Talk:Bengal slow loris/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ucucha 04:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be fast... I'm claiming this review now, and will be offering comments tomorrow or within a few days. Ucucha 04:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, one for today: "N. bengalensis is considered the least well-known of the five slow loris species". I can't find this in the source cited, and it sounds unlikely to me (do we really know less about this relatively widespread species than about N. pygmaeus or N. menagensis?). Ucucha 04:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~This statement was here when I started working on the article, do you know where it's from, VH? Sasata (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

(Red-faced) Seems that I added this statement in... that's what you get when a fungus-guy writes about mammals.... removed. Sasata (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Explain "brachial gland" in lead.~~

Glossed definition. Sasata (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~How does this species differ from N. coucang? Groves (2001) almost certainly covers this.~~

Added a little bit from Groves, but this could be expanded and made made into a subsection "Similar species". Sasata (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the taxonomy section will be entirely clear to a lay reader.

I'll work on this. Sasata (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a go. Does it sound better now? Sasata (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The "Distribution" section says it occurs in the Garo Hills in Bangladesh, but Garo Hills says the hills are located in Meghalaya, India.~~

I think that's an error in the original source. I've removed the mention of Garo Hills, as the paragraph previously indicates that it's in Meghalaya, India (where the Garo Hills are located). Sasata (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps expand the "Distribution" section to include information about the places where its range meets that of related species (i.e., N. pygmaeus in Cambodia and southern Vietnam and N. coucang around the Isthmus of Kra).
I'm not sure if I've seen any sources discuss this. I'd be glad to include this information, as long as it doesn't violate WP:SYNTH. The CITES PDF details the distribution of both species you mention, but it focuses on all three species individually. I've found a few other freely available sources that don't appear to be included in the article through Google Scholar, so we'll see if that turns up anything... – VisionHolder « talk » 01:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pan et al. (2007) has some relevant discussion; Groves (2001) probably has too. Ucucha 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to neither. Would someone mind sending me the digital copies if available? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sent. Sasata (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requested material added from Pan et al. 2007. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Lead says middle-class women use it; body says wealthy to middle-class~~

Added wealthy to lead. Sasata (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In ref. 21 (Red List account), italicize "Nycticebus bengalensis" and de-italicize "Version 2010.4"

Italics added, the version italics is a template issue... so I'll let VH get that. Sasata (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of which IUCN template is used, it puts the "version" in the {{cite web}} parameter "work", which automatically italicizes it. In other words, this appears to be the "proper formatting" for a web citation. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the underlying templates, I don't see any good reason to italicize the version. However, there is of course no GA criterion about italicizing references, so I won't hold up the GAN on this issue. Ucucha 23:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True... one of the catches of using templates. However, given that numerous biota articles have passed FAC using these same IUCN templates, I guess it's best to just let it slide for now. If someone finds a better way to do this, I'll be fine with the change. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes; I'll pass the article now. Ucucha 18:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]