Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Subfossil lemur/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 Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [1].

---

Subfossil lemur

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

• Featured article candidates/Subfossil lemur/archive1

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 03:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FAC qualifications. Per the GAC comments, I acknowledge some lingering issues that are beyond our control. For one, the use of BP and BCE/CE can be a bit confusing, and I hope to convert all dates to BCE/CE in the near future. However, I have reason to believe that some researchers may have incorrectly used the BP timescale in their dating, and I am currently working with the experts who did the research to resolve these dating issues. Secondly, the last illustration is cited, but the artist recreated it in Photoshop from an illustration in the cited text. If this is not acceptable, I will remove it. I am also in touch with the experts to see if I can replace the graphic with something a little more specific to the Malagasy megafaunal decline. Aside from those questionable cases, I feel the article is ready for a FAC review. For everyone who's never heard of giant lemurs before, I hope you find the read enjoyable and educational. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport The style is in places that of an academic journal and this may be a difficult read for the layman whose first language is not English. Perhaps the introductory paragraphs of each section could use simpler language without losing the detail in the article? Mirokado (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I will revisit the lead and introductory paragraphs again tomorrow and see what I can do. Ironically, I was getting ready to open a discussion on the policy that dictates this (WP:NOT), and has subsequently created added hurdles for numerous scientific article FACs. I'll do what I can, especially since this is a more general topic (unlike the species articles). – VisionHolder « talk » 06:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have re-read the lead and introductory paragraphs, and I must admit that I don't see how they are too complex. There are a few advanced words, but in nearly all cases, the words were previously defined and linked. (Note: I was primarily looking at introductory paragraphs following level-2 headers, since subsections usually don't have as much of an introductory paragraph.) Could you please be more specific. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We cross-posted - please see continuation after the outdent below. I'll look through the article again concentrating on the other introductions. Mirokado (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I have visitors for the next few days I won't be able to spend much more time on this, so I am changing my response to support now. See final comments below. Good luck with the rest of this review. Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Section "Discovery and research": Please see {{Cquote}}—"This template should not be used for block quotations in article text." It looks as if you need {{Quote}} instead.

Thanks, I've got it fixed. I didn't realize there was a difference. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• "His discoveries in various marshes of central and southwestern Madagascar sparked paleontological interest,[15] resulting in an overabundance of taxonomic names and confused assemblages of bones from numerous species, including non-primates. With increased paleontological interest, specimens were distributed between European museums and Madagascar, often resulting in the loss of field data that went with the specimens, if the data had been recorded at all.[18]" Please try to avoid the repetition of "paleontological interest" (in any case a clumsy mouthful) in this para. I suspect the causes of the problems were more contemporary methodology and competition between museums for specimens, rather than the interest itself. If that or similar is correct, can it be made clearer? (Implied later in the article I think, but this para seems too tactful.)

I've removed the redundancy in that case, but the sources don't go into further details and although you are probably correct, I'm not sure if it's proper to put those words in their mouths. From the source, I believe they summarized using the expression "paleontological flurry". If you want an exact quote, I can provide it. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That is better now, thanks and the implications are clear enough I think. Mirokado (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Humbert and other botanists suggested that the central plateau had once been blanketed in forest, later to be destroyed by fire for use by humans. However, recent paleoenvironmental studies by Burney have shown that the grasslands of that region have fluctuated over the course of millennia and were created by humans.[15]" These two sentences both seem to say the grasslands result from human activity, so I don't understand the "However". Please clarify, in particular the pre-human flora and mechanism of the transformation in the second case.

Thanks for catching this. Some information got lost in translation. Let me know if the sentence still needs clarification. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Section "Discovery and research", the Flacourt quote again: The correct title is "Histoire de la Grande Isle Madagascar" without the initial l' or circumflex on isle, although you will find web pages with the misspelling or modern spelling. See the digitized original title page and this page which shows the spelling isle without circumflex also when uncapitalised. (The circumflex appears when an s has been elided, thus the modern French spelling une île.) I think it would add general interest to the article to link to this original document, as in this article on the French Wikipedia (although a link to the title page would be better than the preceding blank page with scribbles.) Mirokado (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about adding the circumflex. I was going off of this when I did it. Thanks for the clarification. My French has gotten a bit rusty. As for the link you suggest, I'm not sure if it merits a link to the entire book given the only subfossil lemur reference that I know of is quoted/translated in the article. Maybe I should offer the link on Étienne de Flacourt, and link to that article from the quote? – VisionHolder « talk » 17:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, adding the wikilink to Étienne de Flacourt with the quotation is an excellent idea. Please remove the ell-apostrophe from the title at the same time as it is not in the original. Mirokado (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. OK now. (I'll look over the article again once you have revised the intro paras...) Mirokado (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working on clarifying the text in the lead and introductory paragraphs. I'm out of time tonight—promised gf to spend time with her tonight—but I did read the lead and didn't see much that was difficult to understand, except maybe the word "clade", which is both linked and defined (informally) in the first half of the sentence. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• " There were three distinct families of giant lemur, including the Palaeopropithecidae (sloth lemurs), Megaladapidae (koala lemurs), and Archaeolemuridae (monkey lemurs). Two other types were more closely related and similar in appearance to living lemurs: the Giant Aye-aye and Pachylemur, a genus of "giant ruffed lemurs"." This is fine I think, giving a good overview. Is "type" a technical term or just informal here?

"Type" is general. Technically Pachylemur is a genus and the Giant Aye-aye is a species. I would say "taxa" (which is more correct), but that terminology has been criticized before as being too obscure. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"The sloth lemurs were most closely related to the living indriids (Indri, sifakas, and woolly lemurs), while the monkey lemurs were the next closest relatives of clade formed by the sloth lemurs and indriids. The koala lemurs were most closely related to family Lemuridae, which contains Pachylemur, the Ring-tailed Lemur, ruffed lemurs, true lemurs, and bamboo lemurs." I suggest you remove these sentences, they complicate the introduction too much. The previous sentence already provides an overview and the remaining detail should be added later in the article if any of it is currently missing. If you do want to retain any of this it would need a complete rewrite - no casual reader will be able to assimilate all these sentences as they stand. Mirokado (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree... phylogeny is only a small part of the article, yet it was receiving a fair chunk of the lead. Since it can't be summarized succinctly, it's been removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is OK now and "type" is fine. Mirokado (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Human and natural factors are generally agreed to have acted synergistically in the subfossil lemur extinction, yet studies of sediment cores have helped illuminate the initial sequence of events and provided a general timeline for the extinction event." A long fairly complicated sentence... Here is just a suggestion for an alternative ("while" signals a subordinate clause, a bit shorter):

"While it is generally agreed that both human and natural factors contributed to the subfossil lemur extinction, studies of sediment cores have helped to clarify the general timeline and initial sequence of events."

With that change or similar I agree that the section intros are now OK. Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I like your wording. It's been changed. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Minor changes: Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecology section: "lemurs species" --> "lemur species"

Seed dispersal: "Seed dispersal limitations tied to megafaunal extinction is exhibited by ..." "... limitations ... are..."

Characteristics: "evolutionary disequalibrium hypothesis" --> "evolutionary disequilibrium hypothesis"?

Excellent catches! Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Source comments:

• References
  • To what does "Mittemeier et al 2006" refer? No book corresponding to that is listed.

    Good catch! I'm surprised I omitted the most common reference I cite. Anyway, it's been added in. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• The list of cited books is in irregular format. It's not in alphabetical order, books are inset without explanation, there is bolded information about chapters which I can't follow, publishers are missing in numerous cases, as are ISBNs and publication dates. The list should be re-presented in a standard format that gives the required minimum information for each book: Author, date, title, publisher, ISBN, in alphabetical sequence by author.

