Talk:Lemur/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have claimed this review, although I perhaps won't have much time to devote to it over the next few days. I think the article probably already technically meets the GA criteria, but I imagine you wouldn't mind a more thorough review. Something to start with:

• Existing high-level taxon FAs like antbird and bird start differently; I think a lead sentence like "Lemurs (pron. ...) are an infraorder of strepsirrhine primates endemic to the island of Madagascar." might work better.

Ucucha 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I will look into fixing the lead sentence. And don't feel rushed. I do want a thorough review, but please limit comments regarding section lengths and quantity of material included unless it pertains to the GA requirements. Once I publish Lemur evolution and diversification in a couple of days, you may go between the two articles and help me sort out where the material in that section should go. The other summary pages will take longer, and consequently, I will not submit this article for FA until they have all been published (so that we know how to divide the information). Anyway, thanks for jumping on this so quickly! – VisionHolder « talk » 11:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Good. GA criterion 3b does say that articles should not go into unnecessary detail, which would be the thing I'm concerned about, but I understand that it's better to first get the other articles done before considering that. Ucucha 11:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I just looked at the lead sentence, and I don't see why it would need to change. Its structure mostly matches of that the lead sentence of Primate, and it enables me to mention both prosimian and strepsirrhine, the two most common terms used to describe them. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It now reads "A lemur ... is endemic to the island of Madagascar", which seems ungrammatical. Also, I think it is best to avoid the vague word "type", which does not add any meaning, and I doubt whether it's good to immediately burden the reader with the two technical terms "prosimian" and "strepsirrhine"—besides, "prosimian" is basically obsolete. Ucucha 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• "instead, they merely share"—unclear what the "they" refers to
• "Lemurs share many basic primate traits,"—do you mean "basal"?
• dormancy—perhaps good to explain this, as to many people "exhibit dormancy" may just sound like a fancy way to say "sleep"
• You could add the "Diversity" parameter to the taxobox, with a link to List of lemur species.

Changes have been made to the lead. Also, I'm not sure if it's fair to say that the term prosimian is obsolete. There are quite a few primatologists that still use the term, and I know that it's used more than "strepsirrhine" at the Duke Lemur Center. It depends on what traits you're looking at and what makes the most sense in terms of grouping. Personally, I'm holding out for the day when a 3-way classification system is used instead. But anyway, let me know if I've messed anything up. I'm sleepy and need to do any further work in the morning. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking good now, thanks. No rush.

"Prosimian" is obsolete as a formal taxonomic term, I think—it clearly refers to a paraphyletic group. However, it will probably persist as an informal term. Ucucha 01:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

• The text on the origin of the term "lemures" is interesting, but is it relevant to this article?
• "Carl Linnaeus, the founder of modern binomial nomenclature, is credited with giving lemurs their name in 1758 in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae,"—you can't really cite MSW 3 for this; it only says that the genus name Lemur was given by Linnaeus in 1758, not that the term "lemur" was first applied to lemurs by him.
• So "lemur" was first applied to lorises, not lemurs? Could that be expanded on a little?

Just a few quick things on this one, and then I have to get some sleep. Is the "lemures" stuff relevant to the article? I've debated this one. The reason why I originally included it is because occasionally the idea that lemurs gained their name from Remus will pop up in the lemur literature. The material probably best belong on the Lemuria (festival) article, but I would have to work things in the section such that Lemuria (festival) is linked so that people have a reasonable chance of noticing that information. As for the third point, another editor and I tried to see if Linnaeus mentioned explicitly why he gave lemurs their name in the 1758 (10th) edition, but the 1754 edition was the only one available on Google Books. All the lemur sources only mention the 1758 edition, yet we were surprised to see that the 1754 edition had a lemur genus. I stopped there because it was reaching that blurry line of OR. The short answer is "I don't know" and maybe that part of the sentence should just be swept under the rug (deleted). I might try writing to Groves and see if he can explain it. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay... correction. We found "Lemur" in an older edition than the 10th, but also Tattersall's book stated the following: "The genus name ("Lemur") goes back at least to 1754, when in his catalog of the Museum of King Adolf Frederick he published an account of Lemur tardigradus". I believe the "he" was Linnaeus. That's all I have, and I no longer have access to the book. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason is of course that zoological nomenclature only goes back to 1758, so people are usually not too much interested in what came before that. There is a booklet by Groves about the history of primatology: perhaps that can help? You might also want to mention that the colugo was originally Lemur volans. Ucucha 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources for this and can help me flesh this section out, post the details on my talk page. I have work all day today, but should have time to work on all of this tonight and tomorrow morning. Again, thanks a million for all your help and beautiful copy-editing! – VisionHolder « talk » 12:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The 1758 edition is online here. I'll try to find some more sources. Ucucha 12:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The timeline is most likely:

• 1754: Linnaeus uses Lemur tardigradus for the slender loris
• 1758: Linnaeus uses Lemur as a genus in Syst. Nat. 10, with as species Lemur catta, Lemur tardigradus, and Lemur volans (colugo).
• Post-1758: Lemur gets restricted to Malagasy species.

Unfortunately, it's hard to find a source for that. Ucucha 22:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is as far as we can go. With your copyedit, is it safe to say this is done? – VisionHolder « talk » 22:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I think the current section is inaccurate in some respects. I found Linnaeus 1754 here, where he refers to a loris from Ceylon. He also gives an etymology: "Lemures dixi hos, quod noctu imprimis obambulant, hominibus quodammodo similes, & lento passu vagantur." ("I call these Lemurs, because they wander around mainly by night, similar in a way to humans, and they wander with a flexible gait."—but don't trust my Latin too much) So Linnaeus originally didn't assign the name to lemurs, but to lorises. I'm not entirely sure what is the best way to handle this without going off into OR, though. Ucucha 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary history

• Couldn't the subarticle just be called "Lemur evolutionary history"? I think diversification is part of evolutionary history.
• Is there a reason you have miles first in the width of the Mozambique Channel? (I took out the longest width, because it's the minimum width that's most relevant for the rafting.)
• Does Darwinius really need to be mentioned? It's not a lemur, and its mention does not really advance our understanding of lemur evolution.
• "their diversity has helped define them"—can't really see what this means
• "particularly in the rainforests of the east coast"—does this mean the relationship between floral diversity and precipitation on the one hand and lemur diversity on the other hand is particularly strong on the east coast?
• Not quite happy with the "Subfossil lemurs" paragraph, particularly the second sentence—I'll come back to this
• "From a taxonomic standpoint, the term "lemur" refers only to the genus Lemur, which contains only the Ring-tailed Lemur."—I highly doubt that anyone would use "lemur" to mean only Lemur (which is a different term).
• "However, many anthropologists have refused to accept that the Malagasy cheirogaleids are more closely related to lemurs than to the Afro-Asian lorisiforms, based solely on a morphological hypothesis that lacks genetic support."—doesn't sound neutral
• "According to the leading taxonomic authorities,"—do you have a citation for this?
• Might want to mention somewhere that the classification of subfossil lemurs is now also based on genetic data.
• There have been supposed lemurs described from outside Madagascar, such as Bugtilemur (doi:10.1126/science.1065257); should probably be mentioned. Ucucha 12:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to address most of the issues above. Those that haven't been will be addressed here. The mention of Darwinius illustrates the common misunderstanding discussed previously in that same paragraph. You're right—it's not a lemur. However, the media portrayed it as a "missing link" between lemurs and humans. For that reason, I feel it deserves a brief mention to help bring the lesser-informed (who may not know anything else about primate evolution) up to speed for the rest of the section. Additionally, both your 8th and last points are linked. I've abbreviated the non-neutral statement to a general statement without details. This avoids giving undue weight to a minority view, which is explored in more detail in the summary article, Lemur evolutionary history. And, yes, Karanisia and Bugtilemur are mentioned there. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point with regard to Darwinius, but I think that clarification is already adequately achieved by the first few sentences of the paragraph. The mention of Darwinius, in my view, gives undue weight to a recent event. I would argue the opposite way with regard to Bugtilemur and co. There have been many fossils from outside Madagascar classified as lemurs, and a paper pushing that was published in Science as recently as 2001, so I don't think completely glossing over that in this summary article is justified. Perhaps you could add a sentence (appropriately cited) like "Several Paleogene fossil primates from outside Madagascar, such as Bugtilemur, have been classified as lemurs, but the current scientific consensus does not accept these assignments." Ucucha 15:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Consider getting rid of the sub-subheaders; they are unnecessary as the sections are relatively short and look organizationally odd. Ucucha 15:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sub-subheaders deleted, statement about Darwinius removed, and Asian lemur controversy addressed. I previously added the note about subfossil lemurs and the genetic studies. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Anatomy and physiology

• I would avoid using a list like this that breaks up the article text.
• Also, lots of unexplained technical terms (vomeronasal organ, orbits, symphysis
• "Lemurs are the most diverse group of primates"—this is meaningless without a precise definition of "diverse"
• "The Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur (Allocebus trichotis) reportedly has a very long tongue,"—why "reportedly"?
• "The Aye-aye has evolved some of the most unique traits in primates, making it the most unusual lemur—and possibly one of the strangest mammals."—the string of superlatives here seems a bit unencyclopedic. Also, "most unique" is impossible.
• I would try to make the dental formula tables a bit smaller.
• Subsection "Morphology" seems misnamed, since the other pieces of the description are also morphology.

Again, most points have been addressed to the best of my ability. The Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur tongue statement says "reportedly" because that's more-or-less what the source says. In the case of this species, they are so incredibly rare that most dedicated researchers never see them. Consequently, the species has not been studied much and is poorly understood. Maybe there's something new about it in the recent literature... As for the "Morphology" subsection, I'm up for naming suggestions. I've considered "Sexual dimorphism and cryptic species" as well as just merging it back under the general discussion for "Anatomy and physiology". – VisionHolder « talk » 16:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The subsection basically unites two unrelated subjects and so I think you should follow your second suggestion. Why does dentition get its own subsection, while other aspects of morphology, such as skull morphology or fur coloration, do not? Ucucha 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sections merged. I gave dentition its own section because there is so much more information about it in regards to evolution, ecology, and development. As for the reduced dentition table, I like the attempt, but I'm not happy with how the template generates a white background. (Also, #FFDEAD is not yellow, it's technically Navajo white. But then again, the page lists it as a shade of yellow. Hmmm... I hate describing colors with words.) – VisionHolder « talk » 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:COLOR, it's probably better to avoid the colors altogether. I've placed the essential information in the text; I don't think we really need to indicate the difference so emphatically in the tables. Ucucha 17:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Behavior

• "Coquerel's Giant Mouse Lemur (Mirza coquereli) is mostly frugivorous, but will consume insect secretions during the dry season."—cite
• "A common assumption in mammalogy is that small mammals must have a high-calorie, high-protein diet consisting entirely of insects (insectivory)."—is this really a common assumption? There are many exclusively herbivorous small rodents.
• In the paragraph about eating inflorescences, it is not clear what the species numbers refer to.
• "Latrine behavior can represent territorial marking and aid in interspecies signaling."—not intraspecies?
• "These dyads could have evolved to include assemblages to mother-daughter dyads capable of defending more distributed resources in a wide home range."—can't understand this sentence
• "However, since the circadian rhythm is rooted in genetics, cathemerality may be a masked form of a nocturnal rhythm."—can't see the causal relationship here
• "Sometimes these locomotor types are lumped together into two main groups of lemurs"—where do the monkey lemurs go in that case?
• "Despite a lack of synchronized mating and birth seasons across lemur species, all lemur species synchronize their weaning period to match the time of highest food availability."—can't make much sense of this. The first sentence of the previous paragraph implies that the mating season is influenced by resource availability.
• " Infant survival has been shown to be directly impacted by environmental conditions as well as the rank, age, and health of the mother in some species, such as Milne-Edwards' Sifaka."—does the "in some species" refer to the entire sentence or only to the "rank, age, and health of the mother".
• "Smaller, nocturnal lemurs (such as mouse lemurs, giant mouse lemurs, and dwarf lemurs) usually give birth to more than one infant, although there are exceptions, such as fork-marked lemurs, sportive lemurs, and the Aye-aye."—sounds like there are almost as many exceptions as non-exceptions.
• Any data on lifespan in the wild?
• "and had a brain the size of some large monkeys"—rather vague. Baboons are large monkeys.
• (Caption) "The Ring-tailed Lemur will occasionally give birth to twins, particularly in captivity."—the captivity bit is not in the text and should be cited
• Latrine behavior shouldn't be under "Diet". Ucucha 17:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the second issue (and I'm not contesting your point), here is the quote that I was working off of from the primate anatomy text: "It is generally believed that small bodied mammals cannot absorb sufficient amounts of calories from eating only leaves and green things, even though it has been shown that Microcebus rufus eat predominantly fruit, a finding that clearly contradicts the hypothesis that tiny primates must eat animals protein to survive." Whether or not it correctly applies to all small mammals, it has affected our understanding of small prosimian primates.

The claim in the article is much stronger: it says the common assumption is that small mammals must eat insects only, the source that they cannot eat plants only. Ucucha 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the third issue, I don't understand how the sentence is not clear. It says, "At least 24 native species from 17 plant families are targeted." So basically, 24 native species of plant are consumed by lemurs, and these 24 species come from 17 plant families. I could change the first part to be "24 native floral species", but then it would seem redundant. Feel free to adjust as you see fit.

Is this about the nectar, pollen, inflorescences or flowers? A few sentences before you have that inflorescences from 60 families are eaten. Ucucha 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For the fourth issue, I'm going off the source: "It can be expected that this activity has several advantageous functions: territorial marking, improving soil quality, interspecies signaling, seed dispersal, and more, depending on habitat and species-specific behavioral variation." If we can infer that meaning from this, then I have no problem with it. Otherwise, this is my only source that discusses latrine behavior in lemurs.

OK.

The sixth issue involves a sentence that will require a much more detailed explanation, and is hard to clarify briefly. It will be addressed in the "Lemur behavior" article, but I don't know how to address it here without expanding on it considerably. Basically, if you look at a graph of the activity cycle for nocturnal species, you notice that a shift would create the cathemeral cycle in some species. Again, not easy to explain without extra detail to back it up.

If it's not possible to explain it in enough detail here for it to make sense, the piece probably shouldn't be here. Ucucha 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For the eighth issue, again, I don't see the problem with the wording. (But that may be due to a lack of sleep and subsequent inability to think much beyond my own line of thinking.) Breeding seasons are determined by resource availability, but rather than giving birth at the most productive times (to help the female during lactation), lemurs instead wean during the most productive times so the offspring have the highest chance of survival. Since lemur families take different amounts of time to reproduce and mature, they mate at different times but tend to wean at the same time. How else should I word that?

Will have a go at this myself. Ucucha 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, everything else has been addressed to the best of my ability. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I added something else a few hours ago. Ucucha 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the one you said that you'd take a stab at, all of these issues should be resolved... again, to the best of my ability. Please review at your convenience. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We're done here, except for my query about lifespan in the wild that I can't find an answer to. Ucucha 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What I tell people on the tours I give at the Duke Lemur Center is that in the wild, the larger lemurs live about 10 to 15 years, while the smaller lemurs usually live about 3 to 5. In captivity (for species that can be successfully maintained), those ranges go up to 25 to 40 and 10 to 15 respectively. It falls in line with the tendency to double (or more) the life expectancy in a healthy captive environment. But as you pointed out, finding a reference could be a problem. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'd expect things like that to be listed in secondary sources. It's not absolutely necessary; I just think it's more important to list how long they live in their own environment than in a man-made environment. Ucucha 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I might be able to find a source for the general statement about life expectancy in captivity, but I'm not sure if I'll find anything about how it pertains to lemurs. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to here. Ucucha 22:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's well documented that many animals live 2 to 3 times longer in captivity (namely zoos) than they do in the wild. However, I don't think I can find anything about captive lemur life expectancy in zoos. Sorry for not being clear. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it was me being unclear, since I'd prefer the article to focus on life expectancy in the wild, not in zoos. Ucucha 23:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecology

• The second paragraph mostly repeats information presented elsewhere in the article.

I noticed this while writing the section, and that's why I made it very brief. The problem is that the sections overlap too much, and omitting the information because it's previously discussed leaves the Ecology section a little bare. (Fortunately, it won't be a problem for the "Lemur ecology" page I have planned.) Should I delete the paragraph? If so, I worry that people might follow the link at the top of the page, expecting to find information about feeding behavior, etc. and not find it. Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You could add something like (see Diet) instead. Ucucha 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. I saved a couple of sentences and used them to introduce other paragraphs in the section. Let me know if you approve. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. Ucucha 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Research

• "Following the 1947–1949 Malagasy insurrection"—any particular reason to mention this here?

It's gone. The histories that I was reading made mention of it, and I thought I might go into more detail about the political climate and how it has affected research. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservation status

• Can't you use more recent Red List data?
• "and their conservation status has yet to be assessed, though many are likely threatened since their distributions appear to be confined to small regions."—you can't cite something about species discovered in 2005–2010 to a 2003 publication.
• "Although not as significant as deforestation and hunting, some lemurs, such as Crowned Lemurs and other species that have successfully been kept in captivity, are occasionally kept as exotic pets by Malagasy people."—they wouldn't be exotic for the Malagasy, would they?

Using more recent Red List data would require looking up every species and tallying the results... which hints to me of OR. Personally, I prefer to update the status when Mittermeier either a new book (coming in a month or two) or a major journal article covering taxonomic updates. Within those publications there is usually a summary of Red List data that I use. Furthermore, the majority of the lemur Red List data is only updated when Mittermeier et al. submit the information, which usually corresponds with the release of a new lemur list. In other words, let's wait a month or two, please. I'll fix the citation tomorrow. As for exotic pets, they include any animal not normally kept as a pet. Here in North America, the Raccoon is considered to be an exotic pet, even though it is common across the continent and people do keep them as pets. Likewise, lemurs are exotic pets in Madagascar, while dogs and cats are typical, domestic pets. I'm also going off of my source. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and attempted to fix the second point. It may just look like I've shuffled a few words around and broken up a sentence, but the point made by the older reference is still very applicable to the newer discoveries. All new species that have been discovered in the past 5 years (or past 20 years) have had very restricted ranges. The same idea applies. (They're basically breaking off small populations from more widespread, known species and defining them as their own species.) However, unless the upcoming Mittermeier book (Lemurs of Madagascar, 3rd edition) summarizes this, I would have to reference dozens of individual papers that announce the discovery of new species. If you're still not happy with it, maybe there's another way to word it? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, consider this resolved. Ucucha 11:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

• Last few sentences also need citations.

Looking ahead to this one, I may need help here. To be honest, the different standards for reliable sources in the entertainment-centered hub of Wikipedia makes for a very alien world to me. What would be a reliable source? I didn't think I needed a source to talk about the success of the first "Madagascar", mostly because they wouldn't have made another if the first hadn't be successful. (It logically follows from the first rule of capitalism: "Money, money, money, money, f*** everything else, MONEY!!!") The Wiki pages for most of these TV shows/films lacks citations to help me out. Pointing to official web pages seems moot given how fast things like that can disappear. (The "Lemur Kingdom/Street" website is already history, for instance.) If you can suggest where to start looking, I'll try to track something down tomorrow afternoon when I try to finish all of this. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I know as little as you about sources in that piece of Wikipedia. Perhaps you can find something through Google Books or News. Ucucha 19:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid the new references here seem of doubtful reliability, at best. Ucucha 22:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what else to reference. There's not much out there. Do you know anyone who likes to edit entertainment stuff and nominates a lot for FAC? Maybe I could ask them for help? – VisionHolder « talk » 22:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhus16, Hunter Kahn? I think Casliber also likes to put things like this in his articles, so perhaps he can help. I might also be wrong in my assessment of their reliability, of course. Ucucha 22:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

References

• Perhaps drop the Student's Britannica ref, which is a tertiary source and redundant with Garbutt.
• Is WildMadagascar.org a reliable source, let alone a high-quality reliable source? I would in general try to minimize references to sites like this as well as news sites in favor of actual peer-reviewed literature.
• You are inconsistent in using title or sentence case in the titles of citations.

