Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Javan slow loris/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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011.

Javan slow loris

 * Nominator(s): –  VisionHolder « talk » 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC), Ucucha, Sasata

I am nominating this for featured article because we feel this article meets the FA criteria. This article is another product of the WP Mammals Collaboration. –  VisionHolder « talk » 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Check alphabetization of literature list
 * Could you please clarify your expectations because to me, the literature list is alphabetized. The Nekaris refs are a little tricky, but I've sorted them by last1 -> year -> last2 -> last3, etc.  If that's wrong, what is the proper way? –  VisionHolder  « talk » 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sasata fixed it already. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Use of retrieval dates seems inconsistent. In what circumstances do you use them? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikkimaria, I have fixed the order and removed two unnecessary retrieval dates. Sasata (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see more slow loris here. [from J Milburn]
 * "its fur, morphology" Would its fur not be an element of its morphology?
 * Yes, removed "fur". Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this technically use Australian spelling? It's not something I'm concerned about, but I can imagine someone may be...
 * Well, Java isn't in Australia, and I don't think we do spelling according to the closest English-speaking country. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Javan slow loris (Nycticebus javanicus), was" lose the comma?
 * Yes.
 * Category:Animals described in 1812?
 * Yes.
 * The lead implies that it was always considered part of a different species until recently (or that's the impression I got)
 * Added a little.
 * Does the genus "Bradylemur" still exist? It would be worth a link if so.
 * I believe it's a synonym of Nycticebus; it's certainly no longer valid. The name was also reused for a subfossil lemur, now considered a synonym of Archaeolemur. People liked to change names around at that time. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "According to Nekaris and Jaffe" Full names would be nice, along with links/clarification of who they are
 * Removed that piece; it was redundant. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "in a 2000 field guide on Indonesian primates" Do we know the title/author(s)? In any case, this is, surely, wrong- Saint-Hilaire saw it as a separate species!
 * Yes, they are cited, but I'm not sure we want that much detail in the text. I added an "again" to address your second point: they were likely the first ones since the early 20th century at least to recognize it as a species. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a tiny bit of overlinking to other species, I feel. You "introduce" them (with common name, specific name and a link) several times apiece.
 * I could only find the Bengal linked twice; removed the second link. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "from six specimens rescued from the illegal wildlife trade in Java," I'm not sure this information is necessary. It doesn't feel massively NPOV.
 * Not sure. The information that this is based on captive specimens may be good to have, because captive specimens may show different features. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was probably going by the source when I wrote it, and it can be important to know where the specimens came from (if it's noted). I guess you could argue that the selection of specimens may have been previously altered by poacher for buyer preference...  Using animals from a market is certainly an non-standard sampling method. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Granted, but I feel the phrase "rescued from the illegal wildlife trade in Java" is overly emotive. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could just swap the verb "rescued" for something more neutral sounding... "obtained"? Sasata (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me. Ucucha 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The block of stats doesn't read too well either, but I'm not sure how you'd get around that, so this isn't really a helpful comment...
 * Unfortunately, the source just lists the stats, making it hard to elaborate from that. Sometimes tables help with long lists, but in this case, I don't think that would be appropriate. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the "forms" actually forms? You never give them names, nor link the term; the reference to them in the third para of Anatomy and physiology is confusing in this regard
 * We don't know what they are. Form (zoology) seems an ill-defined topic. We do actually give names to the morphological variants (javanicus and ornatus); not sure where the unclarity is. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "a "transition towards Cheiroptera, Carnivora, and other inferior Mammalia" from" Per the MoS, links in quotes should be avoided
 * Reworded to avoid the quote. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "its unique form of locomotion, which does not involve jumping" Unique to what? This is the only loris which doesn't jump?
 * Lorises in general don't jump, as far as I know. I've removed that piece, which seemed to have little specific to the Javan. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Distribution is perhaps worth merging with the above section; there's some information about its distribution which you've lumped in with "behaviour".
 * Moved some sentences around. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "incessant poaching" - "incessant" is inherently a negative term. "Continuous"? Just remove it altogether?