The irregular format is something I developed due to a complex set of sources that I cite frequently. I have used this style of referencing on other major articles, such as Lemur and Lemur evolutionary history, and no one had any objections during their FACs. The problem is that my book sources are not simple books. Some easier ones consist of chapters written by different authors, which get separate citations. The most complex book, The Natural History of Madagascar is a massive book of "journal articles" organized into "chapters." To cite multiple articles from the book, I would be duplicating the book title, editor list, publisher, and ISBN multiple times in the references. To make it clearer, I used short citations for book material and linked from the short refs to the book material. Each contribution or chapter (depending on the book setup) is organized under the parent book. The books themselves should be in order by author or editor name, while the chapters and contributions are in order of appearance in the book. This reduces a lot of redundancy and helps people who are tracking these sources down realize that multiple references come from the same book. In short, it's complicated, but I have put a lot of time into devising this system. I've even had a few other authors adopt this system because they have found themselves in similar situations with complex sources. I've removed the bold chapter headings under the big book, and I am willing to condense books that just have one chapter or contribution cited, such as Extinction in Near Time or The Primate Fossil Record. But would like to maintain the structure for the books with multiple citations to multiple contributions. Also, I have fixed the missing publisher/date/ISBN problem for each of the books. Normally I provide that information, but I missed it somehow this time around. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Of the two articles you mention, Lemur evolutionary history apparently passed FAC without a sources review. As to Lemur, well, ahem, er... I did the FAC sources review and, as you say, raised no objections there. Obviously that was before my mind became dulled by checking out endless resources on endless FACs...Anyway, it's now clear to me how the list should be read, and you have tidied it and filled in missing information. The only puzzle is why the McPhee book isn't in its alphabetial sequence. Otherwise the matter is fully resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for not getting the MacPhee book in order. It was a late night last night and I didn't catch it when I double-checked everything. Six hours later, I'm just as asleep as I was then, so this reply will be all for me until I after I get a short nap later this afternoon. Maybe then I'll do a quick source review on Lemur evolutionary history to make sure I didn't screw anything up there. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reading is disjointed the ecology section calls for understanding about the animals that isn't explained until one gets to the characteristics subsection of diversity. Maybe a reconsideration to the ordering of the article sections but I'll leave that further thought.

  I'll take a look at this one tomorrow since it will require a bit of thinking and work, especially since it's getting late and I have to be up early in the morning. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  I agree that it might be better to flip-flop the Diversity and Ecology sections. However, I would like a few more opinions on this before doing it. If you don't mind, I'll encourage a discussion of it below and see what other people have to say first. The hardest part about the flip will be making sure all the wikilinks and explanations for advanced terms get mentioned with the first instance of the word(s). – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  I agree its not an easy move I'll wait for other reviewers suggestion Gnangarra 04:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fourteen of the approximately seventeen species known species had previously been identified from field work in southern, western, and central Madagascar.[18] is this an extra word or something missing Gnangarra 04:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for catching this. The word "species" was accidentally duplicated. It's been fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Section ordering
Reviewer Gnan suggested reversing the order of the sections "Ecology" and "Diversity" since the latter section describes the types of lemurs mentioned in the former section. I can understand the request, but I would like more feedback before making the swap. Any thoughts from other reviewers? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• specifically my issue is that the Ecology section makes presumptions on knowledge that isnt explained until later in the article. Gnangarra 04:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• I had not noticed a problem of forward references while reading those sections, but it is the case that the Diversity section with its descriptions of the animals is more directly related to the title of the article than Ecology so swapping them might improve readability generally. That change is not a condition of approval from my point of view though. Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the switch. I think I've also moved most of the links to cover first occurrences. Let me know how it looks. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine and reads well with the changes you have my support well done Gnangarra 03:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• extinct giant lemurs — query bolding, as I read it, giant lemur is not synonymous with subfossil lemur

"Subfossil lemur" generally refers to the giant lemurs. I used bold in that case because there is a redirect from Giant lemur to this page, and because in some instances, both on Wiki and in the literature, "giant lemur" is sometimes used—particularly when "subfossil lemur" is extended to cover the subfossil remains of living species. Does that make sense or give sufficient justification? – VisionHolder « talk » 13:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• that most giant lemurs had wide geographic ranges and that ranges of living species have contracted significantly since the arrival of humans. — suggest replacing first "range" with "distribution"
• either suggesting lingering populations or very recent extinctions. — suggesting either makes more sense
• like-sized — yuk, "similarly sized"?
• Still, much of the island, remained covered in forest, even into the 20th century ' — query second comma

