Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conservation of slow lorises/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 SandyGeorgia 02:05, 3 April 2011.

Conservation of slow lorises

 * Nominator(s): –  VisionHolder « talk » 04:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria. Although I am not neutral on the topic, I have done my best to keep the article in line with WP:NPOV, and I have given preference to the most reliable sources, including academic journal articles, followed by news articles, and lastly by newsletters from conservation organizations directly involved in slow loris conservation. (Note: I just discovered a new source: 'Cute' umbrella video of slow loris threatens primate by Jeremy Hance. If the reviewers feel that this is a reliable source, I will add the new information.)  As some or most of you might know, this is a very hot topic right now. A new pet slow loris video has just been released on YouTube, and viewing stats on the article have skyrocketed. However, editing activity has been negligible, and no edit wars have broken out—a trend that I hope speaks to the articles comprehensive and neutral nature. –  VisionHolder « talk » 04:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * In my view, the source you mention above meets WP:RS and would be a good addition
 * Thank you for your opinion. However, I would like at least one more opinion on this matter before I put in the work of adding it—that way if other reviewers disagree, then I don't have to revert myself.  The reason I ask about this source is because my only failed GAN had issues where people questioned the reliability of mongabay.com, claiming they were more like blogs.  However, this interview was with the leading slow loris researcher (Anna Nekaris), and very likely to be accurate.  If anyone reads this and has doubts about the interview, I can contact Nekaris and confirm the details. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The information from that source has now been added. –  VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No footnotes to McGreal 2010 or 2006
 * Thanks for catching those. They've been removed. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you provide publisher location or not
 * Because most of the publications do not easily offer a publisher location, I have removed "location=" from the two refs that used it. –  VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Spell out or link CITES in ref 11
 * Done. –  VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether initials are spaced or not, and watch for doubled periods caused by the citation template.
 * I have fixed this, however, the Wiki community needs to settle on some standards here. Bots create citations with and without spaces, other editors do not, and even the spelling out of the first name is highly variable and hotly debated.  I often get into edit wars with bots over this (and other things).  Since this article uses cite doi and those refs are used on other article, I will standardize around what those templates use... assuming they they are consistent.  Anyway, thanks for noticing. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources seem appropriately scholarly and reliable. Spotchecks not done, will do later. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source review! –  VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooh (sharp intake of breath) the mongabay one is a toughie. The site's principal author Rhett Butler has had some stuff published in Peer Reviewed journals, which is promising, but the site is a bit bloggy in scope and nature. But, given we have this, and the article quotes the same person, Angelina Navarro-Montes, and the material clearly does not contradict or anything, I am leaning to accepting the source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. In that case, I will work on adding the information.  It may be tomorrow night before I get around to it. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Information added, as stated above. –  VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Nice read, thanks for writing this. I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki... But I do have a few queries:
 * 1) The lede could do with a sentence or so from the background. It took me a few paragraphs to get the idea that we were talking about a Southeast asian primate. Sorted.
 * Done. Let me know if that's enough. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Estimates of population size and rate of change would be nice. But if they don't exist just confirmation that you've checked for that would be fine.
 * Population ecology for slow lorises is poorly understood. I think the article mentioned the lack of information and the need for more studies. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No Problem. FA requires us to check if such is available, but not to go beyond current knowledge.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "In the case of long-lived primates, such as the slow lorises, populations replenish themselves slowly."  How slowly?
 * Unfortunately, I can't find any information on this. Generally, primates have long lifespans and reproduce slowly, giving birth to few offspring over the course of a couple years.  If I see anything specific about it, I'll add it. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Again, FA requires us to check if such is available, but not to go beyond current knowledge.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The breeding program bit seems to only talk about southeast Asia and North America globalisation would be nice,
 * Breeding programs are common among many zoos, but I was trying to hit upon on the major centers for this species. I'm worried that if I start working off of sources such as the one you pointed to, it might develop issues of WP:TRIVIA.  I guess I could add a quick mention that breeding is being done in Europe, too...  How does that sound?  –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could refer to international breeding programs and then use your US example - "for example in the US"  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have cited ISIS and made some changes to give it a more international feel. Let me know what you think. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicely done.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) They are variously described as "popular pets in Japan, the United States and Europe", and "very popular pets".  Personally I'm not an authority on European pets, but here in the UK I'd be surprised if popular went much beyond dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice,  guinea pigs, carp, goldfish, stick insects, pigeons, budgies and ferrets. I doubt if Europe would be that different.
 * I was going by the source, but I think it's a relative term. Dogs and cats number in the millions, but exotic pets are often comparatively rare because many of their wild populations aren't that high.  Although the source doesn't say, I suspect that it means either they are more common than some other exotic species, or that they are simply in high demand compared to other exotic species.  But without a source to say that, I'm not sure if there's anything I can work off of. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This could be awkward, but perhaps the phrase "popular exotic pet" would be best.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. –  VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "Humans have been hunting mammals in Asia for at least 40,000 years,and until recently, the levels of extraction have been low enough to be sustainable." I'm assuming this needs reworking to separate lorises from other mammals - some of which have been hunted to extinction. I suggest "Humans have been hunting mammals in Asia for at least 40,000 years, but until recently, Slow lorises were only hunted at a sustainable level".
 * Fixed. –  VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "males are territorial and mark their urine." surely "males are territorial and mark their territories with urine".
 * Fixed. Thanks for catching this. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the copyedit and review! –  VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for writing this.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to give this a proper review if I get the chance, but here are some initial thoughts:
 * File:Extent-of-deforestation-in-borneo-1950-2005-and-projection-towards-2020.jpg should not be used. It's non-free and lacks a non-free use rationale, but it's replaceable- it could be replaced by a user-made graphic showing the same information, and so will not meet the non-free content criteria in this usage. As it is showing important info, it may well be worth working on a graphic of your own, but, in the mean time, it definitely needs to go.
 * I was afraid this might come up... I had a lengthy discussion about this on the IRC channel for Commons with several Commons admins not too long ago, and they actually suggested the opposite.  In fact, there was a comparable graphic based on the original, but they read the licensing at the original website and concluded that it was a violation, so they deleted it.  Instead, they told me to use this low-res version under fair use.  If you want, I can try to track down the original file name from the user-made file and see if we can track down the responsible admins so that we can get their opinions on this discussion.  Your thoughts? –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems reasonable. Data is not copyrightable, merely its presentation. So, unless I am missing something key, the data can be reused and presented in a different way without a copyright problem, and, as such, there is no way this can be used under the NFCC. It's entirely possible that the original user-made image was too close to the original, and so had to be deleted, but I am surprised someone recommended that you uploaded this under the NFCC- I can only assume that the admins you chatted to were not particularly familiar with our policies here. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did mention that the article was headed to FAC, but I can't say whether or not they've had experience with it. I figured that they would know the copyright laws the best.  If you prefer, I could remove the image.  However, I will note that the publishers of the original image want us to use it on Wikipedia, but because the "release" they emailed me was too ambiguous—referring to the release on their own website, which is very similar to CC-BY-SA—and they never responded to my repeated requests for clarification, we were forced to seek these problematic alternatives. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that this may sound strange, but this is not a legal issue. I have little doubt that it would be fine to use here under the license on the website and/or under fair use (but, of course I don't know for sure) but, if it is not explicitly released freely (as defined by Wikipedia and/or Commons) it can be used only where such usage meets the NFCC; this one very clearly does not, as it could conceivably be replaced by a free graphic showing the same information. As such, yeah, it really needs to go. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is gone. –  VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Other images check out copyright-wise. (I feel I have to mention that they are a little upsetting; perhaps the image choice could be considered a NPOV issue? I don't know.)
 * I know what you mean, because I have seen more than one Wiki article that was illustrated like an animal rights poster. However, these photos may be disturbing, but they're not that bad.  They do their job by illustrating key points of the article, such as the conditions in which they are kept, their health problems, and the way they are treated.  Others show the kinds of animal products and conditions you would see in an animal market in Indonesia.  The photos were taken by academics and rehabilitation facility staff.  And unlike undercover PETA photos, there is full, truthful disclosure about the source and locations of the photos.  But in addition to these photos, there is a home-made pet photo, a "traditional" conservation photo (animal being held by a zoo keeper), and habitat destruction photos.  I have only used the tooth cutting photo on two articles, this and Slow loris, although one of our collaboration members also used it on Sunda slow loris, which I thought was a little much but haven't challenged yet.  Personally, I'm in favor of keeping them, especially given how much effort went into tracking them down and getting them released.  After all, Wiki doesn't censor. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree. I was just sharing my thoughts, but, like you, I'm more on the animal rights side than most myself. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not on the side of animal rights, but instead favor animal welfare. Unfortunately, the terms "animal rights" and "animal welfare" are popularly misunderstood, not only by the general public, but even by the experts in the animal fields.  Animal rights, and particularly its founders and most vocal advocates, favor giving full human rights to animals, which (to the surprise of many, except those who read their books) includes prohibiting people from owning pets.  Animals rights also pushes for vegetarianism or veganism and also opposes animals being kept in zoos.  Their popular expression is: "Better off dead than in captivity."  Animal welfare, on the other hand, is a view upheld by most veterinarians and zookeepers.  It does not oppose the keeping of animals in captivity (particularly in zoos) or their use in the food industries, as long as it's done humanely and keeps any suffering to an absolute minimum.  Animal welfare people generally oppose the keeping of exotic pets for conservation reasons.  Of course, the distinction gets really blurry when we consider certain political advocacy groups that claim to be "animal welfare", but help craft laws that underhandedly set precedence for animal rights agendas.  For example: requiring that all zoos offer elephants X-amount of space to free-range, and deliberately setting the value to be larger than the available land area of the best and largest zoos, including the San Diego Wild Animal Park.  The goal, of course, being to make it impossible for zoos to keep certain main-attraction animals, and then use each success to push to ban more and more animals on similar grounds until all the main attractions are gone and zoos fail financially.  This may sound like a paranoid delusion, but this is a battle that's been going on for nearly a decade in the state of California.  (California has also seen similar battles involving farm-raised chickens and pet "ownership".)  So, no, I'm not a supporter of animal rights, and that's not the point of this article.  This article is written from the middle-ground of an animal welfare perspective.  However, anyone who wishes to discuss the animal rights vs. animal welfare issues is welcome to do so on my talk page. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One can support animal rights generally without being "in favor giving full human rights to animals". Perhaps we're looking at this from different perspectives- I was meaning "the rights of animals", not any particular "animal rights" movement. However, as you say, here is not the place to discuss the issue. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The templates at the bottom are a little odd- since when have that style been in use?
 * It's a template I recently proposed at Village pump (proposals)‎, and then later created. I received a lot of encouragement at the proposal page.  I posted back once the template was officially completed, but hardly anyone replied.  I posted it somewhere else for comments—can't remember where—and did receive one criticism, but the argument was inconsistent and they never replied to my reply.  I have since used it on my last FAC, Marojejy National Park, which just passed without comment in regards to this.  The other option is to use at least 4 right-floating interWiki boxes that create a lot of extra white space.  (Add one more if I add a link to Commons.)  The template itself is based on a template for portals used on the French Wiki. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm honest, I do like them. I'm surprised you haven't made a slow loris navbox though. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that! I've added the loris navigational template used on all the other slow loris articles. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact some of the cites have "edit" after them jars a little.
 * That is the nature of cite doi and beyond my control. As far as I know, that template is not prohibited by any FAC criteria. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I say, I'd like to give it a proper read through at some point, but can't promise. J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd have time, I'd appreciate your review. If not, thanks for the image review and comments so far. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 *  Support Comments  An interesting if depressing article.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I made these minor edits. Please revert if unhappy
 * Thanks for the fixes. –  VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They are hunted not only by expert hunters, but are so easy to catch that they are also caught opportunistically due to the easy financial reward they bring at the markets. &mdash; a bit clunky, repeat of "easy", and the "not only" suggests we are going to be told who else catches them, rather than just why they are caught
 * Please let me know if my changes fixed the problem. –  VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not smooth, what about also easily caught by opportunist villagers  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks again for the review! –  VisionHolder  « talk » 12:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 100 million rupiah (~US$10,000). &mdash; Why the conversion here and elsewhere to dollars, rather than euros, GBP or yen? Unless USD has a RS special status, best not to convert.
 * I didn't realize there were issues with this. I used US currency because of its common use and familiarity throughout many parts of the world.  I would figure it would be helpful to provide a ballpark conversion for readers who are likely to be unfamiliar with foreign currencies.  (Most English readers will generally understand the value of US currency, more-so than Indonesian rupiah.)  The conversion is also in the text of the source.  Anyway, per WP:CURRENCY: "In non-country-specific articles such as Wealth, use US dollars ($123), the dominant reserve currency of the world."  I don't mind offering euro or GBP equivalents, but I'd need suggestions on how to source those estimates.  –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'm a bit twitchy about US-centricity, but if there's a policy, I have no objections


 * potentially toxic bite &mdash; Is this right? I didn't think any mammals were venomous. Do you mean that the bites can lead to infection?
 * This is discussed on the parent article, Slow loris... or at least will be in better detail by later tonight. In short, they have a gland on their arm that they lick, and the mixture of its secretion and the animals saliva creates a toxin that it stores in its mouth.  Opinions vary a little, but generally the bite is painful and people have been reported to die from it.  If you want, I can add this type of material to the "Background" section later this evening when I address the comments from the other reviewers above. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added information about the toxic bite to the background section. –  VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting
 * Nothing outstanding apart from the one minor tweak above, happy to change to support  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All covered, happy to Support Comments  As the last reviewer said, interesting but depressing. Just minor phrasing points:
 * It's a bit odd reading the confident statistics under "wildlife trade" when the trade was illegal for many of the countries mentioned. Maybe a statistical health warning would be a good idea?
 * As the article says, enforcement is lax, the trade occurs in clear view, and people talk openly about it. Thus researchers have pretty good numbers.  As for smuggling data, it's based on what has been discovered.  As the article says, "...it is likely that the international smuggling numbers are 'just the tip of the iceberg.'"  If you still feel a "statistical health warning" is needed, I would appreciate general suggestions on the wording. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 05:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "In Phnom Penh, Cambodia during the 1990s, 204 slow lorises were being sold at a single store" - annually? Is it an average? odd tense.
 * Per the source: "During the 1990s, researchers observed up to 204 lorises in a single store in the capital Phnom Penh." Nothing else is said on this particular shop. I get the impression that it's a cumulative figure—the researchers probably visited the store several times over the course of many years and tallied the number of slow lorises they found each time.  Do you have some suggestions on better wording? –  VisionHolder  « talk » 05:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, stock not sales. How about "In Phnom Penh, Cambodia during the 1990s, observers counted up to 204 slow lorises for sale at a single store"? Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well worded. Thanks!  Sorry, I was having a hard time thinking outside of the box last night. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 19:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The big forest fires on Sumatra etc a few years ago can't have have done them any good either. Could be mentioned if refs do - we must have articles.
 * I found two WWF articles that mention the fires and the presence of the slow lorises in the region. None comment on the direct affect on slow lorises, but I can at least mention the fires in their home range along with the dates and causes. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 05:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wondered how long they can live in the wild (if we know), & broadly what they eat - are they veggies or omnivourous? I know this aren't the species articles but this might usefully be slipped in at various points.
