Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Babakotia/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 04:15, 8 March 2010 [1].

Babakotia edit

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

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 06:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all of the FAC criteria. It is a small article, but per WP:VSFA, I feel that it should still be considered. It covers all available published research, and I have every intention to maintain it. Admittedly, there are "detailed skull and dental descriptions available" (per hidden comment within the article), but the information would add maybe a couple sentences, but would be far above the level of the current article. Here is a quote of the material that is not included:

"Babakotia has especially elongated upper premolars with shallow paracristas and metacristas; a mesial projection of the crown of the anterior upper premolar well beyond the mesial root of the tooth; fine enamel crenulations on the occlusal surfaces of the molars; incipient bilophodonty of the second maxillary molar; and a relatively large upper third molar with four distinct cusps." (Nowak, 1999)

If you feel that this last piece of missing information is needed to meet FAC criteria, I will find a way to decipher all of it and include it. But like I said, it's probably far above the level of the rest of the article and would have little meaning to most readers. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (though note that I did the GA review, provided some sources, and copyedited the article). Well-referenced, well-written, and comprehensive. Images also look good (one has OTRS pending). Ucucha 04:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Comment. (No dab links, no dead external links, alt text good [I wrote it myself].) I did the GA review for this article and I believe it is well-written, but not quite comprehensive yet. For example in the Godfrey and Jungers piece I sent you (p. 102), there is some additional information about the history of its discovery that you could mention. Their description (p. 110) also has some additional details that you could include, such as the crenulation of the teeth, which is apparently an adaptation for shearing. I notice that they give the dental formula as 2.1.2.32.0.2.3 × 2 = 30, perhaps reflecting a different view on the homology of the second tooth in the toothcomb. Ucucha 12:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I forgot that source you scanned. I was saving it for when I start the Subfossil lemur page in a couple of weeks, primarily because you had to scan some of the pages upside down, which means I have to print them to read them. Anyway, I'm printing it all now and will make the additions shortly. Thanks for the reminder! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been added, as well as the ones you sent me via email. Let me know if you approve. There have also been some other tweaks, including a switch to LDR in referencing. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks! Two points in the new prose that I don't like: "The discrepancy represents uncertainty over whether an incisor or canine tooth is not replaced in the permanent dentition." is probably difficult to understand, can you recast it? And "perfect for grasping" sounds odd. Perhaps "adapted for grasping"? Ucucha 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt to fix these. I've also added a "range map" showing the two known fossil sites. Let me know if you find anything else. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few more changes. I don't have any more issues (the range map is a great addition, thanks!) and am happy to support. Ucucha 04:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copyediting, contributions, assistance with the research, and support. This article looks great thanks to you! – VisionHolder « talk » 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks pretty good, all I can offer are minor niggles. Sasata (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the opening sentence, I would consider unlinking extinct (everybody knows what that means, right?) and linking genus (I can see some people not knowing what that means)
  • "…that includes a single species…" I think if you look at the definition of include, you may come to the conclusion (as I have) that this is perhaps not the best verb to use. "Include" implies that this is one part of a whole… perhaps "contains"?
  • "It lived in the northern part of the island and shared its range…" How about changing "the island" to Madagascar, since it hasn't been mentioned since the last paragraph?
  • etymology section: link species name, maybe infraorder
  • "…yet differed by having more robust and specialized skulls." What makes a skull more robust? (and more specialized, for that matter)
  • …the ancestral indriids were not "ricochetal leapers" like living androids" ricochetal will need a link or def'n
  • "…indriids that helps improve survivability" -> "indriids that improves survivability"
  • since the article is fairly short, is there any chance of including some details about the initial discovery of the subfossil remains? Who found it? What institution were they associated with? Any there any interesting newspaper reports that could be used as sources?
  • references:
  • why does ref #6 give 1 author and et al., while ref #1 gives eight + et al.?
  • page numbers for ref #6?
  • issue # for refs#10, 13, 15, 25?
I think pretty much everything has been fixed per your suggestions. Thank you very much for your keen eye and excellent copy-editing. In particular, thank you for catching the mistakes in Ref #6. It was an old copy of the ref and I hadn't updated it in a long time. The two points you asked for expansion are the only things I have not fixed. I have searched exhaustively for details on the discovery and included all that I can find. If there is more in the original paper that described the species, then I don't have access to it. (I can't even provide a DOI.) I will try to email the author and see if she has it, but I think the last time we discussed it, she said she would have to scan it in. As for the robust, specialized skulls, that is loosely covered in the "Anatomy and physiology" section. I didn't want to go into that in the "Classification and phylogeny" section. Also, the details on that are equally as challenging as what I typed above as an example of the gory details about "skull and dental descriptions." Honestly, I'm not sure if I can translate it into anything meaningful to a normal reader. I think that material is intended more for people to analyze in future research rather than be digested by the casual reader. Does that answer your questions? – VisionHolder « talk » 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but now I've got new questions :) Sasata (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phylogenetic tree for the Palaeopropithecidae at the Tree of Life site seems to be different than the one presented in this article. Comments?
  • Obligatory check for 1b and 1c: Why aren't these research articles used as sources?
Title: Ontogeny and Phyletic Size Change in Living and Fossil Lemurs
Author(s): Ravosa, MJ; Daniel, AN
Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY Volume: 72 Issue: 2 Pages: 161-172 Published: 2010
Title: The semicircular canal system and locomotion: The case of extinct lemuroids and lorisoids
Author(s): Walker, A; Ryan, TM; Silcox, MT, et al.
Source: EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY Volume: 17 Issue: 3 Pages: 135-145 Published: 2008
Title: The extinct sloth lemurs of Madagascar
Author(s): Godfrey, LR; Jungers, WL
Source: EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY Volume: 12 Issue: 6 Pages: 252-263 Published: 2003
Title: Environmental change, extinction and human activity: evidence from caves in NW Madagascar
Author(s): Burney, DA; James, HF; Grady, FV, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF BIOGEOGRAPHY Volume: 24 Issue: 6 Pages: 755-767 Published: NOV 1997
Title: SUBFOSSIL INDRI-INDRI FROM THE ANKARANA MASSIF OF NORTHERN MADAGASCAR
Author(s): JUNGERS, WL; GODFREY, LR; SIMONS, EL, et al.
Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Volume: 97 Issue: 4 Pages: 357-366 Published: AUG 1995
Title: A NEW SPECIES OF MESOPROPITHECUS (PRIMATES, PALAEOPROPITHECIDAE) FROM NORTHERN MADAGASCAR
Author(s): SIMONS, EL; GODFREY, LR; JUNGERS, WL, et al.
Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY Volume: 16 Issue: 4 Pages: 653-682 Published: AUG 1995
Title: LIMB JOINT SURFACE-AREAS AND THEIR RATIOS IN MALAGASY LEMURS AND OTHER MAMMALS
Author(s): GODFREY, LR; SUTHERLAND, MR; PAINE, RR, et al.
Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Volume: 97 Issue: 1 Pages: 11-36 Published: MAY 1995
Title: A NEW GIANT SUBFOSSIL LEMUR, BABAKOTIA, AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE SLOTH LEMURS
Author(s): SIMONS, EL; GODFREY, LR; JUNGERS, WL, et al.
Source: FOLIA PRIMATOLOGICA Volume: 58 Issue: 4 Pages: 197-203 Published: 1992
Title: PHYLOGENETIC AND FUNCTIONAL AFFINITIES OF BABAKOTIA (PRIMATES), A FOSSIL LEMUR FROM NORTHERN MADAGASCAR
Author(s): JUNGERS, WL; GODFREY, LR; SIMONS, EL, et al.
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 88 Issue: 20 Pages: 9082-9086 Published: OCT 1991
To answer your first question, I was under the impression that Tree of Life was not up-to-date. (I read it somewhere on their site once.) Sure enough, if you look at the references, the newest reference for their cladogram is 2003. There have been some very important papers published since then regarding phylogeny. The answer to your second question comes in 3 parts:
  1. I guess I'm using Google Scholar incorrectly, because some of these did not pull up when I did an advanced search. I'm sorry, but I do not have access to a nice academic-level library search engine.
  2. Many of the articles are not freely available to me. Again, I lack the free access that you have. Technically, I can go to Duke University, spend 30 minutes looking for a parking spot, pay $2 or more for an hour, and then have to come out and move my car due to time restrictions. Anyway, from the abstracts of most of those articles, Babakotia is not directly mentioned. I suspect there is very little information in them to be had. However, I invite you to email me as many of these articles in PDF if you want. I will gladly include whatever I can scrape out of them.
  3. The last article in the list is cited within this FAC.