All good catches! They've been fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

happy with replies, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FA Criteria 3 File:F_John_Series_2_Megaladapis_card_10.jpg should look into the text, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose WP:MOSIMAGES Fasach Nua (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, Fasach Nua. I missed your comment, which somehow got tucked in between everyone else's. Anyway, the image has been moved to the other side. In the future, if it ever appears that I've missed your comments, please put a note on my talk page. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was quite puzzled by this. Looking at the history, I realise that we both must have understood Fasach Nua's remark as "check the text accompanying the picture"! I certainly did (see replies below). Never mind, I had fun digging up the reference. Mirokado (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL! You're right, Mirokado—we both misunderstood. Now I understand what happened, so thanks! And thank you for the research into the image. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I searched Google books and couldn't find it. I did find something that "matched", but it did not have the photo, and I could not read German to figure it out. I've searched the web for information about the book itself, but found very little — just copies of the illustrations for sale and this video on YouTube showing more art by the artist supposedly from 1907. Although I can't give anything conclusive, it does look like the copyright has expired on the original. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing very helpful in the German text shown on that link, however this link shows a snippet from page 392 of a 1911 publication which translates:

published ...Theodor Reichardt ... Company in Wandbeck. This first series is now followed by a second, that lies before us in an elegant blue folder, for which we also express our thanks here. The title is Tiere der Urwelt in 30 art pages prepared according to scientific material. The sheets are 27 × 19 cm² in size with 20¹/₂ × 13 cm² actual picture size. The white frame causes the already strong chosen colours to stand out even more, so that to us the animals not only ... cle...

From this we can see that the second series was published in 1911 at the latest (date of publication according to the Google page—B.G. Teubner, 1911). I expect that inspection of the full document will reveal an explicit reference to the Megaladapis picture if that is also needed, since that was part of the search. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments I haven't read the above comments, so apologies if I've repeated stuff here: Sasata (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Solid research effort, meets all FAC criteria. Sasata (talk)
• can we spell out the date for late Pleistocene in the lead

Thanks for the review! I'm trying to add the date range (126,000 to 10,000 years ago), but it results in a confusing sentence because the range initially looks like the date range for the subfossils, not the geological stage. I've tried mentioning the oldest date for any subfossil remains instead. Let me know if that's better. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "ranging as high as 20 or more species per location, compared to 10 to 12 species today." prose awkward: ranging followed by a number usually uses "from" immediately after it, and I believe "compared with" is preferred grammatically over "compared to" in this instance (see here for explanation)

I added "from" and "with" per your comment. Does it still sound awkward? It sounds fine to me. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Extinct species ranged in size from slightly over 10 kg (22 lb) to roughly 200 kg (440 lb)." these are masses, not sizes (this usage is repeated later)

The sources talk about size in terms of mass. Technically, I don't see a problem with it. For example, a 30 kg cube made of the same material as a 5 kg cube would be considered larger. With animals, it's harder to compare size by anything other than mass. Try comparing an elephant to a giraffe. The giraffe is clearly taller, but the elephant weighs significantly more. The literature, I believe, would support me by claiming that the elephant is the largest living land animal in Africa. Anyway, I'll change the sentence to read "mass" to avoid any further confusion. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

One last thing about this, I think it should be mentioned somewhere early in the article that these are estimated masses based on ... whatever they do to estimate masses based on skeletal remains. I think currently it's implies that the reader would know that, but it should probably be made explicit somewhere. Sasata (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is explained in a source I do not have access to. (It's a chapter in a book.) I've emailed Dr. Godfrey since she's a coauthor, and I'm hoping she'll have a PDF copy to send to me. Once I have that, I will add the information you're requesting. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Godfrey sent me the chapter right away, so I've added the material. Please double-check me. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Even the subfossil remains of living species are larger and more robust than modern specimens." surely they're more robust than the remains of modern specimens, no?

Fixed.

• "ranges of living species have contracted significantly" living->extant?

Yes, but I was trying to minimize the number of "advanced words" in the lead to avoid issues we regularly face with academically advanced topics. If you feel it would not impede the average reader, you are welcome to change it to either "living (extant)" or "extant (living)". – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• link family

Done.

• "Although hunting and habitat change have been explored as the primary cause of their extinction," Don't understand "have been explored"… is "considered" a better choice here?

