Talk:Fork-marked lemur/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, long time I've seen you around these parts! Some initial comments. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was taking a bit of a break. I'm back now.  Happy to see you!  –  Maky  « talk » 22:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "a group of four or more species of nocturnal strepsirrhine primates which make up the genus Phaner." Couldn't this be simplified? Seems a bit redundant to have both group and genus in the same sentence, when it refers to the same constellation.
 * I think I was using my old Slow loris article as a template... and didn't look closely enough at it. Sound better now? –  Maky  « talk » 22:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one of these images could be useful? And a combined range map perhaps? The article is a bit empty.
 * Thanks for the suggestions. Actually I'm in touch with the people at Conservation International, hoping to acquire CC-BY-SA rights on some of the best known (and only?) photos of fork-marked lemurs in the wild. I should know more by the end of the week... or maybe next. Another thing I plan to add are photos of some of its predators... very soon.  I was also going to create a composite range map this evening, but since I've gotten sidetracked today, I'll instead be working on incorporating information from another source instead.  Give me a few more days on all of this. –  Maky  « talk » 22:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that this is done. Images have been acquired and add, along with the range map. –  Maky  « talk » 17:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Within family Cheirogaleidae, fork-marked lemurs are the most phylogenetically distinct, although its placement remained uncertain until recently - the "its" is referring to the genus? If so it should be plural....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Fixed. – Maky  « talk » 16:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Good to see it ready, I'll come back for comments later today. And Casliber, feel free to add any comments you like. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "given its own genus, Phaner, by British zoologist John Edward Gray in 1870 within the family Cheirogaleidae." It may read better if you moved "within the family Cheirogaleidae" after ", Phaner,"?
 * Good suggestion. Done. – Maky  « talk » 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Until the late 20th century, there was only one species of fork-marked lemur" I'd add "recognised/described/known species" as the other species already "existed"...
 * Another excellent suggestion. Done. – Maky  « talk » 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "and in 2001, Groves elevated all four subspecies to species status" Any dissenters to this?
 * Good question. The person to most vocally disagree would be Tattersall, and sure enough, I found his 2007 rebuttal in an article where he uniformly criticized modern lemur taxonomy for "taxonomic inflation". I can always count on that source for a counter-opinion for the current species assignment of almost any lemur. – Maky  « talk » 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I can see why you haven't written the names of the animals seen in the images outside the taxobox, as they're the same species, but would perhaps be good to note anyway? The reader wouldn't know.
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to here.... – Maky  « talk » 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I meant in the image captions. The species shown are not named. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – Maky  « talk » 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not that it matters, but I'm slightly puzzled that the photos have two different dates of creation?
 * I'm sure it matters, at least a little. Unfortunately, I'm confused by what you mean here, too. Which photos and which dates on WikiCommons? –  Maky  « talk » 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Commons file pages, the two photos have one date under description, and another udner date.
 * In one case, I suspect the camera didn't have the date/time set properly when the photo was taken, and with the other, I suspect the date from the last modification was recorded in the metadata. Anyway, I've fixed them... as best I can. –  Maky  « talk » 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Heh, good work on the etymology I assume Dunkel is you!
 * Lol, yes. Thanks! One of my coauthors, Zijlstra, is Ucucha. (We need to get him back on Wiki...) Anyway, I tried to avoid any conflict of interest as much as possible, sticking strictly to the facts. Hopefully I haven't overemphasized anything. It was a fascinating story, and I wanted the whole experience shared. Too bad we didn't mention in the article that Ucucha discovered the link with the play through a general Google search, which pointed back to the very Wikipedia article to which this article points. It would have been a nice addition. Of course, we confirmed the find with official sources in the publication. –  Maky  « talk » 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Heheh, the good kind of "original research"... FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume "fork" refers to the markings on the forehead, but I don't think I see this explicitly mentioned outside the lead?
 * Actually, it is mentioned in the Description section: "A black stripe extends from the tail, along the dorsal midline to the head, where it forks at the top of the head in a distinguishing Y-shape leading to the dark rings around both eyes, and sometimes extends down the snout." If that's insufficient, let me know. – Maky  « talk » 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean it isn't mentioned outside the lead that this feature is what gives it the name. Could be briefly mentioned under etymology?
 * Fortunately, one of my sources states it explicitly. In our etymology paper, we didn't state it because it was too obvious. Anyway, it's been added. –  Maky  « talk » 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Any word of relationships within the genus?
 * None. The genus is so poorly studied that I'm guessing that they're going off of very limited DNA material. In fact, some studies don't even include them due to a lack of material. – Maky  « talk » 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Anything on when they diverged from other lemurs?
 * I don't think the source gave a date, but I will go back and check tonight when I resume my fixes. Since it's a very early split within it's family (a sister group), it likely happened in that big gray area of when most of today's lemurs diverged (into the major families)... and the dates on that huge divergence is quite big. But maybe I can find a ballpark estimate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Added an estimate on the divergence date. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "as well as Cheirogaleus (dwarf lemurs)" As does/along with? Seems a bit odd now.
 * Thanks. Fixed. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Females have two pairs of nipples" As in four? Where are they located?
 * Yes, there are four, but I have been unable to find information about their location. The volume by Osman Hill was the best hope, but it did not clarify for these species or even make general statements about their family.  There was also a lot of uncertainty when he also discussed the mammae placement in other cheirogaleids. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "while the Amber Mountain fork-marked lemur is in the far north of the island found" Is this proper verb placement? Sounds like something from a poem...
 * Lol! Thanks for finding little gems like these. Obviously I'm unable to proofread my own writing. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "and an unusual head-bobbing behavior for fork-marked lemurs" Unusual how, since head-bobbing is apparently common for this genus, as explained under behaviour?
 * This wasn't specified. I'm removing it because the sources weren't very specific and also completely wrong on another account. (The BBC article talked about how a "strange structure under the lemur's tongue could also distinguish it". It's called a sublingua, and all lemuriforms have it... something these experts apparently didn't know. However, the official press release conveniently doesn't mention the sublingua or the head bobbing... possibly a fix that came after some private criticism.)  Since no one can describe this motion precisely for any of the species, it's probably best to omit in this case. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Fork-marked lemur are considered very vocal animals" Any reason why there's no plural s here?
 * Typo. Fixed. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "a have a complex range of calls" And?
 * Another typo. Fixed. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything under behaviour is written as if the species have all this in common. Are there no behavioural differences known?
 * The sources write about these traits as if they are shared by all four species, yet some of these sources admit that only one species has been appreciably studied. Personally, I suspect that much if not all of it will apply to all the species. Anyway, I have to follow the sources... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixes all look good. Only problem may be that after you moved the old drawing, it seems to clash with the cladogram and the taxobox? Seems a bit cluttered. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The drawback of having a detailed taxobox, good artwork from the pre-20th century, and a other good diagrams for the sections at the top of the article... Anyway, I've spread them out a bit.  The images aren't in the sections that they best belong in, but they're still relevant to those sections in a way. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 19:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems I'll have to pass it then. And merry Christmas! FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your time and the review. Happy holidays to you, too!  <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 02:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)