Talk:Sunda slow loris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Sunda slow loris has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
April 17, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

Status[edit]

Why is it listed as "lc"? As far as I know, it is listed by "Vulnerable" by IUCN in 2002. Matahari Pagi 08:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Check the ref to IUCN 2006. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

possible merge?[edit]

This article seems to be more about Slow Lorises in general than the Slow Loris article. Couldn't these two be merged?-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, how do you mean it is more about the genus than the species? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Venomous[edit]

This is in the venomous mammals category, but no information on whether this is true or not is present in the article. Flaunting ignorance, Is it...? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That is partly my fault. While the collaboration group slowly re-works all the slow loris articles, we are primarily focusing on species details on the species pages. Once these species pages are fixed up, we will write the Slow loris article, providing more general information. From that general information, it will be much easier to provide and reference general information (such as the venomous bite) on all of the species articles, including this one. (A lot of the shared traits for this species are discussed at the genus level, not the species level.) I sincerely hope to be able to provide this general anatomical information within the next couple of weeks. The short answer for you is yes, they have a venomous bite, although the venom comes from a gland on their forearm. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pre-GAN review[edit]

I have added a block of text taken from the Bengal Slow Loris article to fill in the taxonomy section, although we really need to find a source that talks about all of those synonyms. I haven't re-organized the "Physical description" section until we straighten out the details at Talk:Slow loris#Topic development. Like I said there, the subsections are probably too small to merit headings. We also need to decide if we're going to standardize English (British vs. American) across the topic. As for standard references, {{R}} can save some space, but it depends on how much you use {{Sfn}}. In some articles, we note page numbers for journal information as well as books, while in others (like this one) we only care about books. I don't care either way, and I don't think it matters if we standardize. Other than that, the article looks really good! Let's straighten out these issues and then nominate for GAN. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused by the phylogenetic tree we have, why does N. coucang appear in so many places! Why does one have an asterisk by it? Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of those synonyms are probably the result of the early-20th-century conviction in some quarters that every mammal on every island in the Sunda Islands represents a distinct species. The list is missing tenasserimensis, incidentally. Ucucha 00:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I found out tenasserimensis is actually a synonym of N. bengalensis, not this species (see MSW 3), so there is no need to mention it here. I've expanded the synonyms list. Ucucha 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sunda Slow Loris/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Made a few prose tweaks. Feel free to revert if you don't like.
    • Lead. What are "lianas"?
    • Linked now. Ucucha 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The Taxonomy section is confusing me... First of all, the chart. I had always thought that the species being discussed in the article was the one that was bolded, and the others were linked. When I first looked at the chart, it appeared to me that N. bengalensis was the one being discussed in the article. I don't really see a need for N. coucang to be linked (and three times!) in the chart, when the entire article is about that species. Also, why is N. coucang listed three times in the chart? Also, some sort of an introduction to N. bengalensis would be nice. Right now, both the chart and the article seem to show a very close relationship between the two, but we know nothing about N. bengalensis. What is the history of the taxonomy? You say that N. c. javanicus and N. c. menagensis were recently promoted from subspecies to full species status, but nothing is said about why they were considered subspecies or why they were promoted.
    • The issue with the chart was probably a consequence of it being uncritically copied from the page on the Bengal slow loris; now fixed. I'll work on the taxonomy; there's clearly a lot more to say. Ucucha 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The species appears three times because: "DNA sequences from some individuals of Sunda slow loris (N. coucang) and Bengal slow loris (N. bengalensis) apparently share a closer evolutionary relationship with each other than with members of their own species."; I've included common names before all the species names for clarity; I don't think the Bengal slow loris really needs an introduction as the section stands. Jack (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • There is still a lot of information missing from the section, though. When was the species first described? When did all of the synonyms listed in the infobox come into use. Why were javanicus and menagensis initially considered sub-species, and why were they then changed into individual species? When? Don't use words like "recently". Currently the taxonomy section just jumps into the present day, dealing with recent changes to subspecies and DNA studies, despite the fact that the species has been described since the late 18th century. This is leaving out over 200 years of history for the species... Dana boomer (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm going to work on this now, but I'm not sure how much I can fill in for each of the synonyms. Primate taxonomy (and taxonomy in general) between the late 1800s and early 1900s can be very confusing because of the rush to name species. They didn't have genetics, nor GPS, nor guarantees of excellent preservation. Travel to see a type specimen was also slower, and often ranges in variability were unknown. However, there's usually no trouble explaining the first description (or two) along with the inevitable publication that collapsed most of the early synonyms. From there, it's not too hard, though you usually get into ugly discussions of phylogenetic research. Anyway, I'll give it my best, and if the others want to make additions, I encourage it. