer back to it when the text discusses which groups have a feature, which do not, which evolved it independently, and which may have a feature, but it's hard to say whether they all had it or whether it was independently evolved. Too complicated? Honestly, welcome to the world of paleoanthropology! This is the very reason why the early evolution of primates is such a great mystery. Between homology, analogy, insufficient fossils, conflicts between fossils and genetics, and the persistence of outdated terminology and thinking, everything is a big, ugly mess.

A lot of stuff gets passing mentions in the article, but that's for comprehensiveness. For the stuff I insufficiently described, I can try to find sources that elaborate... but they may be overly technical (e.g. the "distinctive features of their tarsus", nose morphology, etc.). It's not a question of whether it's worth mentioning or nice to have... comprehensiveness is needed for FAC. If a paleoanthropologist or primatologist read the article and those points were omitted, they would complain that we're omitting important details. Personally, I'd rather mention the details, no matter how minor, and allow the readers to follow the references to dig up the really gory technical details. If it came down to it, an entire article on strepsirrhine anatomy could be written. – Maky ^« talk » 03:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've revised that footnote,[2] but I'm still not convinced that that's the best way to present the information if reader understanding and RU/time are to be maximised. There was a study that suggested that scientists think that science articles on Wikipedia are very well written, accurate and comprehensive, except those in their own field, which they think are terrible. So my suggestion would be not to write for primatologists as a target audience, as, well, by definition of who would use an encyclopaedia, they are not the target audience, or at best a very small fraction of it, but more importantly, as per the finding of that study, you'll never please them. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the revision to the footnote. "RU/time"? Sorry, maybe my brain is fried from work. Anyway, there are several reasons why scientists dislike articles from their own fields exclusively, and most of those reasons tie into policies such as WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Sometimes it's a relatively insignificant pet peeve (e.g. the second "r" in "Strepsirrhini"). Anyway, a high-class encyclopedia would include all the noteworthy details on a subject, but may not go into gory details (e.g. specific tarsal features). For comprehensiveness, these important features are mentioned. What sets strepsirrhines apart from haplorines? Read the article—it lists everything that you would find in basic primatology or physical anthropology textbook. I may be able to elaborate on the tarsal features for strepsirrhines as was done in the last paragraph of Adapidae? I'll just have to check those sources if I have time later tonight. To find out how omomyiforms compared will take a bit more digging, but I'll do it. – Maky ^« talk » 23:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Something else I noticed was that when you refer to the treatment of "less derived" taxa as primitive, you overemphasise this as a feature of the prosimian debate, when in fact it is a recurring feature of all discussions of so-called living fossils, as well as many other "basal" taxa. I think that generality should be expressed. You may also want to be careful when you later yourself use the term "primitive" repeatedly. It may be better to find alternative phrasings so as not to seem self-contradicting. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point on the use of "primitive"—I've changed it to "basal" where appropriate. In each of those cases, the most basal (known) members of the clade were being discussed. As for the relevance to many "living fossil" discussions, I completely agree... and I will try to find a good source for that over the weekend. (If you can suggest one, please do.) It's one of those topics in the sciences that needs to be discussed more, but often gets ignored because many researchers are too busy playing with their new toys (e.g. molecular clock dating) that they have largely discarded their old toys (paleontology & anatomical comparisons). Anyway, I'll see what I can do... assuming I can find a reliable secondary source that discusses the article in a professional, academic tone. – Maky ^« talk » 03:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Relevant note User:Sasata has chosen to express his opposition to my recommendation of alternating placement of images in the form of a revert war without constructive consensus-seeking. I was hoping that wikilawyering wouldn't hamper this nomination, but apparently that is what things are coming to. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness, you have never responded to my comment about the contradiction concerning this image's placement—see where I wrote: "As pointed out below, MOS:IMAGELOCATION..." I agree that Sasata probably should have commented here first. We can't achieve consensus if people don't reply to one another and if people handle discussions in edit summaries. The edit war was unfortunate, but I'm not going to get involved. I honestly feel that this is a very minor issue, especially given that MOS:IMAGELOCATION only makes recommendations, not absolute requirements. – Maky ^« talk » 14:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks done - I don't have access to these sources
• All sources look suitably scholarly and reliable
• Just one minor point: the format in ref 8 is slightly different from others with similar page ranges, e.g. 36, 43, 47 etc.

Fixed, I think. Thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 04:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise I think the sources are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Note about File:Paleogene-EoceneGlobal.jpg: This file was recently deleted from Commons due to a faked email in the OTRS ticket system. However, the file will be restored once I can get some help from a Commons admin and someone in OTRS. After discovering the deletion (which was too late for me to comment), I contacted the owner of the images and secured a release for the files involved. I'm hoping to have this file restored soon. – Maky ^« talk » 14:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed—Just waiting on OTRS to process the email I sent them. – Maky ^« talk » 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go (revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and post queries below: on comprehensiveness and prose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The very first sentence is too abrupt - I thought about combining it with the second but that makes quite a long one. I am thinking I'd rejig it thusly:

"Strepsirrhini.... is a suborder of primates which includes the lemuriform primates, which consist of the lemurs of Madagascar, galagos ("bushbabies") and pottos from Africa, and the lorises from India and southeast Asia. Also belonging to the suborder are the extinct adapiform primates, a diverse and widespread group that thrived during the Eocene (56 to 34 million years ago (mya)) in Europe, North America, and Asia, but disappeared from most of the Northern Hemisphere as the climate cooled."

Good suggestion. Done. – Maky ^« talk » 01:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe mention the fact it is one of two somewhere near the mention of "primitive" and prosimians - then you have all the context of the group in primates as a whole in the one segment of lead.