There is one article that is a freely available PDF that I have not seen. I will skim it now and see if I can add new material. Please watch for my edit. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... just read the "The Extinct Sloth Lemurs of Madagascar" article and it provides no new information. If I include it, it would only add a citation to the list at the bottom and an inline citation to statements that are already well-sourced. I strongly suspect that most of the other sources you've listed will give the same result. But again, please send me anything and everything you want looked at. I don't mind trying! Every Wiki article I write teaches me something new about lemurs, and by scraping up every detail from every source, I walk away not only with FAs, but a lot of very interesting and sometimes useful information. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send a few to you. I also think they won't add much, if any, information not already in the article. Ucucha 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the tree, the one this article uses is only more resolved than the one from TOL (and supported by solid refs); there are no contradictions regarding relationships. Ucucha 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I looked at the "The Extinct Sloth Lemurs of Madagascar" article too, and it answered one of the questions I had above (Q:"Who found it?" A:"Beginning in the early 1980s, Elwyn Simons launched a series of expeditions to..."). I also found out that the lemur ate leaves, something not mentioned in the article. I agree, most of these article won't add much information, but so what? How can one claim the article is well-researched if these research articles haven't even been checked (Remember the claim at the FAC intro: "It covers all available published research"). Sorry, I'm not trying to make life hard for you, I just want to be sure the articles are the best I can help them be before I offer my support. Also, any additional research you do for specific articles, like you said, is bound to help with the big picture as you write the longer more general articles. (My offer still stands to help you get any articles or abstracts you can't find yourself). Sasata (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just email me a PDF of "The Extinct Sloth Lemurs of Madagascar" article and I'll add that tidbit in. I also have a very small addition to make based on some articles Ucucha just sent. As for the leaf-eating, the article does mention folivory with a wiki-link. Do you want me to say "folivore (leaf-eater)" instead? – VisionHolder « talk » 15:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article sent. Sorry, I missed the leaf-eating mention in the lead, and didn't recognize what folivore meant later :) Sasata (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three new sources have been added as well as a couple new sentences and enhancements. I hope you approve. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for adding the extra info. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to mention that they lived in the Holocene, and that fossils have also been found in Andrafiabe and Anjohibe caves. Might also be good to mention that this area is limestone, and has been the source of numerous other fossil lemur finds. Anyway, thanks for putting up with me, I'm satisfied with respect to 1b/c now and am happy to support. Sasata (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the limestone caves and Holocene as requested. Thanks again for the thorough review! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only physical dimension given is skull length. I thing in an animal's FA we are entitled to know how large it was! Johnbod (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but that is absent from nearly all the subfossil lemur literature. They all give estimates on weight, but not on other dimensions, probably because it depends on the exact posture of the animal. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support has been thoroughly reviewed, and meets the FA criteria if an article of this length can. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, there is massive white space on Internet Explorer (not Firefox or Safari) between the beginning of the section "Classification and phylogeny" and the text, caused by the placement of the images and charts. No matter how many Wikipedians prefer Firefox or Safari, IE is still the most popular browser, so most of our readers will see this white space. I don't know how to telll you to fix it, but fixin' it needs ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I introduced an alternate layout. Ucucha 03:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked it mildly, but please revert me if you need. FYI, I have put Smokeybjb in touch with Dr. Godfrey and from the emails I've seen go back and forth tonight, there may be a new life restoration of Babakotia coming out very soon. (Very exciting, btw. Given the collaboration that has gone into it, Wiki may soon host the most accurate life restoration of this lemur found in any source.) Once the restoration is complete, it will go in the taxobox, and the skull may go immediately under the anatomy heading. I've tested the idea out and it looks okay to me. Will it be okay if the skull immediately follows the Anatomy heading? If so, I will make that change as soon as Smokeybjb finishes the restoration. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sweet! Sasata (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great! I'm sure we'll find a good layout to accommodate that.
          • What about omitting the specific names for Babakotia and Archaeoindris from the cladogram? That would make it possible to make the cladogram a bit narrower (it is too large, I think) without causing line breaks. Ucucha 16:21, 7 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Babakotia/archive1&oldid=1078786246"