Talk:Silky sifaka

Page start

Any critiques of this page are welcome. It still needs a picture in the taxabox, and the references need to be tightened up (ideally removing the long list of footnotes). I will continue to improve it over the next few days. Akelly7 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Andrew

Great start for the page, I've added a picture from the commons. Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this the Time Paradox lemur?

Quick question: Is this the silky sifaka lemur from Artemis Fowl: The Time Paradox? Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.66.117 (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

All sifakas are lemurs, so I would say yes. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.66.117 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Map of distribution?

Are there any maps of the range of the silky sifaka? I would really like to see one.The Blue Bucket (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Eventually, I plan to add range maps to all lemur pages. Until I can get around to it, check out the SAVA Region and it's map. The Silky Sifakas are found in the western part of that region, from Marojejy National Park and stretching slightly south. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but a range map has been added. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment, comments, and the article's future

In reviewing some of the inflated class assessment ratings on the Indriidae-related articles, I have opted to leave this article as B-class despite some problems with the references. (There are too many "personal communication" refs, which need printed sources instead.) I know the article's author (Erik Patel) personally, and he is the top researcher in the field on this species. This article is my next major project to clean up and take to FA, and I have Patel's full support and he has granted me access to all of his papers. Given the rush of GAC nominations following the decision to add the GA icon to GA articles in the main space, I am requesting that this article not be nominated at this time. Again, its status as a B-class article is questionable, though the content is truly superb. Please be patient and within a month or two, this article should be working its way to the top. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am slowly beginning the clean-up work on this article. The lead needs to a serious review, if not a complete re-write. It may contain information not in the body, which will need to be fixed. (Ultimately, the lead should not require any refs because the information should be cited in the body.) The Distribution section also contains "how-to" and travel information for viewing the species... but Wiki is not a How-to manual or travel guide. I'm also going to gradually start cleaning up the references. After all of that, I plan to comb the literature for new updates on the species. Progress may be slow, and I apologize. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The clean-up process is complete. I'm now submitting this article for GAC. I am also including Simponafotsy in the GAC due to his huge contributions, despite the fact that he may not have time to help out any further. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving abstracts

Many of the abstracts cited in the article are currently available online, as seen in the References section. However, I have contacted the people who run those web sites, and they have told me that they do not consider those pages to be archives. In fact, they were surprised that the content was still available. Tomorrow night, I plan to use WebCite to archive every one of the abstracts. However, if someone else has time and is willing to help out, I'd greatly appreciate it. Also, the same goes for that Marojejy brochure... assuming it flies as a valid ref. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

All cited conference abstracts have been archived and linked. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 06:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you have nbsp's between genus name and species name (for example, Propithecus candidus)

  I think I got carried away. I noticed that things like P. candidus didn't look good split between lines, so I added the nbsp to help keep them together. But they definitely don't matter with the full name. Do you feel I should remove them from the abbreviations as well? – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  No, they should be there when it's abbreviated. Thanks for the fix. Ucucha 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think they live in pairs, not in pair bonds. If you wish to link to pair bond, the sentence will need to be reworded.

  Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you're going into too much detail with the tours made by local children.

  I'm open for suggestions. I've trimmed a lot of details out of Patel's work as it stands. The source does go into such details about Silky Sifaka conservation efforts. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Well, let's leave it. Not sure though. Ucucha 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some citation niggles: you cite one Fieldiana Zoology ref with "new series", the other without it. Also, both of those are available at the Biodiversity Heritage Library, so you can link them. Some abstracts are cited with their page numbers in supplements, others without.

  The first point is fixed. I searched the Biodiversity Heritage Library and couldn't find anything related to them. How did you search for them? Also, the ones that don't have page numbers are PDF files and link to a conference, yet Patel's citation lists them as published in a journal. So is it {{cite conference}} or {{cite journal}}? I can't do both. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  They are listed as parts of larger works; see here, for example; you'll have to open the Marojejy paper and find the primate part. Ucucha 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  I still have no idea how you found these. Anyway, they've been linked. But with those citations, it raises the question of whether they should be listed under books or remain with the journals. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  I know that all Fieldiana volumes are at BHL; is that what you meant? Ucucha 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  No, my citations use either {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}}. I'm not sure which to use in this case. I thought they were journal articles, but these look like books. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  That's the problem with those templates. :-) I'd use journal; it's easier. Ucucha 18:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• File:Pd_candidus_AGrandidier.jpg should specify who the author is in order to claim PD for death of author + 70 years.

  To do so, I would have to determine the year of the author's death. But is that Becquet (whoever that is?), who did the lithograph, or Bocourt and Faguet? If it's the latter, which date of death do I go by? The most recent, I assume? – VisionHolder « talk » 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Everyone who made a copyrightable contribution to the lithograph must have been dead for 70 years. What did Faguet do?

  Faguet & Bocourt are listed as "authors". Neither of them are a problem, and I assume that I use the latest date. I'm just not sure who Becquet is and how to determine that person's year of death. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, it's probably a company. Ucucha 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  I've adjusted the licensing. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  What do you mean? I see no edits at Commons. Ucucha 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  I think Visionholder made the edits from an IP address, and they were reverted. I've added all the appropriate information now. —innotata 17:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. I think everything is looking good now, so I'll pass the GA. Ucucha 17:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 06:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing (I guess I hadn't looked below the references yet): there are probably too many external links. I think some are used as references, or should be, and do the others all add something that is not in the article? Ucucha 17:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get home from work. If I can expand the article using some of those links as sources, then I will. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

About his critical situation

In the first paragraph of the presentation we can read: It is one of the rarest mammals on earth, nevertheless, in Conservation section "only" it say that it is one of the rarest and most critically endangered lemurs. Since it is a very significant fact, if there are references that sustain it perhaps it would be good to add in Conservation his consideration as one of the rarest mammals of the world. If this fact is not added in the Conservation section, I think it would be necessary to add a reference in the presentation. --Furado (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)