Talk:Lemurs of Madagascar (book)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lemurs of Madagascar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Images I don't know whether FAC will accept five fair use images, but I will

I don't plan to go for FAC until after the 3rd edition (and its reviews come out)... at this point. After the the next edition, there will be another fair use image. ;-) Personally, I think they are informative since they show the quality of the cover art and help people identify what's out there on site. It also adds visuals to an otherwise bland article. Would it help if I got a thumbs-up from some of the people I know at CI? – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Lemurs of Madagascar, currently in its 2nd edition with the 3rd edition due to be released soon — I'd put second and third as words. Soon will date, can we have a year instead?

2nd and 3rd have been put into words. I'm working on the soon part. From personal communication, I know it's due out in late summer 2010, ideally around early September. However, I don't have a source. In fact, the CI website still says it "should be available in late fall 2009". I've written to my contacts at CI and have asked them to update the website so that I can have something to reference. In the meantime, the only year I can reference is 2009, which is already dated. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• The first edition identified 50 lemur taxa, while the second edition identified 71 — repeat of identified.

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• In the above, taxa could include genus level. It becomes clear later, but here I'd put species and subspecies

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• researchers, such as Ian Tattersall, who views — view not views, "researchers" is the subject

Good catch. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Overview — overuse of "also"

Fixed, I think. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• for its comprehensive and up-to-date information, and for being the first comprehensive lemur field guide. — comprehensive twice in one sentence

Oops... wrote that too late last night. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• By following the recommendations of Colin Groves in the third edition of Mammal Species of the World from 2005 by recognizing newly-identified nocturnal species and splitting many former subspecies into distinct species.— where's the verb in this. Also the book should be italicised

Another good catch. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• For such a short article there is significant overlinking. Incidentally, I wouldn't redlink named people unless you plan to write articles for them

For some of them, yes, I hope to someday write articles (or hope others will). They are significant researchers or illustrators with their names all over everything. Otherwise, I've done my best to address overlinking. However, I typically count the linking in the lead separately from the body. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable .

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Did the programme presented by Martin Clunes get its title from this book? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not familiar with it, but the name is easy enough to construct if you're making a show about lemurs... especially since mentioning Madagascar in the title will help get people's attention. – Maky ^{« talk »} 15:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

This is one of the most overblown and bloated articles I have seen on Wikipedia. It appears to use itself for a source 44 times, out of about 60 sources total. I will tag it for cleanup, as we should not have such bloated articles on wiki. --- Possibly (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree that this article is bloated! I was surprised that this passed a GA. Cxbrx (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

If this article is subject needs cleanup, does this make it ineligible for Wikipedia:Featured articles? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

I have little experience with Wikipedia:Featured articles. In general, I value conciseness. My experience in academia is that writing a 10 page paper that presented prior work, contributions and future work was valued and can be quite difficult when compared to writing 30 - 100 page paper or a book. Valuing the time and the attention of the reader is key. Today the article is 37,771 characters. Does that mean it is 10x better than an article that is 3,771 characters? I dunno. Is this a book review or a review of the topic? In my experience (YMMV), I look to the NY Times book review as examples of good reviews. I believe most of those reviews are shorter than this article. A good review and a good Wikipedia article should help me decide if I want to read the book or read other articles on the topic. I see this article as more of a synopsis of the book as compared to a review of the impact and criticism of the book. One of the reviews is more like what I would expect this article to be like than what we have now. In addition, the article has far too many self-citations and citations for sources where one of the authors (Russell Mittermeier) may have editorial control like Lemur News: ([1], [2], [3], [4]. As an outsider, the article seems like an effort to sell more books. I don't expect other editors to necessarily agree with me, I just find the article to be bloated. Cxbrx (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

This is officially as good as sent to WP:FAR within the next 1-5 days (on account of WP:PRIMARY). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I've edited to reduce the bloat and promotional tone. Better now? I could keep cutting but figured I'd leave in all of the basic info and names. Monkeywire (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Urg, I did something to screw up the references. I'll take a look and see if I can figure out what happened but may need some help. Monkeywire (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]