I've done my best. Please let me know if this reads better. – Maky ^« talk » 01:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

their "wet nose" - why in quotation marks?

Don't know... guess I wanted to highlight it as a colloquial term. Quotes removed. – Maky ^« talk » 01:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The last of the adapiforms died out at the end of the Miocene (~7 mya), - I don't think that sits terribly well where it is, just add the date up to the top as this is evolution-related where as the current threats are more man-made - they're not really related.

Hmmm... not sure if I agree, but it's been moved regardless. To me, that last sentence spelled out the current situation for both major branches of strepsirrhines and fit well together. But this works, too. – Maky ^« talk » 01:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise lead looks ok. More to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In the Etymology (and probably elsewhere) I think adding a descriptor to a person is helpful for most readers "american naturalist/french explorer/etc."

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 01:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that this sentence Extant (living) strepsirrhine primates, are not "evolutionary holdovers" of a "primitive condition" from which the simians and their adaptations later evolved. adds anything that the sentence following doesn't explain.

True. Removed. – Maky ^« talk » 01:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

surprising and disputed divergence dates - the adjectives here - are they needed? Why not let the fact that the genetic evidence antedates the fossil evidence by 50 million years speak for itself....

Good point. Removed. – Maky ^« talk » 01:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

diurnal, small-bodied - i'd remove the comma here...makes the flow weird...

Removed. – Maky ^« talk » 01:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Summary on image placement So we seem to be at a point where, at the bottom of the article, we're just going to limply let the images hang on one side. The reason for rejecting the fix seems to be that there's no policy that says you must do otherwise. I find this notion highly ridiculous and not representative of what some other individuals manage to achieve with "their" articles, without policies telling them what to do. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen computers and the diversity of screens are making this quite tricky. I think sometimes all the headers make this difficult. The long thin images are tricky. I guess we could place the one in the conservation section on the left. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I say, the perfect solution has been proposed (other than adding an extra image) and edit-warred over because of a misunderstanding, by one editor, of what the guideline is trying to achieve. What you propose has also been tried and rejected in the course of events. I still think that true alternating placement with creatures facing into the page can be achieved. Samsara (FA • FP) 06:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored your suggested solution. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a problem now because the subheaders are pushed in because of the left-aligned images. This can be easily fixed by making it right-aligned. Additionally, the placement of the Geoffroy picture contravenes "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text." in WP:IMAGELOCATION. Sasata (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That is true: MOS:IMAGELOCATION does note that this applies to "any section or subsection". Also, the part about faces facing the text starts: "It is often preferable..." Preferable doesn't trump statements that explicitly say to avoid doing something. I also don't think the following statement trumps the line you quoted either: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left." Saying they can be is different than saying they should or must be. Again, I don't see why this is being made such a major issue when the *guideline* is so relaxed. There have been many times that I personally would have liked to have seen my suggestions implemented in an article I was reviewing at FAC, but because it wasn't policy and the editor disagreed, I let it go. Either way, I'm going to leave the images in place pending further discussion. – Maky ^« talk » 21:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• There are a great many duplicate links in the article. Some are because of tables linking the same items in the same section, and some may or may not be justified on other grounds. I removed a couple but you'll have to go through the rest of the article and see what can go. If you don't have the duplink checker, it can be found here.

I will take another look at the duplicate links in just a moment. I thought the ones that remain were mostly due to tables and how I often treat the lead separate from the body. – Maky ^« talk » 13:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, the dupes are fixed. Those that remain are where different but related words link to the same article, or the links occur first in a caption. – Maky ^« talk » 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• I note the image placement discussion above. Irrespective of MOS guidelines, it's difficult to achieve the ideal solution for every possibility, and as long as hard-and-fast rules are not being broken, this is not something that will have a significant bearing on promotion.
• On a more pressing subject, how close are we to resolving any outstanding issues from the oppose above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am hoping this morning to address concern about the lack of details about the following statement in the text: "Adapiformes are distinguished from the Eocene omomyiforms by distinctive features of their tarsus (foot bones)." I've found a source that writes at length about it, so I am trying to understand these fine details and incorporate them. I think that was the last of the explicit concerns... aside from a request for illustrations or a cladogram that could clarify what the text is saying. Regarding that, the topic is too complex and far from black and white, and hence no textbooks have offered similar illustrations. All you can do is oversimplify the anatomical comparisons, and that's the very knot this article was written to untie. – Maky ^« talk » 13:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Details have been added. Awaiting any further specific comments. – Maky ^« talk » 15:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the nom has remained open quite long enough for any further issues, or for concerns with actions re. earlier issues, to be raised. Thanks to all the reviewers for their time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - As a non-expert in all things zoology but a frequent reader of Maky's articles, I found this article comprehensive and easy to read, beautifully illustrated, very well referenced as always (all the journals cited are solid), and firmly up to the high standards of the FA process (and Maky himself). The concerns raised by earlier reviewers also appear to be adequately addressed in my view. - Lemurbaby (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Support -- I have examined the comments made above and note that this candidacy is opposed by Samsara on several grounds which Maky has made every effort to address. I do not believe that the placing of the images is an issue that is critical to the success of this candidacy. Samsara states "On closer inspection, the text has a number of major flaws." He then mentions several (in my view minor matters) and adequate responses seem to have been made to these. He then states "Hopefully, these examples show what you've been missing, and you can fix the text to a higher standard by yourself/ves". He does not go on to state any other deficiencies in the text however and leaves his "oppose" in place.

Looking at Samsara's recent contributions I note that he seems to be taking a wikibreak and has not performed any edits in the last eleven days. I think it would be a great pity if this excellent, comprehensive, well written article failed to achieve FA status after all the effort made in resolving the issues raised. I support its candidacy wholeheartedly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.