 * From what I can tell from the literature, long-term studies are lacking, so we don't really know how long they live in the wild. As for the diet, it is already listed in the "Background section."  If there are any other important general details, please let me know. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 05:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnbod (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment/Suggestion: Overciting, e.g.: "All species are listed either as "Vulnerable" or "Endangered" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).[6][7][8][9][10]". I agree that multiple cites can and should be used for controversial statements that might attract an edit war, but this is pretty cut-and-dried. Choose your most absolutely reliable source and delete the others (and elsewhere in the article).... oh wait, are those separate cites for separate species? In that case it's more reasonable to have multiple cites, though as a matter of style I might prefer a single note that contained all the cites... but that is a matter of preference... but if there are multiple cites in cases where the info is non-controversial and can be drawn from a single reliable source, then a single cite is much cleaner. – Ling.Nut 03:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I had already fixed it.  It was hard to find a single ref for that, but I just recently found one.  It's been fixed. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 13:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: A new article about the latest YouTube videos and their effects has been published at The Independent, which can be read here. I have added this new information after 3 of the support votes above. Please let me know if this looks okay and whether or not it should be discussed more in the lead. –  VisionHolder « talk » 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me - maybe a bit current for the lead, but I don't feel strongly about that. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments. My sister is a conservation scientist at ZSL, and at my request she got an outside opinion from an acquaintance. I have asked if I can forward his email, and will send it via your Wikipedia email link if so. The main comment was that slow loris captive breeding is in better shape than you indicate, with European and Asian zoos having had some successes. I have to head out to work now but will try to post more details this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for seeking the outside opinion. I'm still waiting for Dr. Nekaris to review the article, so this helps a lot.  The breeding may be better than the article states, but I need sources more than opinions.  Can they point me to published document that states otherwise?  Otherwise, I have to go with my sources, and since the SD Zoo publication isn't online, I can forward a scanned PDF to confirm my source.  Unfortunately, the ISIS database only gives numbers, not analysis.  Also, not to criticize the expert who gave the opinion, we need to keep in mind that opinions of captive care and breeding programs can vary widely, even among researchers and the people in charge of them.  I can give some humorous examples, but I don't want to upset anyone.  –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've emailed you the outside review and the contact information; I hope it's helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I will be in touch via email with both you and the outside reviewer. To summarize my thoughts on the email, I'm concerned that his sources will not state an assessment of the breeding programs or the explanation for the prevalence of the pygmy slow loris.  For what is sounds like, I think he's referring to numbers similar to those found on ISIS.  Unfortunately, I can't make inferences from numbers.  I hope this is not the case.  But for now, we're at a stand-still until this reviewer can point me to some sources.  Anyway, look for my email shortly.  Again, thanks! –  VisionHolder  « talk » 23:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been more than a week, and unfortunately I still haven't heard a reply from outside reviewer. If at any point he can provide sources, he can send them to me and I will promptly update the article. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 02:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments — I made some minor corrections and changes, hope they are ok. Suggestions: Sasata (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved commentary moved]to archive talk.

Support. Disclosure: I'm a member of the collaboration working on slow loris articles, but think I've assessed this like I would any other article. I'm satisified with the fixes and think the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One final nitpick: I'm worried that the lead sentence is trying to do too much; consider splitting it into two more easily digestible portions. Sasata (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked your attempt to change it since I normally like to see a little bit more information in the first sentence. Plus is makes the second sentence even smoother since it goes on to list threats.  If you're fine with how it looks, we can go with that. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 05:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I suggest that Mike Christie's information be considered part of the normal effort to update FAs. If the information is all verified RS at a later date, it can be added eventually. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I emailed Mike Christie's contact almost a week ago, and still no response.  Any time anyone finds a good source for that information, they are welcome to send it to me or update the article themselves.  But like I said, I'm worried that the info may be nothing more than a table of numbers, just like the ISIS source.  –  VisionHolder  « talk » 15:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That was awful (that's a compliment); I wish you had warned me not to read it. Could you please fix this in the lead? I couldn't understand how they could be listed as two different things; the body of the article explains that different species are listed as either vulnerable or endangered, but the lead is confusing. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ... slow lorises are listed as either "Vulnerable" or "Endangered" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
 * I think I understand what was confusing you, so I've made a change. Please let me know if that makes it any clearer for a first-time reader. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 01:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


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