Talk:Lemurs of Madagascar (book)

Featured articleLemurs of Madagascar (book) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 30, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 4, 2010Good article nomineeListed
May 28, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 11, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the list of lemur species promoted by the book Lemurs of Madagascar is not universally accepted by all lemur researchers?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lemurs of Madagascar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images I don't know whether FAC will accept five fair use images, but I will
I don't plan to go for FAC until after the 3rd edition (and its reviews come out)... at this point. After the the next edition, there will be another fair use image.  ;-) Personally, I think they are informative since they show the quality of the cover art and help people identify what's out there on site. It also adds visuals to an otherwise bland article. Would it help if I got a thumbs-up from some of the people I know at CI? – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lemurs of Madagascar, currently in its 2nd edition with the 3rd edition due to be released soon — I'd put second and third as words. Soon will date, can we have a year instead?
2nd and 3rd have been put into words. I'm working on the soon part. From personal communication, I know it's due out in late summer 2010, ideally around early September. However, I don't have a source. In fact, the CI website still says it "should be available in late fall 2009". I've written to my contacts at CI and have asked them to update the website so that I can have something to reference. In the meantime, the only year I can reference is 2009, which is already dated. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first edition identified 50 lemur taxa, while the second edition identified 71 — repeat of identified.
Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the above, taxa could include genus level. It becomes clear later, but here I'd put species and subspecies
Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • researchers, such as Ian Tattersall, who views — view not views, "researchers" is the subject
Good catch. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overview — overuse of "also"
Fixed, I think. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • for its comprehensive and up-to-date information, and for being the first comprehensive lemur field guide. — comprehensive twice in one sentence
Oops... wrote that too late last night. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By following the recommendations of Colin Groves in the third edition of Mammal Species of the World from 2005 by recognizing newly-identified nocturnal species and splitting many former subspecies into distinct species.— where's the verb in this. Also the book should be italicised
Another good catch. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For such a short article there is significant overlinking. Incidentally, I wouldn't redlink named people unless you plan to write articles for them
For some of them, yes, I hope to someday write articles (or hope others will). They are significant researchers or illustrators with their names all over everything. Otherwise, I've done my best to address overlinking. However, I typically count the linking in the lead separately from the body. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: