Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Collaboration/Past MCs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a historical record of past collaborations, and improvements made to articles, plus listing the current one, as well as unsuccessful nominations.

First incarnation - early 2008[edit]

Polar bear (7 votes) was collaboration Feb 15-Mar 14 2008[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. . First choice Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Marskell (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. . Bobisbob (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --MONGO 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Anaxial (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Pros: Already has lots of sourced content; charismatic megafauna; lots of public interest; polar bears are in the news these days. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Visibility: 150,000 views per month. We could possibly interest User:Yllosubmarine in this one. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already in good shape. Along with the Giant Panda, probably the best known Flagship species. Marskell (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need capitalization. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right. Bobisbob (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably going to be listed soon as an endangered or at least a threatened species in the U.S. in the near future...[1].--MONGO 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia already has an overwhelming systemic bias towards quality articles on charismatic megafauna. I say we take a break and focus on something else. VanTucky 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this collaboration goes forward, we should attempt to balance things. If we do Polar Bear now, we shouldn't do Tiger next. Marskell (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed... Primate or Mammal perhaps? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, it would depend on how much gusto things have. If there is alot of activity, I'd say mammal, if very little, then a shoo in may be good.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the first month; kicking off with something high profile makes sense to me.Anaxial (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

Brown Rat (5 votes) was the collaboration Mar 15-Apr 14 2008[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. .Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Marskell (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bobisbob (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. VanTucky 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Anaxial (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Pros: topical and important animal....Cons: a more ambitious project definitely...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm terrified of rodents. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rodents also scare the #$%@ out of me (I have rat dreams). But they are the single largest order of mammal and we should consider topic balance. Capybara is another one to consider. Marskell (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Bobisbob (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first pick. Distribued globally, and needs more work than most of the articles listed. VanTucky 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A widely known and economically important animal (in its own way). This one would be my second pick.Anaxial (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

Tiger (6 votes) was the collaboration Apr 15-May 14 2008[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. .Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Altaileopard. Looks good. Some more citations in the text would be nice... and I will expand the range a little more.
  4. -- Bobisbob (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Anaxial (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Shyamal (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Like lion was last year, large and a bit of a mess. A few have poked into it a bit but would really need a concerted push and a collaboration would facilitate this. Also instrumental in making a Big Cats Featured Topic. A con is we have a number of cat articles so it may be good to do something really different....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Visibility/importance. This article gets viewed over 200,000 times a month! --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Bobisbob (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time for another high profile animal - and they don't come much higher than this. Anaxial (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

Version before collaboration

  • Current status -

Primate (3 votes) was the collaboration May 15-Jun 14 2008[edit]

Nominated 2008-04-14;

Support:

  1. UtherSRG (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jack (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Pros: Already been reviewed a few times, so there are plenty of comments. Every Wikipedian is a primate. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. In not bad shape and would be good to get this one over the line. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can be worked on in conjunction with WP:PRIM. Jack (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

Version before collaboration

  • Current status -

Giraffe (6 votes) is the collaboration March 7th-April 7th 2009[edit]

Nominated February 28, 2009;

Support:

  1. --KP Botany (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Rlendog (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Shyamal (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Anaxial (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. good choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jack (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • They're lovely animals, colorful, and large, their fur is gorgeous, and I know little about their taxonomy or evolutionary relationships and would love to learn some more. I recently read an article about one of the subpopulations. --KP Botany (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, it is a B-class article so it is a decent starting point to try to achieve GA, and eventually possibly FA, status. On the surface, it does appear to be light on citations, so that can provide an obvious improvement opportunity. Rlendog (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a start with collaborations. Shyamal (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

  • Current status -

2010[edit]

Fossa (animal) (8 votes) May-June 2010[edit]

Nominated May 9, 2010; Voting ends on May 16, 2010. Approved. This will be the article to collaborate on for the rest of May till the end of June. Let’s get to work! All discussion should now go on the talk page. The Arbiter★★★ 16:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Support:[reply]

