Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tasmanian Devil/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 14:21, 10 May 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: PDH, UtherSRG, Graham87, Wikiproject Australia, Wikiproject Mammals''

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe this article no longer represents Wikipedia's best work. Since 2005, there have been significant developments in the literature on devil facial tumour disease, a significant threat to the Tassie Devils. However, these developments are not represented in the article at FA-level prose. (1a) There has also been an adult non-fiction book about the Tassie Devils published in 2005 which would be help the article be better researched. (1c) It is co-authored by "the Program Leader for Wildlife Conservation within the Department of Primary Industries and Water". David Owen is a difficult name to search for, but the book has been favourably reviewed by New Scientist, so it should pass WP:RS. The summary style is improper between the daughter article and the main article, and it perhaps places too much weight on the disease, given that there is a whole article devoted to the disease. (4) I've merged the material over to the daughter article but am hesitant to create a summary at the main article. Would appreciate any comments. --Malkinann (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - yes, needs some work definitely (formatting --> straightforward, but comprehensiveness --> more of a challenge). That book would be good to get to look at, and hopefully we can move it from further reading section to a references section soon enough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bilby's uni has the book in digital version. Hopefully he can download it and hand it around. Owen also wrote an analogous book for Thylacine which is another old FA. Hopefully at worst the book is not one of those readable things that you can't save or cut and paste  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  03:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – What needs expanding, ect.  Aaroncrick  TALK 07:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I know nothing but I can't see any honest justification for 16k prose when a whole book is available and the thing is much more famous than the Green and Golden Bell Frog  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  07:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The behaviour and ecology section concerns me the most. --Malkinann (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * yep, don't wanna add garbage, though. I'm sure there would be plenty of folk to help out.  Aaroncrick  TALK 10:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are they?? :(  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  08:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, threats to the TD which aren't DFTD. --Malkinann (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Such as the problem with foxes...  Aaroncrick  TALK 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also getting the impression that because they're scavengers, the TDs go for roadkill, and end up as roadkill themselves. --Malkinann (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would an 'in captivity' section be helpful? --Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure.  Aaroncrick  TALK 00:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have tagged up the article based on this discussion. Hopefully this will act as an aide-de-memoir and draw attention to the FAR, rather than being taken as a WP:TAGBOMB. --Malkinann (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently when the TD was extinct on the mainland has a few competing theories/is discussed in the literature. Also needs more on the TD's ancestry. --Malkinann (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Some short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs in the lede/intro of the article - per WP:LEAD, these should be expanded or merged, in fact, the whole lede/intro size should be expanded upon a bit more. There are some referencing issues, and also short paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs, in the article body text itself as well. I know the Looney Tunes bit should not be a significant chunk relative to the total size of the article, but perhaps this could be expanded upon a wee bit more, perhaps two more sentences on this, and other instances in popular culture. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with all this - by the time we've finished with it I expect the article will have doubled in size, so a couple of more sentences on Taz will be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the Owen/Pemberton book rather annoying as it is almost all random anecdotes and some fluff, and the random specimens it discusses could just be outliers and the like  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to, okay, thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: See MOS:CAPTION regarding period usage. No other criterion three concerns.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Status I think we need to write down what's missing  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  00:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article still needs:
 * More on the genetics, in general
 * also, showing that there are two distinct populations of TDs and why the lit. thinks this is so.
 * More on the home range.
 * More on the social network.
 * Have we covered enough of early settlers' impressions of the devil? Could we use a sketch to convey something about this?
 * Also, we don't have any pictures of older, fatter, devils in the article - only young, cuter, devils are represented, which is probably a bad thing, but possibly not a concern for FA?
 * The DFTD section still needs a rewrite. I've been improving the daughter article a bit in anticipation of this.
 * Evolution of the devil, treeclimbing ancestor.
 * More on how they move around an area/disperse.
 * For wiki-issues, the article needs a reshuffle, rationalisation of the section names, and a copyedit/refcleanup. There's no such thing as a MOS for animals?
