Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:33, 24 August 2010 [1].

The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates[edit]

The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FLC requirements. The list is complete and covers not only the current list, but past list members and previous lists. If adjustments are needed in structure or appearance, I will gladly make them. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good, though the Alt text needs sorting though. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that alt text is no longer part of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ah ok, well then I have no problems with the list if thats the case, I'll throw in my support. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I will add alt text once the community can define exactly what alt text should include. If I remember correctly, this was the reason why alt text was removed from FAC and FLC requirements. I think alt text is a good thing, but it takes time to think about and write, and I don't want to have to do it twice for every article I write. Anyway, thanks for your review and your support! – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments now then, this is my kind of bag.
  • Title will need some work. I know this was discussed beforehand, but in five years time, this won't (necessarily) be true...
  • Unless, I guess, you stake it in the ground to the point where IUCN said "this is it".
    The problem is that the list is published by 3 entities, not just the IUCN. I'm still open to suggestions on the name, but no one's making any comments. However, I do not see how this will be irrelevant in five years time. The title (or this part of it) is generally sticking with every 2-year publication. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two (important) redlinks in the first couple of sentences could be resolved.
    Since when has the task of fixing redlinks become part of the FAC or FLC process? I can try to create articles over the coming week, but that's a lot more involved than repairing a candidate list. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't been the task of FLC but it's incongruous having two important red links in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see what I can do over the next few days. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Those 2 redlinks have been fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so this is the 2008–2010 list. Perhaps a discussion over naming is useful (it would be encyclopedic to have a ongoing record of the IUCN's list of 25 most endangered primates over time...)
    The list name is based on the report name, which has contained the words "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" in all five previous publications. Furthermore, the previous lists are summarized in a table at the bottom, and a list of former members is provided to help track which species have been on the list for how long and when. I had no intention of making this a list for a single publication, followed by more lists for future and past publications. (See another reply further down.) – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "could fit into a football stadium" this is virtually meaningless to a lot of people. And do you mean Australian or Association football? I know it seems picky but there's a big difference.
    I have contacts at the IUCN, so if we wanted, I could probably get a clarification on the statement. If the difference is big, then tell me the general seating capacities for the two and I'll tell you which one he meant. But given that Russell Mittermeier is American, he was probably talking about American football or possibly Association football. Either way, the statement still has general meaning. Whether a stadium holds 10,000 or 150,000, the statement implies that the total population counts are very, very small for all 25 species combined. If, hypothetically, the human population crashed and we said we could fit the entire human population into a football stadium (of any type), I think everyone would agree that that means the population is terribly small. Fit 25 species into one stadium (of any type), and that's 25 times worse... for all species involved. Do you see what I'm getting at? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't feel the analogy is necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to hold out to see what others have to say about this, both for the sake of comprehensiveness and to preserve an interesting piece of information. Also, although it may not help much, I've sent an email to my contacts at the IUCN to see if they can help get an answer. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with The Rambling Man that this needs further clarification. The figure is a little too vague. Jack (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to get more information from the source (Mittermeier) since the two cited references aren't very helpful. I'll email one more person (at the IUCN) who might be able to clarify and see if he replies. But out of curiosity, what are the ranges between these two types of stadiums? Are they really that significant compared to healthy species population numbers? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got a reply from Dr. Anthony Rylands, and he agreed that it statement was a little too vague and suggested deleting it. However, I have a DYK hook in the queue based on that quote, and since the statement is properly referenced (though a little vague), I'm going to leave it in until after the DYK posts, probably on August 18th. After that, I will—unfortunately—delete it. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The DYK has come and gone (drawing 7.5k hits, even without a picture!), so now the statement has been removed. Anything else? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "Current list" - is this going to change rapidly?" should we (per my earlier comment) think about making it a "20xx" list?
    "Change rapidly" is a relative term. This list was published at the end of 2009. A new list won't be published for another year or more. And I do plan to keep updating the list as new publications come out, just as I do with the List of lemur species as new species are published, which at this rate is more frequent than publications related to this article. Anyway, creating separate lists makes it difficult to have summaries of previous list members and side-by-side comparisons. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support enjoyable read. Reg. title, if the common name is used, I'm quite satisfied. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the former list members should also have the information given for the current list members (distribution, threats, perhaps reason they're no longer on the list). Ucucha 07:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be nice, but the current and previous reports don't summarize or consistently provide that information. The current report offers this info in a table while the others do not. Although I could extract a list of "threats" from the text for the past two years, the previous reports are no longer accessible (from what I can tell) and were much shorter. (I think the first report was 1 page long, the next only a few pages more.) Also, there has not always been a full explanation of why each species was taken off the list. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per your recommendation, I have expanded the table for the former list members. At your convenience, please let me know if it looks okay. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did some work on the taxonomy of the old lists and other aspects of the list, and I think it now covers the subject comprehensively. Ucucha 08:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and well sourced list. Although the title gave me a pause when I read it the first time—I was thinking about a different kind of primates at that time. I have one question though. Among threats to Gray-headed Lemur are mentioned cyclones. Why are they so dangerous to this species? Ruslik_Zero 17:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review and support. The short answer is that their limited range is frequently damaged by cyclones on a yearly basis. Since it's a fruit-eater, it can be hard-hit when fruit trees are damaged a fail to produce fruit. Let me check the source when I get home, and if it explicitly states this, then I will try to clarify briefly in the table. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was able to download the document at work, and it just noted that a cyclone in 1997 cut the population in half, but did not give details. But I do know from other sources that damage to food sources is a severe threats to many eastern rainfoest lemur populations. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well written and well presented article. I was wondering about the lead, which generally sums up the article and doesn't contain information that isn't covered in the rest of the article. This means references are generally avoided in the lead as they come after in the main text (something I know you're already aware of). Is this different in list-class articles? If not there should be more about the inception of this list in a separate section. Jack (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good question. I haven't written for FLC in a while, and I was going on off an older FL of mine, List of lemur species. If it needs to be shuffled somehow, just let me know. But given that I've already got a few supports so far and no one has said anything about it yet, I'm not sure if that's a requirement. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 11:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments Great list, two minor stylistic quibbles, but otherwise nothing wrong I'm seeing.
I may be missing it, but I don't see any expansion of "IUCN" anywhere. It should be expanded on first use.
In the notes, there are three incidents of citations like "[59][60][1]" Can these be reordered in numerical order, please?

Courcelles 07:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Both have been fixed. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 11:23, 22 August 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_list_candidates/The_World%27s_25_Most_Endangered_Primates/archive1&oldid=1146421441"