Talk:Conservation of slow lorises/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Visionholder in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 21:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll claim this review. Ucucha 21:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • "The gall bladder of the Bengal Slow Loris (Nycticebus bengalensis) has historically been used to make ink for tatoos by the village elders in Pursat-Koh Kong Provinces."—of what country (the link is red)? Also, why specify the species here when you don't do so for the other records in the same section?
    I tried to provide specific detail when given in the sources. Otherwise, general detail is provided. Also, some species overlap in range, so it may be whatever species is available. If you have suggestions on how to make it look more presentable, I'm open to what you have to say. Also, I didn't realize it, but "Pursat-Koh Kong" was two neighboring provinces, so I split them. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "A report in 2010 by Nekaris et al. reported that Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand were the primary exporters of slow lorises, with Singapore and Malaysia also involved."—does Singapore still have native loris populations, or is it a transit port?
    I was about to say it must be a transit port, but higher up in the source article it reads: "We focus on the period 1978–2007 (inclusive) with 2007 being the last year for which data are available, and focus on all 15 loris range countries (Sri Lanka, India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, China [excluding Taiwan, Hong Kong, andMacau], Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam, and the Philippines)." – VisionHolder « talk » 01:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Apparently, there are lorises there, though the population is at least partially exotic. Surprising. Ucucha 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for pointing to the source. I will be sure we reference it in that species' article. However, do you suggest a change in the article? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think so. The article suggests (or at least, implies) hybridization with non-native slow loris species as a possible threat, but that's already mentioned in this article. Otherwise, it's not too important for this larger-scale article. Ucucha 01:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Alright. If others disagree, I'm sure it will come up at FAC. Thanks for your input. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Under "Conservation efforts", is there anything to say about N. pygmaeus?
    Thanks. I also didn't get anything about the Bengal slow loris there, so I found a common issue and noted them both together. Let me know if that's sufficient. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • You say almost the same thing about the Bengal slow loris under "Conservation efforts" ("The outlook for the Bengal slow loris is more optimistic than for other species since it can be found in more low-risk areas.") and about the Bornean under "Threats in wild" ("The Bornean Slow Loris (N. menagensis) was in a better situation since much of its range consists of low-risk areas.")
    Amazing catch! Your memory is phenomenal! I revisited the sources and have made the correction. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, but is there any reason to keep the same information in both sections? Ucucha 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    I'm most tempted to remove it from the "Conservation efforts" section, which negates the previous point. Do you see any problems with me deleting the newly added statement and the duplicated info? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    I think the information is more appropriate for "Threats in the wild" than for "Conservation efforts", so I agree. Ucucha 01:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    In that case, the redundant information has been removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ucucha 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

In general, the article is very good, and I'd be at least close to supporting at FAC. Ucucha 22:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the fixes; I'm now passing the article as a GA. Ucucha 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply