Jump to content

Talk:Cryptoprocta spelea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCryptoprocta spelea is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 10, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 26, 2010Good article nomineeListed
June 26, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 3, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the giant fossa, formerly one of the top carnivores of Madagascar, is thought to be extinct, there is some anecdotal evidence of very large living fossas?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cryptoprocta spelea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "In some, it occurs together with C. ferox" unclear… do you mean occurs with subfossil bones of C. ferox?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • "positive evidence" -> conclusive evidence
    • Just evidence seems enough.
  • link or gloss species pair, extant
    • Species pair seems a straightforward term (it redirects to "cryptic species complex", by the way, which doesn't make much sense) that doesn't need explanation. Swapped "extant" for "living".
  • Further research reveals that "species pair" is a specific term used in lichen biology (although other biological disciplines use it as well) to refer to otherwise morphologically identical species that reproduce differently. I'll start a stub sometime. Sasata (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "G. Petit, writing in 1935," Shouldn't start sentence with an abbreviation… can you find his first name?
    • No, unfortunately. His surname is French for "small", and a rather common word, which doesn't help.
  • any details on how the antamba jaw was different?
    • Not in Goodman et al.—will have to dig up Lamberton for that.
  • "specific name" is linked in the second paragraph of Taxonomy, but there's an unlinked "species name" in the first para
    • Done.
  • link postcranial
    • Done.
  • "…and it was among the top carnivores of the island." clarify what is meant by "top carnivore"
    • Just the largest, changed.
  • any value in including a map with the collection locations indicated?
    • Yes, will do (sometime).
  • …suggesting that the two species may ecologically have been able to coexist." -> "ecologically coexist" sounds like an odd construction to me… there's a word for this but I can't seem to remember it now
    • Was clumsy wording, changed.
Ah, now I remember... sympatry. Sasata (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…it may have eaten some of the big, now extinct subfossil lemurs that would have been too large for C. ferox, as well as smaller lemurids." ambiguous wording; could mean that C. spelea ate both subfossil lemurs and smaller lemurids, or that C. spellea and lemurids ate subfossil lemurs, or that subfossil lemurs were too big for the lemurids. Yes, it's deducible from context, but should be tweaked for unambiguity.
    • Moved around.
  • have you tried a Google Book search? There's a few snippets that might be useful... see for example this, which mentions that it may have predated Megaladapis; this snippet mentions the "Methuen collection" (not sure what that is)
    • I did. The article already says that it probably ate subfossil lemurs (such as Megaladapis), but that there's no direct evidence; I don't think it would add anything to mention Megaladapis specifically. I think I cited an abstract about the Methuen collection in some other subfossil Madagascar article, but it didn't say anything about this species except that they found it.
  • how about a pic of an extant fossa?
    • Good idea, done.

Thanks for reviewing! One question for you: you changed "there is more than one surviving species" to "there are more than one surviving species", which sounds really odd to me. Are you sure it is correct? Ucucha 17:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed my error. Everything looks fine, will pass later tonight after I can read it through again carefully without worldly distractions. Sasata (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, I suggest simplifying contemporaneous for some smaller words
    • Done.
  • In Goodman et al (2004) they mention that the subfossil remains are "presumed Holocene", and later "from Holocene paleontological sites", shouldn't that be mentioned in the article?
    • Added.
  • the lead says "However, some authors do not accept the two as distinct species." But the dissenting view offered is from Köhncke and Leonhardt, an almost 25-year old opinion. Perhaps the lead sentence should instead say something like "in the past, some authors have not accepted the two" to better reflect the current thought?
    • I might be a bit biased here, because I think Goodman et al.'s evidence that it is a distinct species is rather weak. I changed it to a different wording.
  • what was in Grandidier 1905?
    • Will have to look up.
  • maybe mention explicitly that Grandidier did not specify a holotype specimen? Similarly, should mention that Goodman et al. designated a neotype
    • Thought it might be too technical, but added.
  • I think it's interesting and germaine to this article that there are at least 17 known extinct species of lemur, most of which were larger than the current versions (it's hinted at already but I think the details would be a worthy addition)
    • Added, and also threw in the elephant birds and the hippos.
  • doncha think the 2 m long 30 kg fossa in a henhouse reported in Louvel 1954 is worthy of a mention?

Thanks for the additions, I think it's "Good" enough to promote. Sasata (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Well written, complies with MoS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
    Well-cited to reliable sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    One image with appropriate license.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Discussion about restoration

[edit]

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review#Cryptoprocta_spelaea FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any illustrations of the fossils in the original description, Maky? They may be in the public domain... FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I had no idea that this review page existed! Sorry about culling the "restoration" image twice w/o much comment, but it really did not seem sufficiently detailed or aesthetically pleasing to be in the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the section of that image is long archived, so the link doesn't work. But in any case, I think images of the actual fossils are always best to show in the taxobox, but we don't have any... FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cryptoprocta spelea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cryptoprocta_spelea&oldid=1206836706"