 * Removed. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "In Indonesia it is sold as an exotic pet more frequently than it is used in traditional medicine, despite myths of it having magical and curative properties." The phrasing implies we (the readers) were expecting it to be mostly for its magical "uses". How about something like "In Indonesia, it is sold primarily as an exotic pet, though it is also used in traditional medicine as there are myths of it having magical and curative properties." or something. That's not perfect, but I think you'll get my point.
 * Reworded. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we know anything about the magical stuff attributed to it? That's potentially interesting.
 * I'm not sure; perhaps Visionholder knows more about it. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the papers that discuss this stuff cover all slow loris species (in general), and stories from Java itself don't necessarily differentiate the two slow loris species found on the island. The entire region has a lot of myths about animals and their magical properties, particularly out in the bush.  Honestly, if the reader wants to know more, they should follow the "See also: Conservation of slow lorises" at the start of the section. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Two? There's only one, unless you are referring to ornatus, which should also be covered in this article. Ucucha 22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... my bad. I was looking at the small versions of the ranges on the IUCN Red List and thought I saw an overlap with N. coucang.  Either way, the sources don't explicitly state the Javan slow loris when they talk about myths, but there may be one we could add that talks about a myth in Java if everyone's comfortable with it.  Again, it will come from Conservation of slow lorises. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 23:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this still an outstanding issue? Do people want me to add more information about the myths from Java, or is the link to Conservation of slow lorises enough? –  VisionHolder  « talk » 20:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "although "effective law enforcement with respect to wildlife protection laws is all but non-existent in Indonesia"." I think this is the kind of quote which should really be attributed in the prose. Who's saying this, and on what authority do they make this claim?
 * Added the authors. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a little overcritical. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, and don't worry about being overly critical. I prefer it.  It makes me see the article from a completely different perspective, which ultimately makes the article stronger.  Anyway, I'm busy at the moment, but will work on addressing any lingering concerns later this evening. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 21:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. I am happy that the article is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Just one question from the conservation section: Population data for the species is sparse,[25] but a few studies have shown a low population density of 0.20 to 0.02 individuals per km2.[1]. The population density is literally less than one, am I correct?  ceran  thor 02:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the researchers typically have to search an area of several square kilometers to see a single individual. Thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I read this some time ago, thought I'd already supported &mdash; I'm getting to be as slow as a loris. After J Milburn's thorough review, I can't see anything to query  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple comments:
 * There are still some animals being introduced in too much detail. For example, "The species is a host for the parasitic flatworm, Phaneropsolus oviforme (class Trematoda, order Plagiorchiida)". Wouldn't it be better to just say the name of the species and then create a stub for Phaneropsolus oviforme with the class and order? We don't need extraneous information on an unrelated species in a FA.
 * Removed the order and class; it's unnecessary. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the more common term for Dieng Mountains is Dieng Plateau, but they may be separate. Could you double check?
 * From the maps in, it seems the Dieng Mountains are a somewhat larger area. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems a little awkward. "He argued against grouping strepsirrhines with Insectivora (a now-abandoned biological grouping) and noted that the brain had features transitional between other primates and "inferior" mammals such as bats and carnivorans." Perhaps "He argued against grouping strepsirrhines with the now-abandoned Insectivora and noted that the brain had features transitional between other primates and "inferior" mammals such as bats and carnivorans." However, I am still on the fence about whether or not Insectivora's abandonment is pertinent to the article.
 * It is, because we need to summarize Flower's piece and do so in comprehensible terms. An explanation of a subject in a few words is not off-topic. I haven't used your edit, since it does not make clear that Insectivora is (was) a biological grouping, a taxon. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you quite certain that "It was first recognized as a distinct species again in a 2000 field guide on Indonesian primates" (an issue raised above) should not state the author directly, or at least the place of origin of the field guide? The fact that it was recognized as a separate species in 2000 by an Indonesian scientist may be pertinent, as their findings are sometimes debated by foreign scientists.
 * I've added the names. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good so far, but there are still a few issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support after the above fixes and comments by Ucucha. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


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