Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lemurs of Madagascar (book)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 11:50, 28 May 2010 [1].

Lemurs of Madagascar (book)[edit]

Lemurs of Madagascar (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. Every book review found by me, Ucucha and Sasata has been included. If anyone finds any other book reviews, particularly for the second edition, it will be added promptly. I have also briefly covered the controversy this book has helped stir regarding taxonomic inflation. All red links I feel should stay. Stephen Nash is a noteworthy illustrator for Conservation International, and Anne Yoder is a well-known lemur researcher. I'm currently writing subfossil lemur, taxonomic inflation is generally needed, and Lemur News is a noteworthy publication of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. I will try to create each of these articles in the near future.

I considered holding this nomination until the third edition was published, but it's been delayed for over a year now, and every time I inquire, the publication date gets pushed back three to four months. Once the new edition is released, I will update the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails FAC "Illustration purposes only" is not valid grounds for the use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about that summary field. I had copied it from some other non-free content as an example when I uploaded it, before I started learning more about fair-use. I thought there were grounds for using one cover image. Let me review and see if I can properly update that field. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Field has been changed to read: "The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic." This appears to comply with what is recommended at WP:NFURG. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Use {{Book cover fur}}. Valid fair use. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FUR fixed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for changing it. You beat me to it. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some stuff I'd like to see in the article if possible. More later. Sasata (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many species did the 1982 Primates of Madagascar recognize?
  • who is Russell Mittermeier, and what qualifications did he have for writing this book? (something like the lead sentence of his article would suffice)
  • how many copies of the 1st and 2nd editions were sold?
  • how many pages in the first and second editions?
  • For comparison, how many lemur species does "Mammals of Madagascar: A Complete Guide" (2007) have? Are there any other competing lemur field guides?
    The requested information has been added, except for the copies sold. If you know where to find that information, please show me. Even the second edition didn't mention sales totals for the first edition. As for other major lemur guides, there is only Goodman & Benstead's book Natural History of Madagascar from 2003 which gives a list of lemur species. Would it really be needed, or has the trend already been established? Alternatively, I could provide a See also link to the appropriate section in Lemur evolutionary history. Otherwise, let me know whether or not you approve of how the requested information was added. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sales figures are not normally available for books, unless the publisher chooses to release them. They have not been included in most FA book articles I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The additions look great; the only other thing I can think of to add is a few words about the publisher Conservation International. The presence of this article at FAC is tempting me to do a similar job on Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy, the "mushroom equivalent". Sasata (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some info about CI... but it was hard to state is briefly. If I should expand into a full sentence somewhere, just let me know. It's a very difficult organization to summarize briefly. Anyway, I strongly encourage you to write an article on Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy. I think it's very helpful, especially if we're referencing it over and over in our articles. If you write the article, I'll do your GAC review and comment at FAC. Just keep me posted. Otherwise, thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I believe this article covers what there is to cover for the book, and covers it well. I made a few copyedits, but saw no other problems. Ucucha 10:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support COI declaration, I did the GA review. I can't see any problems now that I didn't see then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources/referencing all look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jill Lucena of Conservation International has managed to track down a rather lengthy review of the 2nd edition. I will be adding this review tonight. Upon completion, a quick copyedit and general review would be appreciated. Sorry for the extra trouble. Otherwise, she and her colleagues are unaware of any other major reviews of either edition. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new review has been added. As stated above, a small copyedit by a second set of eyes is probably needed. Otherwise, let me know if there are any problems. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I also read the review, and think it's fairly represented. Ucucha 13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • Comprehensiveness: As this is a book after all, I would have liked to read something about the organization of the book (chapters), similar to Lisa Gould's review or Stacey Tecot's summary of "Each chapter, section, and appendix".
      Before I get too far into this one, how should I reference my summaries? Do I simply reference each the 1st and 2nd editions themselves? Unlike Gould or Tecot, I cannot assess these parts of the book, but can only list what they contain. Consequently, the similarities will only be superficial. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, my time is too limited this weekend to wait for a response. I've added a Content section. Please let me know if it is lacking in any way. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Content is definitely on the right track. "I cannot assess these parts of the book" is not too reassuring. Though I appreciate your honesty; For a fair representation, contents must be summarized only after assessing and going through these parts. If these parts were not assessed, why is the reference the book? (Confused) --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was saying that the reviews spend a lot of time praising the book in their assessment, section by section. Obviously, I can't assess the book's quality. I have reviewed all section of the books, giving descriptive detail. Just forget about the question regarding referencing. I'm not used to giving my own description of something. I'm used to having to find a source that describes something in detail. Anyway, for the Content section, I've simply referenced the editions I was looking at. I hope this makes better sense. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is: Why don't you also use Lisa Gould or Stacey Tecot as references too? Do not add the praise, but add notable illustrations/examples. I got use of references as editions (They are your own summaries). Current "Discovery and Study of the Living Lemurs reviews the history of exploration and field research regarding lemurs." Combining with what Lisa Gould says: "Discovery and Study of the Living Lemurs reviews the history of exploration and field research regarding lemurs, starting from the 1625 description of a ringtailed lemur to contemporary Western and Malagasy scientists." This is much more concrete, the earlier is a little vague. Maybe, specific praise for a "Chapter 4, The Extinct Lemurs" may fit better in Content (which is an assessment), BUT on second thoughts, Maybe you are right, assessments can be kept limited to review. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, as I suggested below, I'll have to reply tomorrow when my BAC is a little lower. From my current intpretation, we should be fine. I did not reference the reviews because a) they are already covered in the appropriate section, and b) they were full of praise, with limited descriptions (not already covered). As I said, I'll look again tomorrow and see what I can do. Sorry, but my Tuesday nights are a night to relax and indulge. I apologize for bringing it onto Wiki. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I went back and reviewed the most detailed review (by Tecot) and was able to expand on some detail about the content. She has been cited as a reference. I have also used what you suggested as a more concrete example. I will look into adding more details like it when I get home from work. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more concrete examples similar to the one you provided. I have also added two quotations to the article, one about the book's purpose (from the "Introduction") and another as a sample of how the "Where to See It" section reads. If anything is wrong with the quotation formatting, or if the quotation is not needed, please take the liberty to adjust. I am also going back now to do a thorough proofread. As always, a second set of eyes would be appreciated. And if the references in the "Content" section need to be more precise, just let me know. I haven't adjusted it because it would litter the section refs. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comprehensiveness: Though Russell Mittermeier is the primary contributor, IMO other contributors (at least those who were significant enough to be noted on the cover) should be named in the text (not necessary in the infobox) and a 1-line summary about their importance e.g. "Russell Mittermeier, president of CI and a well-published primatologist"
      Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • " She was particularly fascinated with Chapter 4, which discusses extinct (subfossil) lemurs" Add chapter name and include about extinct
        • Added chapter name, removed the brief description of it due to redundancy. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutrality: "As a field guide, the Lemurs of Madagascar is more portable, affordable, and updated than Tattersall's book, intended to assist lemur researchers and tourists in the identification of lemur species and subspecies." Questionable neutrality, reads like a book ad. If it is the view of somebody notable, then name that person. Same applies to "entertaining and informative", "excellent source", "fascinating". If a review uses this terms, put them in quotes, else can be considered as WP:PEACOCK terms. It is perfectly done in "Alison Jolly praised the first edition for its "contribution to knowledge in general" ... "most significant and most appreciative" "
      I have added quotations and re-stated sentences to avoid issues with WP:PEACOCK. I feel that the sentences are worded in a way that clearly indicate that they are the opinion of the reviewer, and if ambiguous in any way, quotes were added. I do not feel citations need to be redundant, just to put a citation close to such content. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a field guide, the Lemurs of Madagascar is "more portable and affordable,": either move it to review, or state it is the view of __________ (fill in the blanks). --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added "according to a 1996 review published in Lemur News" at the end of the sentence. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The book was also briefly reviewed in College & Research Libraries News" By whom? When?
      Added. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A free picture of a Lemur of Madagascar, discussed in the guide, would be a nice addition.
      Picture added. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image may be more relevant to Impact on lemur taxonomy. "Babakotia radofilai" photo from Distribution and diversity of Lemur can be added (if applicable, discussed in book) to where extinct species are discussed (Reviews). A general image of a Lemur can be added to Content too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll add a few more. I didn't put the current image in the Impact on lemur taxonomy section because the section was very small and the image (with its caption) was quite large. I'll see if I can make it fit. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very busy all day today and most of the weekend due to work. I will address these concerns as soon as my schedule permits. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • extinct lemurs is linked to subfossil lemur, a red link. Why? Extinct lemur is easy to understand (not jargon). --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The redlink is there because a full-length article about the extinct subfossil lemurs is in production, and I hope to publish it within a week or two (if I'm lucky). – VisionHolder « talk » 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must say I feel the article should be Lemurs of Madagascar (book), [DONE] given that all living lemurs come only from Madagascar. This title should just redirect to Lemur. A picture would give a good opportunity for a quote from the work as a sample of its style. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to go either way on this, but not without more feedback from other reviewers. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Johnbod on the name change. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With three votes in favor, I will look into doing that tonight. As for the picture comment by Johnbod, please be more specific. Are you talking about another fair use image of something from inside the book? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Another image from the book would not be a FAIR USE. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon my ignorance (and overindulgence in alcohol tonight). Are you suggesting the use of an illustration from inside the book? This is my first time venturing into the realm of literature and "fair use", so I'm still learning the ropes. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just any good lemur pic on Commons. I see there are more pics now than formerly, which is good. Not knowing the book, I don't know if a brief quote on a pictured species is a good way to give a feel for the text. Just a thought. I note the title change, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the caption on one of the pictures to a quote from the book. Let me know what you think. I've never seen a picture caption be a quote before, so I'm not sure how to make it look. If you don't like it, we can always revert. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works well. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Prose doesn't yet meet 1a in my opinion. Tone, style, and grammatical issues. Examples from the the "Content" section:
    • "The difference is due to the Introduction counting..." Overly long and tedious. This entire sentence can be tightened and simplified (e.g. "The second edition does not assign a chapter number to the introduction.". Also, is this really how you want to lead off this section? With a discussion on a rather trivial difference in number of chapters? Why is "Introduction" capitalized here and later?
    • "to help locate the appropriate sections" Appropriate sections of what?
    • "There is also an extra section entitled How to Use this Field Guide is also included between the Introduction and the first chapter." Something went wrong here. "also...extra...also" <-- no need for any of this. Chapter titles should not be italicized, but enclosed in quotation marks.
    • "The section The Living Lemurs is discussed in great detail, including each section heading used for all the lemur species" Eh? So the "How to Use this Field Guide" section discusses the "The Living Lemurs" section in great detail?
      Yes, you interpreted that correctly. If you can suggest a better way to word that, I'm all ears. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Introductions in both editions were written by Peter A. Seligmann, Chairman of the Board and CEO of CI, and Mittermeier." Great...so? What does he discuss?
    • "Each species is provided distribution map" Provided? Missing articles for some of the items in the rest of this list.
    • "Identification provides information to help identify and distinguish species." What is this "Identification"? A chapter? Can we be a bit more specific here on what kind of "information"?
    • "Geographic Range offers textual information to accompany the provide distribution map." Proofread!
    • "In many cases, little or nothing is known, while others have been studied extensively." This tells the reader nothing.
Seems clear & useful to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last half of the third paragraph is quite a snooze with the repetitive sentence structure.
    • "Where to See It aims promote ecotourism" far too many typos for an FA.
    • " helping travelers find the best sites for spotting each species in the shortest amount of time possible" Shortest amount of time? What does that even mean?
    • "provides various color maps providing information about towns"
    • Would really advise a copy-edit throughout. TwilligToves (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The "Content" section was recently added per a request at this FAC. You were the first person to offer a thorough review. I appreciate the list of problems and have done my best to address them. I'm sorry that I didn't catch some of the obvious mistakes, but I'm not very good at proofreading my own work. I know what I intended to say, and thus I read it as I intended it. I'm going to go over the wording for both the section and the entire article one more time, but it may have to wait until after work today. If you have issues with other sentences or any of my changes, just let me know. You're always welcome to do a little bit of copyediting if you feel you can do it better. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I have finished proofreading and copy-editing the article. I found a few more typos and clarified a few things. Let me know if you approve. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, striking for now (though I haven't re-read the article). Hopefully I get a chance to revisit later this week. TwilligToves (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Where are the page numbers for the two editions of Lemurs of Madagascar? Collectively, both books are cited more than twenty times, and although I see you have used the {{r}} template, no "page1" field identifies what page numbers the article is referring to. You can see this template used to its fullest, with page numbers, at Boy Scouts of America. LOM states that the first edition has 356 pages, whereas the second has 520... yeesh! Can you please specifically note what in the book is being cited, to help readers/researchers narrow it down? María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry... the use of those references started very small and general and gradually grew. I knew it needed fixing, but your comment prompted me to make it a high priority. Anyway, the citations have been updated. I hope you approve. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better, although it's unfortunate that the template forces single page-citations to be listed as "pp." rather than simply "p.", which is technically correct. I'm not a fan of {{r}}, so I'm not sure how to fix it. Perhaps someone else can help with that? María (habla conmigo) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was my error, not the template's. They should all be fixed. If I missed one, just let me know which ref number. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Prose, organization and layout all up to FA standard. Seems to cover everything a book article should cover. Great work! -- mav (reviews needed) 01:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lemurs_of_Madagascar_(book)/archive1&oldid=1089817322"