  1. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. UtherSRG (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sasata (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ucucha 12:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Arbiter★★★ 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shyamal (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Interesting species from an interesting place. Combats systematic bias, but has enough to write a good article on. Covered on the sample of the HBM treatment (entry here), which allows everyone access info to work on it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support this one. I promise not to be too biased... even though it does eat lemurs. I even have a book or two that might contain some useful information. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and laughing at VH... but really, it makes sense to have a really good article on the primary predator of lemurs, since you've done such a good job on so many lemur articles already. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got a new lead sentence: "The fossa (Cryptoprocta ferox) is a mean mammalian predator endemic to Madagascar, and has a unfortunate habit of eating the world's most amazing primates: lemurs." Is that NPOV enough?  :-)
Seriously, though, I could write a section on phylogeny and evolution and offer support for everything else. I could also write an ecology and/or behavior section, though I might leave that to someone else so that no one will think that I'm trying to draw extra attention to the lemur articles I've been working on.  ;-) I'm also willing to write the lead, we already have several highly skilled copyeditors offering support, and since their writing skills are far superior to mine, it may be best if they write it. Either way, just let me know what you want me to work on if it is decided that this will be the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about the lemurs, it eats rodents. Could we ever forgive it? More importantly (if possible), the Mammalian Species account is also available online (here). Ucucha 12:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That heartless beast!  :-) Anyway, nice find on the article. I'm glad you found a free version. Anyway, regardless of whether or not this article is picked, there appears to be one or more naming issues with the article as it stands. I'll start the discussion on the talk page. At the very least, we can at least sort this out, even if a more worthy article is chosen instead. And speaking of other noms, I'm tempted to nominate Malagasy Giant Rat just to see how long it takes Ucucha to change his support. <evil laugh> – VisionHolder « talk » 18:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This thing eats lemurs? *sniff sniff* I vote for AfD, this thing doesn’t deserve an article. ;) The Arbiter★★★ 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be interesting to write about an organism that actually moves. I'm in. Sasata (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! Thanks everyone for being willing to start up collaborations again. Hey Sabines Sunbird, this looks like an interesting article. Good work. I would like to know what everyone’s opinion is on how we should close these collaboration votes. Do we do it when it reaches a certain number, or give the voting a time period? What do you guys think? The Arbiter★★★ 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've got pretty good support for this article, though we could wait a full week from the time this one was nominated to see if others get nominated and supported. As for working on the chosen article, would everyone rather work directly on the article or work from sandboxes, then publish the new article when finished? If we divide it up into sections and work from our own sandboxes, it would reduce edit conflicts. Also, a finished product publication might allow us to put it up on DYK. Finally, is everyone interesting in just re-writing the chosen article and leaving it, or is everyone wanting to work together as a team to take it all the way to FA? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see enough info available to take this to FAC, and think we should go for the extra exposure with a DYK. It would require a hefty expansion, but easily doable (in addition to the links above, there's over 100 hits in the ISI Web of Knowledge). I am not sure about the best way to use our collective resources and talents to get this done efficiently as possible, but VH's suggestion sounds like a reasonable way to start. Sasata (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone else agrees on individual sandboxes, we could establish section titles and then divvy them up between willing contributors. As I've said, I have resources to do an "evolutionary history" section, and possibly a "cultural references" section. (I'd have to re-check my book on Malagasy fady, or taboo, when I'm sober...) I don't know who wants want, but I'm willing to compromise. I'm sure we can match the sections to their best potential author. That, of course, will not stop everyone from adding content to each section nor stop them from proofreading / copy-editing. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that edit-conflicts are a sufficiently big enough issue to justify editing in chunks in sandboxes. We've run numerous colabs in WP:BIRD without it being a problem. The article at present needs a bit of reorganisation, and this would have to be done first before any such partitioning of effort. I'm not convinced it is needed or useful. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so I’ll close voting after one week. Since we only have one nomination, it doesn’t look like that will be too much of a problem. If we are all going to work on the article, maybe we should have a page to discuss our improvements on. Using the article talk page might leave it cluttered beyond repair, but then again, maybe it won’t. What do you guys think? The Arbiter★★★ 01:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current status -

Slow loris (6 votes) for late 2010[edit]

Nominated May 19, 2010; Approved and ready for collaboration. All discussion should now go to the talk page. Let's get another FA guys! Cheers, The Arbiter★★★ 16:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. UtherSRG (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jack (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Arbiter★★★ 17:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sasata (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Sorry to stick with the strepsirrhine primates, but this article has been in the top 25 most popular primate pages for a long time, and I only recently discovered that it was likely due to a number of "cute slow loris pet videos" on youtube. For conservation reasons, I feel this genus article needs a significant overhaul. We need to show what's known about these primates and explain the conservation status of its three species. Since it's a article on a genus, it can be more broad, hitting some of the highlights of the individual species, as well as shared traits and behaviors. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. This looks like a very interesting article. The Arbiter★★★ 17:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chance of this getting promoted is much higher than monkey, would be a good start after a period of inactivity until folks find there feet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Past unsuccessful nominations[edit]

