Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salanoia durrelli/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 01:35, 4 January 2011.

Salanoia durrelli

 * Nominator(s): Ucucha 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This animal was described this year; it is a mongoose-like member of a family of carnivoran mammals unique to Madagascar. The article became a GA (thanks to reviewer Visionholder) and an ITN item on the Main Page before most news organizations even picked it up, and was read and commented on by many. As always, I'm looking forward to all reviews. Ucucha 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Madagascar is brilliant, as too is the image use in this article WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links, one redirect which I fixed. -- Pres N  22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have you tried contacting the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust for an image? They seem to be the source of all the images online. If not, I'd be happy to give it a bash. J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. If you'd like to try, that'd be great. Ucucha 22:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've sent out an email- fingers crossed! J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Got one! I've added it to the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work! Ucucha 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support by Cryptic C62. After a brief review, I am satisfied with the accessibility of the prose.
 * After an animal was observed in 2004, .." Somewhat vague phrasing, though I can't think of a better word for "animal". Perhaps this would be better: "First observed in nature in 2004, ..."
 * It was certainly not first observed in nature in 2004; there had been rumors before that were based on people actually seeing the animal, and the locals would quite certainly have seen it from time to time. I'm open to other improved wordings, though. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If this was not the first observation, then it isn't clear what the significance of 2004 is. Perhaps the clause should just be dropped? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2004 observation led to the study that described it as a new species; this is hopefully clearer now. Ucucha 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "It is found only in the Lac Alaotra area." Why is the name of this lake given in French rather than in English?
 * Durrell et al. (2010) consistently call it "Lac Alaotra" in English. I'd also be happy with "Lake", though. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I was just wondering if there was a reason. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "In two weighed specimens, body mass was 600 g and 675 g (21 and 24 oz)." Are these the only complete specimens that have been weighed? If so, I suggest specifying that information. If not, I suggest given the average weight, not just these.
 * Done. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Lac Alaotra area is a threatened habitat, and..." What does "threatened habitat" mean in this context? If it means the area suffers from habitat destruction and introduced species, then I don't understand why the second clause starts with "and".
 * Reworded. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "An individual Salanoia durrelli was observed swimming in 2004 during a survey of bamboo lemurs (Hapalemur) in the Lac Alaotra area, the largest wetlands of Madagascar, by the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (DWCT)." Because of the length of this sentence, it is unclear if "by" means "next to" or that members of the organization observed the individual.
 * Reworded; it was a DWCT expedition, and they saw the vontsira. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "the head and body length is 310 mm (12.2 in)" I think this would be a tad clearer if it included "combined" before "head and body", yes?
 * I'd rather not; "head and body length" is a fixed phrase. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "S. durrelli has a more robust dentition than the mostly insectivorous..." The start of this sentence is redundant with the previous section. My attempt at a rewrite: "S. durrelli may use its robust dentition to feed on prey with hard parts, such as..."
 * Reworded; also kept in the point that S. concolor is insectivorous. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The animals were captured using traps baited with fish and meat." It is not clear how this is relevant to this section. I suggest either explaining the connection (if there is one) or moving this piece of information to the Taxonomy section.
 * Why, it suggests that that is what they eat. Durrell et al. (2010) also mention the fact in this context. I've put in an "indeed" to make it a little clearer. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Better, but now it is unclear what "the animals" refers to--it could be S. durrelli or it could be the brown-tailed mongoose. Perhaps "the animals" could be replaced by "the two specimens of S. durrelli". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Used your wording. Ucucha 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "S. durrelli is similar in many respects to the larger mainland African marsh mongoose (Atilax paludinosa), a carnivorous wetland-dweller that also uses mats of vegetation." Uses mats of vegetation in what way?
 * Added. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * *"over five years before 2001." Very odd phrasing. Why not just specify the date range? Perhaps something like "from 1995 to 2000".
 * It's 1994–1999; had to look up the original source. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Sources and citations look OK. It should be noted that Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire is a French language source. No veification due to lack of non-subscription English language sources. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; added the French bit. Ucucha 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Taking a read through; I enjoy your articles.
 * "in 2005 by DWCT" the DWTC?
 * Either sounds good to me, but I used the article on the other occasions where the Trust is mentioned, so added it here. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "and it has been speculated" This implies that the speculation is still going on; presumably you mean that before the discovery that there was a separate species, it was speculated?
 * Yes, now 'was speculated'. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "S. durrelli shows" Something Sasata told me- I gather you shouldn't start a sentence with the abbreviated genus name?
 * I think that only goes for paragraphs; sentences are fine. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "gracile" Link?
 * I'd prefer not, since it's a fairly common word, but don't feel strongly about it. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the details on the second specimen be in the past tense?
