Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Silky Sifaka/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 SandyGeorgia 13:56, 15 August 2010 [1].
Silky Sifaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC), Simponafotsy[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC guidelines and should cover all the available literature on the species. The article's original author and co-nom (Simponafotsy or Erik Patel) is also the world's leading authority on this species. I have since adjusted the wording (to differ from some of the sources, which he also wrote), reviewed all the literature and sources, significantly expanded the taxonomy section (with Ucucha's assistance), and cleaned up the references. I will be handling the majority of the FAC comments, but Simponafotsy also deserves a lot of credit. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comments and suport: fascinating article, thanks for your work. Note: it's the first time I comment here and English is not my native language, so feel free to ignore any inappropriate comments.
- Your comments and review is greatly appreciated. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
section Etymology: "sericeus" is Greek for "silk". It's not exactly Greek for silk I think, but rather derived from.- You are correct. I rephrased the sentence. Thank you! – VisionHolder « talk » 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
section Taxonomy: This description was based his on observations north of the Bay of Antongil in the last few months of 1870, is something wrong here?--Egmontaz♤ talk 05:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I omitted a word. Thanks for catching it. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing: In section Taxonomy, in the sentence The Silky Sifaka or Silky Simpona was tentatively described in 1871 by French naturalist... is there any reason to mention the alternative name (Silky Simpone) once again?--Egmontaz♤ talk 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The alternate name, Silky Simpona, is mentioned in the lead since a redirect exists for that name. However, the lead is only a summary and should not contain information cited in the body. I initially chose to put it in the Taxonomy section (early in the section's evolution), but I could just as easily mention it in the "Etymology" section. Either way, because it's so close to the lead, it may sound redundant. Is that okay? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfect, thank you. --Egmontaz♤ talk 14:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternate name, Silky Simpona, is mentioned in the lead since a redirect exists for that name. However, the lead is only a summary and should not contain information cited in the body. I initially chose to put it in the Taxonomy section (early in the section's evolution), but I could just as easily mention it in the "Etymology" section. Either way, because it's so close to the lead, it may sound redundant. Is that okay? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I did the GA review for this article and provided some other help, and I think it meets all criteria. Ucucha 07:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, thank you very much for your help, review, and support. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: Ref 6 lacks a publisher. Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been added. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well done. I love the sound samples. One minor thing. I just did a copyedit as I read, and my writer's ear aches from the expression "receiving aggression" but I'm not sure if this refers to aggression between members only, or if it can also include aggression between a group and other animals. Can you please find better language for this? I also put in one alt text image description. I'm not sure of FA's take on this but I do think we should make provisions for blind users wherever possible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support! Good comment, but it's also a tough one. I changed it to "after being the recipient of an aggressive encounter with another group member." The easiest way to say it is to say "after being attacked by another group member," but the word "attack" carries a lot of weight and may be too extreme. For example, aggression can include not only physical attacks but aggressive displays. I hope this will do. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you were having a mental block:-) I changed it it just "and after aggression between group members." Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was thinking about it from just one animal's perspective. Thanks for the fix. As for alt text, I used to provide it, but then there was this big discussion about it being used wrong, which led to its requirement being suspended. Until someone clearly defines how alt text should be used and the requirement reinstated, I've mostly avoided it. I do appreciate your addition, though. Alt text was always my least favorite thing to include because I was never certain what level of detail I should go into. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you were having a mental block:-) I changed it it just "and after aggression between group members." Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support! Good comment, but it's also a tough one. I changed it to "after being the recipient of an aggressive encounter with another group member." The easiest way to say it is to say "after being attacked by another group member," but the word "attack" carries a lot of weight and may be too extreme. For example, aggression can include not only physical attacks but aggressive displays. I hope this will do. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no significant problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written article, seems to fulfil the criteria. Jack (talk) 18:02, 15 August 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.