Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toothcomb/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 Ian Rose 00:27, 24 March 2012 [1].

Toothcomb[edit]

Featured article candidates/Toothcomb/archive1

Nominator(s): – Maky ^« talk » 23:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back! (This is Visionholder, or VH... but under a new name.)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria. In researching the toothcomb, I feel I have found all of the materia available, not only for lemuriforms, but also for other types of mammals. Therefore the article should be comprehensive, although strongly weighted towards the discussion of the lemuriform toothcomb, which dominates the academic literature (mainly due to its importance in primate evolution). – Maky ^« talk » 23:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Reads well. Quibbles:

While licking the fur clean, the animal will run the tooth through the fur to comb it. - This sentence raises a slight question: isn't it suggested in the previous paragraph (and later, under anatomical structure) that the toothcomb is several teeth?

Good catch. Originally it was supposed to be either "toothcomb" or "teeth", and it somehow came out as a mixture of the two. It's been fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The French anatomist Henri Marie Ducrotay de Blainville first identified the two lateral teeth of the lemuriform toothcomb as canines in 1840,[18] despite that the first lower premolars following the toothcomb are usually shaped like typical canine teeth (caniniform)[4][19] and assumes their function. - It might be useful to explain function of canines, though it's your call I guess. Also, it should be assume.

Typo fixed. I need a few minutes to think about how to address the other issue. – Maky ^« talk » 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sublingua can extend below the end of the tongue and is tipped with keratinized, serrated points that rake between the front teeth.[21][22][23] - Out of curiosity, this means that it's tipped with pure protein structures? I realize it's hard to avoid jargon sometimes without giving distracting background information.

This is what the sources say. Although I have never personally seen a sublingua (although I had the chance, had I known to look), the photos and videos I've seen of it show it to be pale or white. Apparently it's quite firm, especially at the tip. Beyond that I can't say. All I know is that it is a very poorly known structure, and when I wrote the article, I apparently turned up a bunch of long-forgotten information about it that surprised the leading experts (who had been using the wrong name for it by mistake). – Maky ^« talk » 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would conflict with the molecular clock estimates by evolutionary anthropologist Anne Yoder and others, which predict lemur/loris divergence dating between 61 and 90.8 mya.[61] - Could you replace the slash with a dash? I think it would fit better.

Done, thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. ceranthor 23:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. – Maky ^« talk » 19:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Having followed the article through GA, I'm happy with the content, sourcing, and readability of this article. Jack (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting to see an article like this at FAC. I'd love to give it a read through as an interested non-biologist if I get the chance. Anyway-
Image check: Was File:Toothcomb - Jones 1918.jpg first published in the US? I note the author is British. If it was not first published in the US, or you are not sure, please use Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. If it was, consider tagging it to move to Commons. Others check out (and I've confirmed the OTRS permission.) J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I honestly can't tell where it was published. The journal has offices in both the US and the UK. And who knows if the publication location has change between now and 1918. Before I uploaded them, I deferred the decision to some admins on a Commons IRC chat channel, and what you see is what they suggested. Also, I originally intended those uploads to be temporarily, but I'm not sure if I can find anyone to create new color illustrations, both for this article and for my next FAC, Sublingua. Anyway, if you want I can try writing to the publisher... but I've found that permissions departments tend to be quite unresponsive (from all the major publishers). – Maky ^« talk » 01:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the journal was published in the UK, at least in the 1910s. Ucucha (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added this information to the image page. Images all check out copyright-wise for the English Wikipedia's purposes; nice work getting hold of them! J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have duplicated your edits for 2 other images taken from the same publication. – Maky ^« talk » 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

~~"If feeding ecology could have such profound effects on shape the anterior dentition". Is a word missing after "shape"?~~

Fixed. Nice catch. – Maky ^« talk » 06:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Refs 35, 43, 49, and 64 should have pp. in the cites, not p., since they are for page ranges and not single pages.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another good catch. Thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 06:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from Jim A scholarly piece of work which I look forward to supporting. But first a few nitpicks to show that I've read it (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You use both "antelope" and "antelopes" as the plural of the animal. I much prefer the normal plural, since six antelope, three lion etc. is big-game hunter jargon, but you need to be consistent. Also seems odd having (plural) "antelope", but all the lemurids are given normal plurals.