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Alright... open mouth, insert foot. I thought I had access to the old texts that discuss the taxonomy of this species, but I do not. I may have leave some of this to Sasata, who explored the issue for the general Slow loris article. I have just got incredibly lucky and found a copy of Osman Hill's primate anatomy and taxonomy book for strepsirrhines, but it could take up to 2 weeks for it to come in the mail, and I can't promise that it will explain the taxonomy... it may just list it. Anyway, I will be in touch with Sasata about this issue and try to get this resolved soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think we have now resolved this issue. I have given the taxonomic background on this species, although I have not covered the synonyms. To be honest, I have never done that in my previous FAs because you start to tread heavily in the realm of OR... especially when dealing with the taxonomic messes from the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s. Anyway, let me know if anything else is missing. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Physical description, "Though local color variations are known to occur." Sentence fragment.
    • Fixed. Ucucha 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Physical description, "but in lorises it has been used to". Perhaps "has also been", since later on you say that it is for grooming?
    • I don't have the sources cited here, so I'm not sure. Visionholder? Ucucha 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this is in addition to its grooming function. Jack (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Physical description, "In captivity, about a quarter of its time is spent moving quadrupedally, and a quarter of its time suspended or hanging." What does it do the rest of the time?
    • The actual percentages are: quadrupedal locomotion (24%), climbing (21%), suspension and hanging (29%), bridging (23%), and other forms of locomotion (3%). I haven't included the last one. Jack (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Behavior and ecology, "conspecifics". Link or explanation? Later, I see that this is linked in the Social systems section, but maybe it should be linked the first time?
    • I added a gloss on the first occurrence, and removed the link, since the linked article (conspecificity) hardly has any useful content. Ucucha 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Behavior and ecology, "eat an East African land snail." Perhaps "eat the East..."? It's a specific species, and they don't eat just one, I'm assuming.
    • Reworded. Ucucha 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed; also reworded to make less noun-heavy. Ucucha 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Communication, "the indentity," Should this be "identity" or, if not, could we link/explain?
    • Just identity, I think. Ucucha 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Jack (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Conservation, "by gathering for illegal traditional medicine." What part does it play in traditional medicine?
    • From the article: "In the case of the Sunda slow loris, people trade the skin, feet, skeletons, and skulls. The fur is reported to heal wounds, the flesh to cure epilepsy, eyes are used in love potions, and the meat is reported to cure asthma and stomach problems." Maybe worth including it, since it comes from the same source. Jack (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I've included the sentence "The fur is reported to heal wounds, the flesh to cure epilepsy, eyes are used in love potions, and the meat is reported to cure asthma and stomach problems." This should give the detail needed. Jack (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Some concerns about the Taxonomy section, as detailed above.
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. 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):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article. A few prose questions and some completeness issues in the Taxonomy section, so I am placing the review on hold to allow time for these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, hopefully Ucucha and I have addressed most of these problems, with the exception of the taxonomy (something that isn't greatly understood by the scientists themselves!). I guess the section just needs a bit more clarity. Cheers, Jack (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry this has dragged out, but could we get an update as to what issues are outstanding? Once I know what needs to be fixed, I will do my best to take care of it. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response. Thank you for all of the work that you all have put into this. The changes look good, and the Taxonomy section is much improved - it gives me as a complete slow loris novice a much better picture of how this species fits into the overall genus. My only comment going forward would be to perhaps have a short summary of the new information in the lead - I see from the latest comments on the talk page that this article is headed towards FAC, so I'm assuming this will be done before then. Other than that, everything looks good, and so I am passing this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference clean-up[edit]

I believe we've finished meeting the requests for the GAN review, and now to look on to an eventual FAC run. The first glaring problem involves references. Typically, we either list all book and journal literature in the "Literature cited" subsection or we use a "Books cited" subsection for books only. So far, this article is a mix. Looking at refs #17 and #18, both are Chen, et al. If we are going to list all journal and book references in "Literature cited", then the second one needs to be placed below and specific page numbers need to be provided for these refs. The same goes for numerous other journal refs. We need to decide one way or the other, and I realize that it gets complicated because some journal articles are 1–2 pages long, while others are 20–40 pages long. For that reason, I generally treat them all the same so there are no grey areas. I don't mind moving the full citations to the "Literature cited" section, but I will need help tracking down page numbers. If you want, I can leave the page numbers blank so that others can fill them in in the short footnotes ({{Sfn}}). – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)