Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Gray Mouse Lemur/archive1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Sasata
Comment on 1b and 1c. The references look thin (variety, not citation density), and a check on the ISI Web of Knowledge database reveals hundreds of articles about this species. There are also many recent papers published in the past few years that investigate some interesting aspects of the animal's behavior. Any reason why these sources haven't been used? Sasata (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Going off of WP:PSTS, I had largely stuck with secondary sources for this article. (I believe this article cites nearly every major secondary source available in the lemur literature.) As for the primary sources you mentioned, most academic articles are not freely available to the public, severely limited my access to them. Given that Wiki usually relies on secondary sources anyway, I didn't think it would be much of a problem. Granted, with my new lemur articles I am trying to maintain a nice balance between primary and secondary sources, and this was something I plan to do when I revisit this page later this year—hence the comment at the top about maintaining the article. However, I did not see this as a sticking point for a FAC review. My apologies if it is. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll be willing to help you get some of those sources (and so, I think, is Sasata). Recent primary sources are probably especially important, as those often haven't yet found their way into the secondary literature. Ucucha 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be excellent, although I plan to spend my remaining time today working on your GACs, as discussed on your talk page. Maybe tomorrow or this weekend I can look at whatever we can dig up. I know there's been a lot of information published about how mouse lemurs are now considered cryptic species—something I was waiting to discuss at length on a re-written Mouse lemur article. But I'm sure I could add a brief summary about that here, too. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd like, I can prepare a list of sources since, say 2005 or so, that look like they might be worthy of inclusion, and post it on the talk page. I can email any PDFs I have access to. Might I suggest withdrawing this FAC candidate for the time being until the new sources are integrated? Sasata (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see how many sources there are and how much content they'll add first. It might be possible for me to add the content by tomorrow afternoon. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I tried to access the ISI Web of Knowledge database, but it appears to be subscription only. I'll try searching for articles manually through Google Scholar and see what I can get. In the meantime, if you have some suggestions, just let me know. I'd like to add the content today and resume the review.– VisionHolder « talk » 15:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok I added a list of publications from 2009-2008 to the article talk page. Good luck trying to add that content today :) Sasata (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- There's definitely a lot there, but as long as I can get access to detailed abstracts, it shouldn't be a problem. Only bad part is that Fridays and Saturdays are my busy days due to long shifts at work, so I may not finish until Sunday. I hope that won't be a problem. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok I added a list of publications from 2009-2008 to the article talk page. Good luck trying to add that content today :) Sasata (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I tried to access the ISI Web of Knowledge database, but it appears to be subscription only. I'll try searching for articles manually through Google Scholar and see what I can get. In the meantime, if you have some suggestions, just let me know. I'd like to add the content today and resume the review.– VisionHolder « talk » 15:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see how many sources there are and how much content they'll add first. It might be possible for me to add the content by tomorrow afternoon. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd like, I can prepare a list of sources since, say 2005 or so, that look like they might be worthy of inclusion, and post it on the talk page. I can email any PDFs I have access to. Might I suggest withdrawing this FAC candidate for the time being until the new sources are integrated? Sasata (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be excellent, although I plan to spend my remaining time today working on your GACs, as discussed on your talk page. Maybe tomorrow or this weekend I can look at whatever we can dig up. I know there's been a lot of information published about how mouse lemurs are now considered cryptic species—something I was waiting to discuss at length on a re-written Mouse lemur article. But I'm sure I could add a brief summary about that here, too. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll be willing to help you get some of those sources (and so, I think, is Sasata). Recent primary sources are probably especially important, as those often haven't yet found their way into the secondary literature. Ucucha 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm about half way through the list (in terms of note-taking), and here's what I've noticed: First, there are quite a few articles that are either duplicates or not useful. Some discussed detailed genetics (specific genes), or the Gray Mouse Lemur was used as one of many species in a broad study, but the info is either unavailable to non-subscribers or is trivial. Second, quite a few of the articles are for other lemurs or, more specifically, other members of the genus Microcebus. Third, some of the articles don't appear to be available online, even in abstract form. When I'm finished with the list, I will identify those articles in hopes that either of you could help track them down for me. In all, I don't expect a significant increase in content for the article, although I can see maybe another 10–20 references being added. I hope that will be sufficient. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- The number of references isn't really the issue, it's whether the article meets criteria 1(b)-"it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and 1(c)-"it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." I'm not sure hurriedly inserting facts from abstracts will be sufficient in this regard. Keep in mind, I only listed sources from 2008-9; there's an equally voluminous selection of papers before that as well. Of course the choice is yours, but there's no shame in withdrawing a FAC, regrouping, and coming back in a couple of weeks after a more thorough literature search. Sasata (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I understand what you're getting at, and if it were just random points here and there I would agree. However, as I'm nearing completion of the list, I have noticed that the research is clustered around specific topics: primarily torpor/hibernation and niche separation/hybridization. This isn't really surprising since these are some of the biggest questions that mouse lemurs help raise. (Note: I didn't go into detail on these topics previously because I was saving them for a re-write of the general Mouse lemur article to avoid duplication.) Therefore if you feel that the addition of subsections on these two topics, as well as a little more detail on the species' taxonomic history, will sufficiently meet criteria 1(b) and 1(c), then I will try to finish it by Sunday night. If you feel that this is insufficient, I will withdraw the nomination. (In the case of the latter, the article may not be resubmitted for a long, long time since tracking down less prominent topics of research for this species would involve extensive work... and a lot of luck.) – VisionHolder « talk » 20:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Okay... I just had a very detailed discussion with Sasata over email, and the gist of it goes like this: Yes, the Gray Mouse Lemur has been studied extensively, and literally hundreds of references could be used in this article. However, the Gray Mouse Lemur is studied more as a model organism for mouse lemurs in general. As Sasata said in email: "it's like Saccharomyces cerevisiae being used as a model organism for "yeast" in general." Additionally, many of the pre-2006 in situ studies of this species might have been of other newly discovered (cryptic) species instead. This does not invalidate the research from a general "mouse lemur perspective" (and trying to tease apart the valid research articles from the invalid ones smells badly of original research), but it does lend most of the gory details of the majority of this research to a heavily revised future edition of the article Mouse lemur, not the article in question for this FAC. I do want to note, however, that I feel Sasata has a point that needs to be addressed. There is good material out there that needs to be included in this article to meet criteria 1b and 1c. Therefore, both today and tomorrow I will be working to make some revisions to the article. I still do not wish to withdraw the article from FAC. I still feel that this issue can be resolved quickly. But if there are some specific concerns or topics about Gray Mouse Lemurs that you want addressed in the article, please do not hesitate to mention them. I will do all that I can to accommodate. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with VH's conclusions, having stepped back and thought about it some more. VH has a very ambitious project to appease the Lemur Gods, and the coverage given to one species article needs to be balanced in relation to the big picture. I'll give a full review of this article after the new info is added, and look forward to seeing a comprehensive Mouse Lemur article show up here sometime in the future. (feel free to move this discussion to the talk page) Sasata (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Okay... I just had a very detailed discussion with Sasata over email, and the gist of it goes like this: Yes, the Gray Mouse Lemur has been studied extensively, and literally hundreds of references could be used in this article. However, the Gray Mouse Lemur is studied more as a model organism for mouse lemurs in general. As Sasata said in email: "it's like Saccharomyces cerevisiae being used as a model organism for "yeast" in general." Additionally, many of the pre-2006 in situ studies of this species might have been of other newly discovered (cryptic) species instead. This does not invalidate the research from a general "mouse lemur perspective" (and trying to tease apart the valid research articles from the invalid ones smells badly of original research), but it does lend most of the gory details of the majority of this research to a heavily revised future edition of the article Mouse lemur, not the article in question for this FAC. I do want to note, however, that I feel Sasata has a point that needs to be addressed. There is good material out there that needs to be included in this article to meet criteria 1b and 1c. Therefore, both today and tomorrow I will be working to make some revisions to the article. I still do not wish to withdraw the article from FAC. I still feel that this issue can be resolved quickly. But if there are some specific concerns or topics about Gray Mouse Lemurs that you want addressed in the article, please do not hesitate to mention them. I will do all that I can to accommodate. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I understand what you're getting at, and if it were just random points here and there I would agree. However, as I'm nearing completion of the list, I have noticed that the research is clustered around specific topics: primarily torpor/hibernation and niche separation/hybridization. This isn't really surprising since these are some of the biggest questions that mouse lemurs help raise. (Note: I didn't go into detail on these topics previously because I was saving them for a re-write of the general Mouse lemur article to avoid duplication.) Therefore if you feel that the addition of subsections on these two topics, as well as a little more detail on the species' taxonomic history, will sufficiently meet criteria 1(b) and 1(c), then I will try to finish it by Sunday night. If you feel that this is insufficient, I will withdraw the nomination. (In the case of the latter, the article may not be resubmitted for a long, long time since tracking down less prominent topics of research for this species would involve extensive work... and a lot of luck.) – VisionHolder « talk » 20:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)