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lemuriform primates (which includes lemurs and lorisoids).' — I don't like the unfamiliar word preceding its definition. I'd prefer lemurs and lorisoids (the lemuriform primates) — I'm really scraping the barrel here, so feel free to ignore.

You have almost got me convinced to make the change. The only reason I haven't is that I was trying to be consistent by putting words I plan to use again in the front, followed by their definitions. If you think it would read better and that such consistency is not important, I'll make the change. Also, what do you think about either moving or duplicating the footnote the explains the choice of wording ("lemuriforms") to the lead? – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

confused for canines — confused with..

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but between the lack of striations on the teeth — I'm not sure that "between" is really the right word in this sentence.

Changed to "due to". – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pheromones — is this the right word here? I think of pheremones as insect secretions that force stereotypical responses, presumably in primates there is a degree of conscious control over the chemical messengers? Not a big deal, just wondering.

The long snout and wet noise of mammals houses a vomeronasal organ (VNO) in the roof of the mouth. The VNO is connected to the wet nose, and although the exact mechanics of how pheromones are transferred is unknown, I think that it's universally accepted that the VNO is used to detect pheromones. We don't know much about the reactions, but they are likely to be automatic and immediate. Humans are also suspected of communicating with pheromones, even though we lack a VNO. From personal experience, even our responses are stereotypical and very hard to control consciously. Anyway, one of these days I hope to collaborate with someone and re-write the articles Rhinarium and Vomeronasal organ. When I bring them to FAC, you can learn all about them. ;-) – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miocene — needs link

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

90.8 mya — how is it possible to date this to within 100,000 years?

Can't speak from personal experience, but my guess is that it's calculated mathematically and that the decimal point has something to do with significant figures. Anyway, that's what the source says. – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that all your images are of lemuroids, have you checked whether there is anything suitable to illustrate antelopes?

There is one illustration of a colugo toothcomb (which is a close relative of primates). But otherwise there is hardly more than a paragraph of unique information published about the antelope "toothcomb" that I've been able to find. As the article states, the lemuriform toothcomb has been studied extensively, while the others are hardly known or documented. I wouldn't even be surprised if toothcombs were far more common among mammals, but either haven't been described as noteworthy characteristics or have been given special terminology. The antelope toothcomb, for instance, is called a "lateral dental grooming apparatus" (or "lateral dental elements" or "ruminant grooming apparatus"...). The only reason I even stumbled across it is because one of the articles that discusses it noted the similarity with the lemuriform toothcomb. Had they not made mention of it, my searches never would have uncovered it. I'll try emailing the researchers and ask for a photo. – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the responses above, an antelope pic would be good, but I wasn't expecting one to suddenly appear, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I had good luck getting a dental pad photo once, so I'll see what I can get for the "lateral dental grooming apparatus". – Maky ^« talk » 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Maky, doesn't appear to have been a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing here; can you point to a recent such check for one of your contributions at FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. Historically, Ucucha has done spotchecks of my FAC noms (when I nominated under the name "Visionholder")... although I'm not sure how that's relevant to this one. In fact, quite a few of my sources are available online for checking if anyone wants. The links are in the references. – Maky ^« talk » 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since a spotcheck is just that, something designed to get a feel for the accuracy of sourcing and avoidance of copyvio or close paraphrasing, rather than a rigorous inspection of each and every citation, FAC doesn't necessarily require one to be performed for all the noms that someone submits. Hence if you can point to a recent one that was largely 'clear', we might not require it for this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been inactive for a while in regards to FAC, but one of my last candidates was Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Seacology/archive1 dating to October 2011. The spotchecks are in there near the top. I hope that is recent enough. – Maky ^« talk » 02:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look, that should suffice. For your next FAC I think we'd expect one, however -- even experienced editors need to be kept on their toes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I actually expect one every FAC. But I also realize how demanding they are. – Maky ^« talk » 01:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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