"Explored" could be changed to "investigated". "Considered" is a little too broad, and doesn't imply much research or debate has gone into it. I hope it is alright with you, but I will change it to "investigated." – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Yet oral traditions … are still reported" not clear what "oral traditions" are in this context

I think it means traditions pass down through oral history. It could also include oral history itself. I believe the sources (from the appropriate section) just say "oral traditions". Should I link to Oral tradition? – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should link to that, there hasn't yet been enough context established in the lead to ensure the average reader will know what this means (IMHO). Sasata (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The source (ref 46) reads: "There remains in portions of Madagascar an extensive oral tradition at the tribal level concerning some rather incredible beasts, including apparent mammals that seem to fit the description of giant lemurs." That's it. I could even find any examples ref 47. If I ever run across any, I'll be sure to add them in. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• "All 17 extinct lemurs were larger than the extant forms" the lead says the low end of the subfossil lemur range was 10 kg… are there really no current lemur species "larger" than that? Perhaps you could mention explicitly the largest of extant lemur species

I've done my best to address this in the body. If more detail is needed in the lead, just say. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Radiocarbon should be linked here on first mention

Fixed.

• Please split up the sentence beginning "In addition to being larger…" into smaller chunks… it's currently a paragraph's worth of information stuffed into one sentence connected by semicolons :)

Done. That reminds me of some era of literature I once had to read in college, where periods marked the end of a paragraph and semi-colons marked the end of "sentences." Dreadful! – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• link common name

I'm not sure if that's necessary, but it has been done. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Their diet consisted primarily of leaves, seeds, and fruit,[6][7] although dental wear analysis suggests they were primarily folivorous seed-predators." replace a "primarily"

Redundancy has been fixed to be less redundant. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• link folivore on first occurrence

Done.

• in the Monkey lemur subsubsection "…spending time in trees to feed and sleep." how do they know from subfossil evidence that this is the case?

I don't recall what the source said, but the skeletons suggest they had not fully adapted to terrestrial movement, and still retained the ability to climb in the trees. This would have allowed them to feed on fruits, seeds, and leaves more easily. Also, most primates sleep in trees for safety, even species that spend a lot of time on the ground. I think that's the official answer. Do I need to try to dig this up? I don't think the sources explicitly stated it. I think they just assumed their audience would be primatologists. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, just wondering. Sasata (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Alive when humans came to Madagascar, its teeth were collected and drilled to make necklaces." Was this the only species that had its teeth collected by humans?

It is the only one in the literature with such a mention. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Am I correct in assuming molecular data is only available on extant lemurs? This isn't clear in the phylogeny section.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. The "Phylogeny" section talks about relationships between the extinct subfossil lemurs (using molecular data), as well as placing other lemurs near living taxa, also using molecular data. From that, I would assume that DNA from both living and extinct species has been used. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• spiny forest should be linked in the "Living species" section rather than a section later

Good catch. I missed a link when I flip-flopped the level two sections.

• link radiated (adaptive radiation)

Done.

• "Thermoregulation may also have played a role." A role in what? There's lot's going on in the previous sentence.

Changed to "Thermoregulation may also have played a role in the evolution of their increased body size." Let me know if that is clearer. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "These wider distribution patterns among the extinct lemurs suggest that larger lemurs might have been more tolerant to ecological change than living lemurs." I don't see how this follows. Modern lemurs have had to live with humans, who are largely responsible for any "ecological change", so how it is possible to factor out the human influence and compare modern and extinct lemur's ability to adapt to environmental change?

I originally misinterpreted the source and have made changes. Please let me know if it makes more sense now. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• link isotope and carbon-13

Done.

• "although closely related sympatric species may have fed upon the two types of plants in different ratios in order to divide resources and coexist." this makes it sound like there was a deliberate agreement between the species to share their resources for their collective benefit ("…in order to…") how about something like "although closely related sympatric species may have fed upon the two types of plants in different ratios, allowing each to divide resources and coexist."

Excellent suggestion. Fixed.

• link biogeochemistry

The first occurrence is already linked (and explained) in the "Diet" section.

• "a closely related species in Africa that is still has its seeds" fix

Extraneous "is" removed.