I'm working on replacing the WildMadagascar.org ref with a peer-reviewed journal article. However, finding that small bit of info may prove to be like finding a needle in a haystack. I've emailed several key researchers that might be able to help, though. As for the mingling of title and sentence case, that's mostly due to me copying the title straight from the article's PDF file. I'll try to fix it either late tonight or tomorrow afternoon. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the journal and web article names to sentence case, but left the book and journal names in title case. The other refs are now gone and replaced as needed with reliable sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. Ucucha 11:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I just made the change with {{R}} and that decreased loading time from 23–37 to 4–5 seconds. Worth a little more text in the editing field, I think. Ucucha 13:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

On review, this doesn't seem to be true. Apparently, the latest revision of a page loads much faster; the difference between [1] and [2] is insignificant now that the latter is no longer the current version. Ucucha 17:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean I should revert back to use using the R-template? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I did, because it's what you prefer, and there's no good reason not to use it. Ucucha 01:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Other

• I do think the page takes too long to load. To improve this, perhaps get rid of some templates, such as the {{convert}}s and {{r}}s, which can be converted into text. There is also some repetition within the article which you could cut on (I removed some and noted some other cases above).
• You could perhaps combine the "Research", "Conservation status", and "Cultural references" section into "Human interactions".
• Why don't you use <ref group="Notes"> or something like that for the footnotes?
• Images: File:Lepilemur ruficaudatus.jpg should probably get its tag updated. Licensing otherwise OK. I checked for taxonomic balance and got the following:
  • 9 Lemuridae (6 Lemur, 1 Varecia, 2 Eulemur)
  • 1 Palaeopropithecidae (1 Babakotia)
  • 2 Lepilemuridae (2 Lepilemur)
  • 1 Daubentoniidae (1 Daubentonia)
  • 1 Cheirogaleidae (1 Microcebus)
  • 1 Indriidae (1 Propithecus)
• You've got a lot of images of lemurids, particularly Ring-taileds. That represents the availability of pictures and most of the lemurid images illustrate the adjacent text well, but you could perhaps balance a bit more by using a different species in the taxobox and inserting an indri or so in the "Cultural references" section.

That's it for now. Ucucha 23:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already removed the convert templates, and I may try reverting the R templates back as well... though I would prefer not to since they help make the text much easier to read. I oppose the merging of the "Research", "Conservation status", and "Cultural references". Although there is some overlap, I don't feel that they belong under one heading. Anyway, "Conservation status" will soon have a summary page: "Lemur conservation", which would make it awkward to link to if the heading was gone. As for <ref group="Notes">, is there a reason to use that over what I'm currently using? I just use what I've used successfully in the past, and what I have seems to work. Lastly, I have tried to balance out the images. I strongly prefer to have a Ring-tailed Lemur in the taxobox since it is the most widely recognized of the lemurs. The grooming photo has no quality substitute that I can find on Commons. All other subfossil lemur images are in need of some serious work per Dr. Godfrey, and both artist and Dr. Godfrey have been too busy lately to fix them up. (Plus, those images will be used heavily on the upcoming "Subfossil lemur" page.) I've added the Indri pic, and I've added one of the only good dwarf lemur photos, as well as a woolly lemur with an infant. The image File:Lepilemur ruficaudatus.jpg may be a copyright violation, but I have written to the copyright holder (in English... even though he's French) and have crossed my fingers in hope for a response. If he has released the files to the public domain as the tag suggests, then I will forward it on to OTRS and adjust the tag. If not, we may lose that photo, as well as several other key lemur photos. Anyway, not counting anatomy close-ups (which shouldn't count since there are only two and they don't show the whole species), there is still a bias towards Lemuridae, but given the lack of high-quality, informative lemur pictures, I think it's about as good as we're going to get. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll perhaps have a try to compare a version with the {{R}}s gone. Using ref group="Notes" rids you of some templates, makes it no longer necessary to move things around in two places to keep the order of the footnotes correct, and in general works neater.

What I'm suggesting is that the three become subsections of a larger "Human interactions" section. That would make for fewer main sections and therefore a better organized articles.