Woolly Mammoth (5 votes)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. . Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bobisbob (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Anaxial (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enoktalk 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Pros: no prehistoric mammals are featured....Cons: a more ambitious project as is currently a bit all over the place. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could probably interest User:Helioseus in this topic. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think it deserves a spot. Bobisbob (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primate (4 votes)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bobisbob (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Anaxial (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Pros: Already been reviewed a few times, so there are plenty of comments. Every Wikipedian is a primate. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good. Bobisbob (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect - this is the sort of article (i.e. possibly quite a big one) which a collaboration may be good for.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal (3 votes)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. .Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. VanTucky 04:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Obvious choice to lay the foundation of a portal, but may be a huge challenge first off if teh energy is lacking....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've learned how to find the best sources for a species, but for the topic of mammal itself I'd be completely stumped. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A key article that is often overlooked and needs basic improvements. VanTucky 04:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus (3 votes)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. . Third choice Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. . Bobisbob (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I HAS A BUCKET! JayHenry (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Pros: Already a Good Article. And doesn't everyone like the walrus? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. It's in very good shape. Bobisbob (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this one is extremely close. Might not even need a full collaboration. --JayHenry (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yak (3 votes)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. An important animal with a poor article. The article covers both domestic and wild yaks, and the wild species is currently Vulnerable. Considering that it is of more import to Asia, improving this would also go a long way towards countering a Western systemic bias. VanTucky 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Enoktalk 15:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bobisbob (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments:

  • Wow, what the heck? Everyone knows what a yak is, so why is this article so tiny? Enoktalk 15:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California Sea Lion (2 votes)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. What do you think? Bobisbob (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. .Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Pros: Contains good and detailed information on the animal and has a fair amount of references for its size. Bobisbob (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, could be a goer. It is manageable and there is a good base of information there. We've got a few sea mammals on the go but that ain't no crime...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few sea mammals, but none of the pinnipeds. Walrus is really close too. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smilodon (2 vote)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. . Bobisbob (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JayHenry (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This one needs some cleanup. Bobisbob (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think lack of extinct mammals is the biggest gap in our coverage. --JayHenry (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Bear (1 vote)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. .Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Pros: In pretty good shape, may not take a huge amount of work to push it over, and a topical and important animal....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey (1 vote)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Thompson's gazelle (1 vote)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. Bobisbob (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. Pros: Looks in good shape to me. I think it needs a little more info. Bobisbob (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Plains Zebra (1 vote)[edit]

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. Bobisbob (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. Anybody wannna add? Bobisbob (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Spotted Hyena (1 vote)[edit]

Nominated February 4, 2008;

Support:

  1. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Thought you might like to take a look at this one and consider working on it. It's at least one user's favourite animal. I don't currently write articles, so am ineligible to support the nomination. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • well 'spotted' - this one is another well-developed article that should at least be at GA for a stable version. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dugong (1 vote)[edit]

Nominated February 11, 2008;

Support:

  1. Enoktalk 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Pros: Significant & fascinating species currently vulnerable to extinction. Already has many quality citations, although the final few sections could still use work. Enoktalk 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


African buffalo (1 vote)[edit]

  1. Bobisbob (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinniped (1 vote)[edit]

  1. Bobisbob (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Marsupial (1 vote)[edit]

Nominated April 16, 2008;

Support:

  1. StroboX (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • An article on an important group of mammals, which could stand a healthy dose of expansion and reference cleanup. StroboX (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possum[edit]

Nominated May 18, 2010;

Support:

  1. UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZooPro 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • It's had an expert tag on it for some time. It's an Australian high-order taxa. It's in desperate need of attention as there are quite a number of diverse species in the taxa. Many N. Americans think there is only one possum, the Virginia Opossum, but that species isn't even in this taxa. Lots of good possibilities for improvement and education. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hispaniolan Solenodon‎[edit]

Nominated May 31, 2010;

Support:

  1. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This bizarre mammal, along with the next nomination, are very endangered mammals from the island of Hispaniola that seem to be getting some attention on the BBC lately. There is also more information about them here. Although the Slow loris article is a higher priority for me, I would also be willing to work on one or both of these articles for conservation reasons. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hispaniolan Hutia‎[edit]

Nominated May 31, 2010;

Support:

  1. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Same comments as for the Hispaniolan Solenodon‎ nomination above. This one's a rodent, so Ucucha should be very happy. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California sea lion[edit]

Nominated June 8, 2010;

Support:

  1. – 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Seems to be on it's way to a good article status and is a well known and iconic animal. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals/Collaboration/Past_MCs&oldid=1138361625"