 * You've done some great work thus far on the article, I'm amazed by how far it's come. :) --Malkinann (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, I feel spent  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  00:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need more people pitching in, else we won't get anywhere. The article won't die if it gets to 50k, it's about 40 atm. But everyone has the pdf of the book, so what's the matter? :(  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the article as it was just prior to FAR - it's improved tremendously. It could be the time of year that everyone's busy? --Malkinann (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I haven't been much use so far. I am actually in a good position to prioritise working on this wiki-wise curently, just have no idea how much free time I actually have at present (much to do...). Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Update - I am reorganising into subsections like many other biology FAs. This helps give the article more structure, and also identifies what is still missing. There is no MOS as such, but most bio FAs follow a similar structure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead fattened  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've made it a little bit too fat. &mdash;Dark 01:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The prose is now 50k, so I don't think it is proportionally too fat  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  08:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * home range and patrolling done I think. I've gone through O/P up until p77 except for the giant list of differeny noises and postures. The rest is mostly cultural stuff and probably won't yield much more; it is mostly monologues and extracts on old and outdated ideas, cultural history/perception etc Still long way :(  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  08:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In order for the article to be comprehensive, do we have to use more of the stuff from Web of Science that Casliber pulled up on the talk page? --Malkinann (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is good in these cases to check them off as much as possible, so noting ones which have information which is too specific/not of interest to the general reader or already covered elsewhere. Especially prudent if we're still concerned about comprehensiveness. I might have a bit more time this week, depending on RL circumstances. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Added some genetics but wasn't able to understand much of the paper, so only used a bit of it  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been feeling really jetlagged the past few days, my brain is only cranking into gear for complicated stuff now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've experimentally reorganised the lower part of the article to regard conservation, in captivity and cultural references as a subset of human relationships with the TD. Unsure of how it looks - does this structure now imply that DFTD is anthropogenic? :/ --Malkinann (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * looks good. I was thinking of doing the same thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What more is wanted from the in captivity section? Not a lot is different, and O/P hardly has anything of substance apart from some anecdotes of humans patting them on the head at a zoo, and transcripts of interviews without much pertinent. Also DFTD is now under the human section as conservation is under humans, which creates a problem  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe stuff like the FREs? Where would breeding and release programs go?  It seems that, with DFTD predicted to spread across the entire range of the devil, (and populations estimated to become locally extinct within 15 yrs of disease introduction - McCallum, H et al. (2007). "Distribution and Impacts of Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumor Disease") - well, it doesn't look good for the survival of the TD. :( I've done another reorganisation attempt which has conservation not in the human section, so that it doesn't look anthropogenic. Is that any better? --Malkinann (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that looks good too. Onre thing I have done before is place Conservation sections as subsections of Distribution and habitat sections, as in a way it is a focus on distribution/population, but often in articles where it is a big issue (such as Kakapo and this one), full section status is an option too). Either good. I am happy to follow your lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Are the expansion tags still needed?  Aaroncrick  TALK 09:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Genetics needs way more love for the 2004 paper. Not too sure about the others - perhaps going through the WoS stuff will provide answers. --Malkinann (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Does the 2009 paper on teh social network cause problems with material added from earlier sources?  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  05:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the writeup is good. (barring actually having, you know, read the paper). Says we thought TDs were solitary, research was performed, and this is the actual situation, and explains the actual situation. There's a 2008 paper which goes into seasonal stuff and the TDs meeting, but perhaps the 2009 paper supercedes it? Just as a general note, I find I'm rubbish at juicing information out of papers - so I feel more comfortable marking them as in the article than confidently done. --Malkinann (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Gah, spoke too soon - "Although they hunt alone,[33] there have been unsubstantiated claims of communal hunting where one repels prey out of its habitat and an accomplice attacks,[67] eating is a social event for the Tasmanian devil. This combination of a solitary animal that eats communally makes the devil unique among carnivores.[53]" - this does not reference the 2009 study or gel with it. --Malkinann (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a read. Often the best thing is to list out how the various studies make their observations - eg the radio collars for the 2009 field study etc. I can embellish it a bit and send to you guys as it is quite interesting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it. The radio collar study says that most of the time the devils were alone, but that they interacted with other devils quite often. They did note that male-male interactions were rare (better add that). I have to download the fulltetext of the radio study again :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Padded in Jones' 2004 study on low genetics, with a lot of quoting, as I am not confident rephrasing  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have had very little sleep the last couple of days due to RL commitments, so really cerebral stuff is a bit of a challenge, but the end is in sight :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Just got a book on Carnivorous marsupials by Archer et al from the library, so should have a good overview to get an idea of coverage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Nothing has happened in the review section for close to a month, so moving to the FARC section. Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness and due weight. Dana boomer (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * YM asked me to look into this before he took his break, so I'm taking a pile of readings and I'll try and do what I can for it in a week. I'm stuck on the water with no internet access until then, but I should be able to make a shot at it upon my return, once I have a better feel for the topic. - Bilby (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bilby! Could we get an update as to a possible time frame for this article? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've finally got all the reading out the way. :) I'll see what I can do over the next couple of days. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Update? Dana boomer (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is approaching keep territory, just need to check the tumour bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please note:
 * 2 dead links
 * dealt with/updated Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Still a cleanup banner in the facial tumour section.
 * It is in error. actually summarises the daughter article okay. What /both/ articles lack is what the disease /looks/ like in much detail. I am looking into it and it shouldn't be difficult at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Citation needed tag in the Cultural references section.
 * This could be solved by some rewording of the reference to the character - given the apparent non-notability of the Tasmanian Devil character, and the existence of comic book death, it might just be simpler to cite that a character by that name exists, without going into detail about origin and (apparently outdated) death. --Malkinann (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "When?" tag in the feeding section.
 * I placed this tag - asking if the citation is to Guiler (1970) or Guiler (1992). --Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It can't be 1970, see the page range Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Once these issues are taken care of, the article should be good to go. Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'I can see the finishing line in this one. On a bit of a roll now.'' Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How is work moving along on these final points? Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restated the DC superhero mention to say merely that he exists, which is all I can source. With this, I believe all of the issues you've raised with the article are taken care of. --Malkinann (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Happy to keep now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Not a strongly held opinion. Feel free to ignore. Lightmouse (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It has several instances of centimetres with decimal precimal. It may be better to use millimetres instead.
 * ''Funnily enough, I have been advised to change measurements in mm in the past when I've used mm for smaller ones and cm for bigger ones. Also the cm ones have inche conversions which are even smaller. I can see this is an either/or type situation - given the inch conversions I am inclined to leave as is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


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