Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tammar wallaby/archive1

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 19:53, 24 February 2012 [1].

Tammar wallaby

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has expanded, been copyedited and has been source spotchecked since it received GA status. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~~Comment~~ from Jim I don't think the lead satisfies MoS. It doesn't mention that there are subspecies, or give any description. I'm interested in this article, but I'd like to see the lead buffed before I comment further Jimfbleak - talk to me?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still on lead. Contrary to following comment, countries shouldn't be linked. I'm not sure what variety of English you are using, I thought Australian English used "grey". "Gene" is repeated. Linking seems arbitrary, eg "seawater" is linked, but not "genome" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cutted down on links. Better now? LittleJerry (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on arbitrary linking, not overlinking, genome needs a link, a quick glance indicates several other technical terms that aren't linked or explained
There are some basic errors, gray/greyer, section starting as such, with nothing to refer to. Other early naturalists, when we aren't told who identified the subspecies in this para. from two ends out of how many? No page(s) for ref 4.
What are the small superscript numbers next to some of the refs?
You've given imperial conversions in some places but not others, inconsistent
You really need to go through again to check the prose/links, This looks underprepared to me, even without looking at the actual content Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The superscript numbers are that actual page numbers for the reference. As I stated before, some the the numbers can not be converted. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen Sasata's comments and the responses to him and me (How can you have a measure that can't be converted?). I believe that there is too much to do in the duration of an FAC period. I think this is an interesting article, and has the potential to eventually reach FA. I've found that people are prepared to help with access to sources (I don't have university access either, try the mammal project), and you should also get someone to copy edit the prose. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a number of geographical names that weren't wikilinked and should have been - East Wallabi Island, South Australia and New Zealand. I've linked these but there may well be more terms needing links. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this is premature. This article recently was in the GAR process where I had a chance to review it in some detail. As Jim mentioned, the lead needs work. During my GAR review, I noted that the quality of sources seems under-par for what I would expect from a mammal FA. A lot of web sites, student theses, and information pulled from only the abstracts of journal articles. I'd like to see comment on this from someone familiar with sources on mammal articles. --Laser brain (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are journal articles. How many websites are "too many" and what wrong with PH.D theses? they are good enough to be cited in peer-reviewed articles. Also, the article abstracts summarise the articles. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, unfortunately, as this seems to be premature. Here are some specific concerns:

As Jim points out, the lead is quite short - articles of this length usually have at least 2 paragraphs, and should summarize the article adequately
Article needs some copy-editing - for example, in "who named it from where it was collected", "from" should be "for"
What distinguishes the subspecies?
WP:MOS errors: ranges should use endashes, need conversions for metric measurements, etc
Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
Citation formatting needs to be more consistent - for example, avoid mixing {{cite}} and {{citation}} templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't jump the gun on simple things that could easily be corrected.

1. ~~I'll get to it.~~ Done
2. It was copyedited. You just pointed out one small mistake.
3. Read the article. It explains that there are skull differences.
4. Some of the measurements could not be converted. I converted as many as I could. ~~Most of the ranges do have endashes, I'll check for more.~~ All the ranges have now endashes.
5. ~~That's only for books, not journals.~~ I see what you mean now. Done.
6. Done.

LittleJerry (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but in most cases those were examples only of issues. Regarding 5, that's not entirely correct - when you have a source that's 160 pages, for example (as in FN2), you do need to be more specific about where your information is coming from. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Sasata. This is not yet ready for FAC. Breaking it down:

1a Prose & MoS compliance lacks polish. Some examples (from a quick scan, not exhaustive):
caption to John Gould picture should not have a fullstop per WP:CAPTION (same error occurs later too)
"The tammar genome comprises 3.6 Gb, with a relatively short genetic map length of 1172 cM".[37] What is so special about this quote that it can't be paraphrased?
why define acronyms (TSDS, FISH, TCR, Ig) that aren't used again?
gene names (e.g. RBMX) are to be italicized
"Tammars can't survive long" contractions are discouraged in formal writing
"30 degrees Celsius" should give imperial convert (later too)
"gram-positive and gram-negative" Gram is to be capitalized (should be linked too)
choose between title case and sentence case for journal article titles

1c (well-researched):

"The tammar wallaby was seen on West Wallabi Island in the Houtman Abrolhos off Western Australia by survivors of the 1628 Batavia shipwreck, and recorded by Francisco Pelsart in his 1629 Ongeluckige Voyagie. This represents the first recorded sighting of a macropod by Europeans,[2]" I spot-checked this reference, and found the following issues:

page # is 53, not 58
source does not mention "West Wallaby Island"
article says shipwreck was in 1629, not 1628
in the source, the guy's name is spelled "François Pelsaert"
source does not say that this was the first recorded sighting of a macropod by Europeans

1b (comprehensive)

why no mention of these recent articles (sampling only, as a model organism, there's a lot of literature on the subject, much of it recent; meeting criteria 1b and 1c requires the nominator to go through the body of literature, even if extensive, and ensure the article is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"):

Title: Sequencing Skippy: the genome sequence of an Australian kangaroo, Macropus eugenii

Author(s): Murchison Elizabeth P.; Adams David J.

Source: GENOME BIOLOGY Volume: 12 Issue: 8 Article Number: 123 DOI: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-8-123 Published: 2011

Title: A second-generation anchored genetic linkage map of the tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii).

Author(s): Wang Chenwei; Webley Lee; Wei Ke-jun; et al.

Source: BMC Genetics Volume: 12 Supplement: Article No 72 Pages: 16pp. Published: 19 August 2011

Title: Reproductive and Developmental Manipulation of the Marsupial, the Tammar Wallaby Macropus eugenii

Author(s): Renfree Marilyn B.; Pask Andrew J.

Editor(s): Pelegri FJ

Source: Vertebrate Embryogenesis: Embryological, Cellular and Genetic Methods Book Series: Methods in Molecular Biology Volume: 770 Pages: 457-473 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-61779-210-6_18 Published: 2011

Title: Genetic consequences of isolation: island tammar wallaby ( Macropus eugenii) populations and the conservation of threatened species.

Author(s): Miller E. J.; Eldridge M. D. B.; Morris K. D.; et al.

Source: Conservation Genetics Volume: 12 Issue: 6 Pages: 1619-1631 DOI: 10.1007/s10592-011-0265-2 Published: 2011

there is much more that could be said about Wallaby genetics, and I don't think 1 paragraph suffices here.
"Biologists have used sodium fluoroacetate to control their populations.[11]" This may have been true in 1990 when the source was written, but increasing resistance to this compound has spurred the search for more effective compounds, e.g. see

Title: Effectiveness of cyanide pellets for control of dama wallabies (Macropus eugenii)

Author(s): Shapiro Lee; Ross James; Adams Pauline; et al.

Source: NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Volume: 35 Issue: 3 Pages: 287-290 Published: 2011

the claims about the miracle protein AGG01 are sourced to a 2006 New Scientist publication; I can't read this article, because it's behind a paywall, but suspect that its source is primary. Have you followed this up to see if there's been anything else written about this protein in the intervening years? If there hasn't been, I suspect allocating a subsection to it goes against WP:UNDUE. Sasata (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the things you posted could be easily corrected. And for the sources. You can't just do a source dump and say "what about this?" I don't have access to any of these. Also, what information do they present that is so imporant and hasn't been covered. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.