The new photos are good, but File:Eulemur rubriventer 001.jpg still has an OTRS pending tag after nearly half a year. Ucucha 11:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC) (Sorry for not looking closely. Ucucha 17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

I just uploaded that file last night. You're probably looking at the date it was taken, unless I wasn't awake last night (or now). Anyway, the OTRS for that one should clear within a month. If you speak French, maybe you could email the author of the other image and ask for a release. I'll forward my message along so you know what images are at stake. As for ref group="Notes", you're welcome to try it, otherwise, I will look up the details and implement it this afternoon to see what it's like. You're also welcome to try it without the R templates, but unless it results in significantly improved loading times, I'd rather keep it as it is. Honestly, I have only noticed slow loading times on List of lemur species, which uses the convert template a ton of times—something I plan to fix. Everything else if variable. Sometimes it even takes a while for Wiki to respond to my requests for tiny stub articles with no templates. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Something else: have lemurs ever been vectors of zoonotic diseases? Ucucha 13:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I know the answer ("no, but they could be"), but I'm not sure if I can find it in any source. I'll email the vet I know at the Duke Lemur Center and see if they can point me to a source. In all the research I did over the past 8 months, this was one of only a few facts that I could not find sources for. The other had to do with life expectancy in the wild vs. captivity. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you can get a ref. If not, it's not the end of the world—if there is nothing to say about this topic, we don't need to say anything. Ucucha 17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm emailing the vets now. As for the "Human interactions" section, I think we would have to first address the unsettled issue of a standardized article template for WP:PRIMATE before we proceed. Whatever we set here will affect other primate articles, including existing FAs, such as Primate, Ring-tailed Lemur, Ruffed lemur, Homo floresiensis, etc. (Alternatively, it will only complicate attempts to standardize in the future.) I was going to bring up this template issue sooner or later. Would you like for me to bring it up now? Likely the only responses we'll get will be from me, you, UtherSRG, Jack Hynes, and maybe Rlendog. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I generally dislike such standardized formats, since different formats work better for different article (for example, the "Research" section does not appear in the WP:PRIMATE template). Ucucha 18:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, aside from a sentence or two that you were going to try to fix, some facts I need citations for (from the vets), an image that needs its tags fixed (if we can hear back from the owner), and an "Etymology" section that needs some more research and some re-writing, is there anything else this article needs? Let's make a new list here so that it's easier to go through. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep things organized by section, actually. I changed that sentence; I'll note it under the other sections where we need something. Ucucha 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The image you introduced, File:Gr bamboo lemur.jpg, is sourced to this page and said to be taken by an NSF employee in the course of his duties. However, the source page provides no evidence for that, and in fact tells to write to the NSF office for permission to reuse images. Ucucha 01:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Damn... I just can't win. (Should I tag the file for deletion on Commons?) The only other photos on Commons showing lemurs eating will have Ring-tailed Lemurs, ruffed lemurs, and maybe sifakas. I'd go with a ruffed lemur since there are no images showing their full body on the page, but the only images I'd have to work with will show them eating things like apples in a zoo setting—hardly a good illustration of their natural frugivory. (Granted, the same could be said of the mouse lemur photo in the same section.) I have pictures from Madagascar showing L. catta eating leaves in a tamarind tree, as well as eating cactus at Berenty. What do you recommend? I am working on getting more images from researchers in the field, but it's hard to get people to give up the rights on their images. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, you should probably tag it over there. The licensing for the new image is fine. You'll have to strike a balance between not having too many ring-taileds and showing lemurs in their natural environment. Both are important; I think the latter should carry more weight, but I'll leave this for you to decide. Ucucha 12:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I have more images coming. In fact, I may see about launching a campaign to get photos by either emailing the authors who describe and research species or by having something published in Lemur News. Hopefully there will be much more multi-media from the field in the near future. Otherwise, are there any other noteworthy issues holding up this GAC? Can the rest be handled in a short checklist on the page's talk page? – VisionHolder « talk » 13:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a campaign would certainly be great; I hope you're successful. The etymology and the Indianmedia source of questionable reliability. Perhaps we can hold this a few days, after which I'll have time to help look for sources. Ucucha 14:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've re-written the Etymology section per the more complete quote you provided via email, and I just got word from the vets at the Duke Lemur Center that the information we seek is not sufficiently studied and is therefore absent from the literature. Anything else? – VisionHolder « talk » 05:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We've solved the remaining issues now by rewriting the etymology section and getting more refs for the "Cultural references" piece. I am happy to pass this as a GA now. It is an impressive piece of work and I learned a lot from it. Ucucha 00:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)