Talk:Giant mouse lemur/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there are only two species, perhaps you could add pictures of them both to the taxobox?

Unfortunately, I only have a picture of one species. I am planning to attempt to get more photos released. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that the opening line be rephrased a little? How about something like "The Giant mouse lemurs (genus Mirza) are strepsirrhine primates. There are two species; the northern giant mouse lemur (Mirza zaza) and Coquerel's giant mouse lemur (Mirza coquereli)."

I'm fine with that. I only structured it the way it was because my related FAC (Fork-marked lemur) got worded that way when a prospective reviewer changed it a bit. Thanks for the suggestion. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"deeply nested" is a bit jargony for the lead- same for "anogenital secretions". I note that both phrases are used in the main body of the article without explanation/links.

I slightly reworded the "anogenital secretions" part. I'm not 100% certain that the anogenital gland is the same as anal glands, and since there is no article, I linked to Scent gland. I removed the "nested" bit from the lead, cladogram caption, and body. I know phylogenetics is technical, but I figured this term was pretty self-explanatory ("nesting" within a phylogenetic tree). – Maky ^« talk » 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"with the fork-marked lemur (Phaner)" As you're referring to a genus, how about "with fork-marked lemurs"?

Thanks. Made it plural, but left the genus name because it's a first mention of this genus in the same family. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"However, testing needed to be down to confirm the discovery" ??

Sorry, didn't get to my proofread before crashing for a nap. "down" -> "done" Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The etymology of the genus Mirza" It's not the etymology of the genus, it's the etymology of the name.

Thanks. Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"weeks prior the date" prior to?

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"both of which sharing close relations to the hairy-eared dwarf lemur (Allocebus)" Could this be rephrased?

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a mention of the WWF's subpopulation in the distribution section?

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Later, it was recognized that Coquerel's giant mouse lemur was found in densities than the northern giant mouse lemur" ??

"lower" densities ... fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"However, in the case of the northern giant mouse lemur, populations were found in more isolated forest fragments and were consume introduced cashew and mango." I don't follow

Fixed... I hope. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"of both genders" A bit of a side point, but shouldn't this be "sexes" rather than "genders"? For a lot of people, these aren't synonyms.

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the owl in the picture have a giant mouse lemur? Perhaps this could be clarified in the caption?

The tail looks like a rat tail. Definitely not a lemur tail. That definitely would have made it more relevant. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might be an odd question, but why are you listing a no-longer-accepted name as the type species?

I thought we were supposed to list the type species as the name originally used. I'll have to go back and look at my former GAs and FAs for examples. – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures and sources are excellent. Key questions are answered and the writing is generally excellent. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you were fast! After having GANs sit there for months (and still going), I thought I'd have time to take a short nap before proofreading. Anyway, thank you! ~~I've made most fixes, and will try to make the rest either tonight or sometime tomorrow.~~ – Maky ^« talk » 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the only thing we're waiting on is the type species thing- my limited experience and uninformed intuition would suggest that the type species would have to be a currently recognised species, otherwise the genus literally couldn't exist. Perhaps we could ask someone more familiar with this sort of thing? Also, it's unclear right now to what extent the "competing phylogenies" are actually competing with one another- the top one could just be the bottom one with Lepilemur removed. Where would Lepilemur appear on the bottom tree? Could it be added? ~~(Also, it'd be very useful if you could add references to the caption to indicate where these respective cladograms came from.)~~ Sorry, I see you do. Perhaps you could say in the actual caption? Not essential, just a thought. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only other articles I've run genera through FAC (Fork-marked lemur and Ruffed lemur) use the name as originally described (like this article). But if you'd like, I can ask Ucucha. Otherwise, Lepilemur was not included in the top phylogeny because the relationship between most of the major lemur families is unclear. (Most of them diverged within a very short period of time, and because it happened so long ago, it's hard to determine the phylogeny. Lepilemur is included in the bottom one because there is some evidence that it is part of Cheirogaleidae. I could possibly add Lepilemur to the top for clarity, but omitting the other lemur families. – Maky ^« talk » 16:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's common practice to cite the type species by its original name combination. Recommendation 67B of the Code says "The name of a type species should be cited by its original binomen. If the name of the type species is, or is currently treated as, an invalid name, authors may also cite its valid synonym." Ucucha (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in! I was going to write to you about it tomorrow. You sure know your Code rules and recommendations! – Maky ^« talk » 06:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the clarification. I'll get back to this review soon. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this perhaps belong in Category:Primate genera? Or perhaps the redirect page should go in it instead? J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just added it. Any thoughts on what I said about adding Lepilemur to the other phylogeny? Again, it will get a bit messy if I do because most studies can't distinguish the relationship between most of the lemur families. – Maky ^« talk » 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it would be helpful if you also added Lepilemur to the other cladogram if there's a way to do this which wouldn't be deceptive. This would be useful for comparing the competing opinions. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Done. I wouldn't call it deceptive, just that the source isn't exactly clear enough to single out Lepilemuridae without also listing other families. The reason why is that it used both Lepilemuridae and Indriidae as outgroups. Except for Daubentoniidae (aye-ayes), all lemur families split off very close to one another. As you can see in the Evolution of lemurs article's competing lemur phylogenies, Lepilemuridae is always aligned more closely with Cheirogaleidae, and since this article doesn't attempt to contradict this, I'm just omitting Indriidae as an outgroup to avoid implying that Cheirogaleidae is is equally related to those two outgroups to the exclusion of other lemur families (or including all other lemur families). Please let me know if that's good. – Maky ^« talk » 17:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that looks like an improvement, and if you're happy with it, I am. That's resolved everything, for my money, so I'm happy to promote at this time. Great work! J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]