Talk:Gerp's mouse lemur/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Review to follow soon. I've got access to the original article, so don't worry about sending it to me. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Its discovery was announced in 2012" Is this strictly true, considering the paper was online at the end of 2011?

That is a good point... but tricky. I guess it will ultimately depend on what the final citation looks like. Even the citation you can download from Springer doesn't give a year. This, like the page numbers for the citation, may have to wait 'til the print copy comes out. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• "forests' lemurs." Only one forest, so forest's?

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The discovery was published in the journal Primates in 2012." It's yet to be published?

Same as the first point. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The fur is darker on the back" Darker than other lemurs, or darker than the fur elsewhere on its body?

Replaced "the" with "its". – VisionHolder « talk » 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• "including three eastern species—Simmons' mouse lemur, Jolly's mouse lemur, the northern rufous mouse lemur (M. tavaratra), and MacArthur's mouse lemur (M. macarthurii)" That's four?

Good catch! Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• What do you mean by a "group" of larger lemurs? Taxonomically?

It seems like an artificial grouping based on morphology, per the cladogram in the article. Nested within the clade that has most of these species is Madame Berthe's mouse lemur, the smallest primate. The paper itself just uses the term "group". – VisionHolder « talk » 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• You note "...although such data may help support its species status". Is the status controversial in any way? Are the authors tentative?
• "(known locally as savoka)" The cultivation is, the secondary forest is, or that particular forest is?

Per the paper: "the transitional secondary vegetation after the forest has been cut down for the cultivation of rice". To me, that means the secondary forest as a result of rice cultivation. Hmmm... I'll have to think about how to reword that, unless you have an obvious suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• "(smaller than the island of Puerto Rico)" Why do you meantion this, sorry?

The publication mentions this to give people a reference for scale. Likewise, I think it helps our readers understand the size of the area we are talking about. Furthermore, the DYK hook makes use of this small range and the comparison. It could be removed, but we will also have to fix the DYK hook. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm really sorry to do this, but I'm concerned about the copyright status of the images. You have a release from GERP, but the pictures appear to have been originally published in Primate, which is quite clearly copyrighted to "Japan Monkey Centre and Springer 2011". Can you shed any light on this?

This is an interesting point. Once you publish your photos in a journal, do you sign over the copyright? If so, many lemur photos I've secured rights for would need to be taken down. Researchers often have 1 or 2 good photos of the various lemur species, and these are often used in many publications. These are also the photos that they share when I make photo requests. Incidentally, one of the photos is also used in the ScienceDaily article. Does this mean both publishers own the copyright? I suspect the original photographer still holds the copyright, and these publishing companies are printing the image with their permission. Anyway, the sources of these images were mentioned in the OTRS submission, and that reviewer saw no problems. Either way, before we start removing the images, we should verify with people involved directly in establishing Wikipedia image usage policy. If they rule against these images, again, many primate photos will have to be removed, and I will have to go back to the researchers and photographers and say, "Sorry, because you shared those photos with other publications, we can't use it on Wikipedia. Could you go back into the field and take some more photos strictly for sharing under CC-BY-SA?" That doesn't make sense to me. In my attempts to publish articles in journals, I have never seen a rights waiver for the photos I submit. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I have submitted this question to Springer for clarification on their copyright. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to note that I have followed WP:COPYREQ to the letter. If Wikipedia administrators want to exclude images that have already been published in other sources, then they need to note as such on that page. (They should also do their homework and determine which, if any, publishers ask their contributors to waive their personal rights to photos or other content.) Anyway, I hope that helps with your case as well... – VisionHolder « talk » 19:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I believe there's a category for those species which are not evaluated in terms of conservation?

Technically, "Data Deficient" is a category applied by the IUCN. Since the species is new, the IUCN hasn't ruled on it. Therefore it is "Not Evaluated."

• Your plan concerning the source formatting seems sensible
• Some spot-checks reveals no copyright problems
• Perhaps you could pad the last para of the lead with a mention of what isn't known about the species?

Done. Let me know if that's good. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. Sorry about the image thing- I faced something similar with Xeromphalina setulipes. J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I am busy today, but will try to get around to addressing the issues tomorrow evening. However, I have tried to address the issues that would pertain to this article's DYK nomination. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I want to apologize for not getting to all of this before the DYK or the blackout, but the last few days have been busier than I expected. Once Wiki is back up, I will start making changes. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to promote now, knowing that you will deal with source formatting and year when the paper is properly published. However, the images concern me, and so until we can be sure about who does own the copyright, I'm not sure I'm prepared to promote. While the images do drastically improve the article, I don't want us to be using them unless we're certain that they're free. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear back from Springer, so if you could put me in touch with the person/group who raised the concern with you, I will gladly take it up with them. At this point, by how you defined it, two different companies hold the copyright... which can't be right. I'm pretty confident that the rights are still owned by the photographer and his research group. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to contact Springer, and found them quite unresponsive, surprisingly. It was Ucucha who pointed out the issue to me. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I suspect Springer is not going to reply to either of us. However, I still stand by what I said. I'm pretty sure the text of the article falls under their copyright and the images are owned by the photographer. For example, ScienceDaily, which uses the same images from the journal article says: "All content on ScienceDaily and affiliated web sites -- including, but not limited to, the home page, news headlines and summaries, articles, images, videos, and computer coding -- is protected by copyright either by ScienceDaily LLC or its contributors, licensors, partners and sponsors." (source) I am very certain the photographer did not sign over their rights to their photo by publishing it with the article. Given that there is no clear indication that the photographer has signed over the rights to the image, and that I have followed the guidelines at WP:PERMISSION, I think we should be okay. If needed, we can post the question at WP:MCQ. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I'm happy with what you say. Note that others may be less so, and it may well come up again come FAC time, if you send the article there. I'm promoting now, as I'm happy that you will do the necessary fiddly updating when the print copy of the article comes out. Nice work, and sorry about the delay! J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It's best to be safe. I may post the question at WP:MCQ anyway. Thanks for the review! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)