• "More recently, electron microscopy has allowed researchers to study behavioral patterns" please elaborate

The source does not explicitly say, and the PDF copy of the source that I have only lists "primary references", which do not include references for that statement. To quote the source: "New research tools (such as electron microscopy and DNA amplification via polymerase chain reaction) have added to our ability to probe the lifeways and phylogenetic relationships of Madagascar’s extinct lemurs (Godfrey et al., 1997a; Yoder et al., 1999; Yoder, 2000; Jungers et al., 2001)." If you want my personal opinion, it probably means microwear analysis of teeth, which tells us what the animal ate. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "suggests the eastern rainforests were more disturbed in the past than they are today." clarify "more disturbed"

I provided a link to Disturbance (ecology). I hope that is sufficient. The source didn't elaborate. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• not quite sure how to interpret the radiocarbon dating graph. For example, there are five lines under Archaeolemur; does each represent a different species?

Each line is a separate radiocarbon date for an individual specimen. I tried adjusting the image caption, but I'm not sure if it helped. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• link bushmeat, extinction event

Linked "bushmeat", but not "extinction event". Extinction event refers to global mass extinctions, not local extinction events. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Megaladapis had the least frontated orbits of all primates" is frontated really a word?

That is the word from the source. "Frontate" is defined here, but not tense is offered. The source states: "...Megaladapis, with its enlarged nasal region and the least frontated (this is, rotated anteriorly) of all primate orbits." Anyway, I've changed it to read: "In fact, Megaladapis had the least forward-facing eyes of all primates." – VisionHolder « talk » 06:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jack (talk).

Just some very small stuff in the refs:

• Ref 37: Burney, D.A. (2003). Box 5. Extinction in Madagascar: The Anatomy of a Catastrophe. pp. 261. doi:10.1002/evan.10123. in Godfrey et al., "The extinct sloth lemurs of Madagascar", Evolutionary Anthropology 12:252–263 -- Needs full stop at end and volume emboldened.

Fixed.

• Ref 39: Mahé, J.; Sourdat, M. (1972). "Sur l'extinction des vertébrés subfossiles et l'aridification du climat dans le Sud-Ouest de Madagascar" (in French) (PDF). Bull. Soc. Geol. Fr. 14: 295–309. -- Needs journal title in full to bring in line with others.
  • Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, if you're wondering. Ucucha 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Ucucha! I think I tried looking up the full name when I first added the ref, but had no luck finding it. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just wondering whether you could italicise the et al. in the book references? Or isn't that possible?

That's all, looking good otherwise. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue with {{Harvnb}}. See here. Unfortunately, this is beyond my control. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought as much, oh well. I support this nomination. Jack (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm (still) unhappy about File:Extinctions_Africa_Austrailia_NAmerica_Madagascar.gif. The Y axis is labeled "Percent survival" (and considers an extraneous capital letter), yet this "percentage" apparently goes up, which is logically impossible. The X axis is also mislabeled; the scale is logarithmic, but the numbers that are given are actually real numbers, not the logarithms. I haven't been able to check the source, but the citation suggests it was used to support a specific model for the cause of the Quaternary extinction event. It may not be neutral, and apart from that it is 20 years out of date. I can see several apparent errors (Australia shows no drop for the extinction of the thylacine, and Africa none for that of the bluebuck). I suggest you remove it. Ucucha 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been wanting to remove that graphic since I've had time to think about it. I'm more eager to include a new graphic based on what I can gather from Dr. Burney. Only catch is this: will the end of the article look too bare until a replacement can be found/generated? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Sam Turvey's book Holocene Extinctions has something. Most of it is on Google Books. Ucucha 06:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I will look into it tomorrow evening. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Great work. Have you been able to clear out the doubtful datings? (I was the GA reviewer.) Ucucha 06:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. I was planning to email Dr. Burney tomorrow evening to see if he had time to clarify all the dates. Don't worry – it is high on my list of things to do, and I don't plan to forget it. It will greatly impact the species and genera articles that will come, so I can't let it go. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the only thing I can think of to add might be in the hypotheses section about megafauna vanishing with arrival humans all over the planet, but that could be left to a more general page really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a quick note about the global extinctions, so please look it over. Otherwise, I have Quaternary extinction event and Holocene extinction linked as a "See also" at the top of the section, since they are more general topics. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.