 * Changed both into past tense; either is defensible in general for museum specimens, but because this one is presumably no longer around, past tense makes more sense, and it's better to have the two consistent. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's well written and researched, but I worry that not enough is known about this species yet. There is a fair amount of speculation in the article; guesses about what it eats, for instance. Futher, there is limited research on the species at this time; the descriptions come from only two specimens. There is a mention of the fact the locals knew about the species; perhaps there's a story to tell there? Precisely where is it found? Reproduction is not mentioned- presumably because nothing is known. I guess I'm not criticising the article, I'm saying that perhaps there has not yet been enough research on the topic to justify a FA. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point—I'd hardly want for something like Veratalpa to become an FA—but I don't think this one has insufficient information. (If consensus is otherwise, I'm fine with that.) Virtually all species are poorly known (more poorly than this one, quite likely). If more is published about S. durrelli in the future, it can (and will) be incorporated into the article. I've written several FAs on animals that we know less about, not only fossils like Ambondro mahabo, but also living species like Eremoryzomys. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, any short article is eligible for FA so long as the most basic questions about the subject can be answered and sourced. In the case of critters, those questions might be "What does it eat?" "Where does it live?" "What does it look like?" "Is it endangered?" "When was it discovered?", all of which have been answered. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but it could be argued that those questions perhaps aren't answered. Its diet is only speculated, its habitat and range is not fully known (being judged from only a few collections), the same is true of the appearance. I would agree with what you're saying if you were talking about GAs; while a GA has to be "broad", a FAC has to be "comprehensive". There remain questions unanswered- reproduction? Lifespan? Behaviour? Relation to humans? And there remain questions that could be expanded upon, and perhaps will be with further research. I'm not opposing as such, I guess this FAC just raises questions about the nature of FAs. This seems to me to be a fantastic GA, but perhaps not a great FA. I believe I am right in saying that the GA project started out with just this issue in mind; articles can be excellent, but on subjects on which there is not enough material to warrant a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would interpret "comprehensive" as meaning "covering everything we know", not "covering everything we could know". The article on the marsh rice rat, for example, does not say how many genes the animal has, a fairly basic biological fact which is not known of this species (as of most others), and I hope you agree that it is comprehensive. Ucucha 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble with that definition would be that there are subjects on which very little is known- some historical figures, mythological figures, distant stars, obscure species (especially those which are extinct- you know more about that than me!) and so on. I expect we would not be promoting 2,500 byte articles on those subjects to FA status. The line needs be drawn somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Miniopterus zapfei? The line must needs be drawn somewhere, I agree, but I think we've recently promoted on subjects that we know about as little about, or perhaps less: Miniopterus aelleni, for example, and Eremoryzomys (which I mentioned already), Euryoryzomys emmonsae, Miss Meyers, Cryptoprocta spelea. Ucucha 23:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * <-- Interesting discussion. I think if we go strictly on the FAC criteria, Ucucha's short articles, sometimes based largely on a single major publication, meet all the criteria (and I have said this several times in my previous supports). But theoretically, this opens the door to a flood of very short FAC candidates on subjects that are inherently notable (like species) but do not have a lot written about them. I think if we consider the examples of short FACs that Ucucha has given, the FAC-reviewing community has generally approved of the idea that short articles can be eligible for FA status (and I recall talk page discussions about this as well). But there does need to be a line drawn somewhere, right? Perhaps broader talk page discussion is warranted (so as to not overwhelm this FAC)? Sasata (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A sound plan. I've gone ahead and summarized the discussion here. I attempted to be as neutral as possible; feel free to tweak my wording as you see fit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've joined the discussion there. I do not oppose this article, and I have no objection to this vaguely off-topic discussion being collapsed. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Extensive discussion at WT:FAC has yielded no consensus, or perhaps better stated, no reason not to allow short FAs. If we can have short hurricane and road articles, we can have short bio articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support and nitpicks No real problems, but two niggles  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ucucha 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * gracile &mdash; an uncommon word, needs replacing or a wiktionary link
 * You're the second one saying this, so I've added a wikt link. Ucucha 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The grebe ref (17 at present) doesn't follow punctuation contra MoS. I'd add a comma or move the ref to the end of the sentence


 * The requirement is only that refs should not be placed before punctuation, not that they should necessarily come after a piece of punctuation. See WP:REFPUNC. Ucucha 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I've had a think about the above discussion and the discussion on the talk page, and I am now happy to support this article. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Prose is engaging, and very "clean". Meets FA criteria. I do not have access to the 2010 Durbin et al. paper, so was not able to compare the text to the main source. I am reduced to the most minor of nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Ucucha 13:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "reddish buff" (2x), and later "reddish brown" seem like they need hyphens
 * Sure.
 * "The animal was captured, photographed, and then released, but examination of the photograph showed ..." photographs, as I assume they took more than one?
 * No, they also use the singular in the source: "Comparison of the photograph with skins of all the previously known Madagascan carnivorans..." Ucucha 13:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "are broad and short, the region of the palate is broad." needs "and" after comma?
 * Yes.
 * source Mutschler et al. 2001 should indicate that it's issue 2
 * Added.


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