491:
is, "What is a mongoose?" I agree, Johnbod, that the articles need to be understandable to laypeople, but at some point, the reading level has to go up. The more you want to understand something, the more you have to learn. Unfortunately, increased comprehensiveness inexorably results in increased reading level. Anyway, I'll review the article again and see if I can try to explain some things better in more straight-forward terminology. Thank you for your honest feedback. –
270:
to lose this consistency. But I would make a change when I see the benefit, and I don't see it here. Formatting citations as they are in this article is perfectly standard—a similar style (without "pp." or similar) is used by all major citation styles and academic journals I know of for journal citations—and I doubt it's much more opaque than "pp." is.
620:: as far back as the subfossil records go (~26,000 years, I think) up until the last few hundred years. But I can't go on a hunch, only on what the sources say. What I might be able to do is suggest that they might fall in the same date range as the subfossil lemurs. Let me re-check my sources and see what else I can find. –
615:
Fixed the first three. The last point is a bit of a problem. With no radiocarbon dates established for this species, and the source explicitly stating "recent geological past", I don't think we have license to say anything beyond that. I get a feeling from the material that it would date like most
490:
I regularly give talks to laypeople about wildlife (namely, lemurs), and I often answer the question, "What is a Fossa?" In all honestly, I would argue that even most laypeople don't know what a mongoose is. Every time I say that the Fossas are relatives of mongooses, the next question that follows
254:
This is a general encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, and you should not assume that your readers will be familiar with citation formatting. Templates are imperfect creatures, and should not be referred to as though they had special merit. Why are you so reluctant to clarify something that could
393:
It's good that you're still unclear about its size and the date of its extinction, because both are unknown. All we have are body mass estimates, which are in there already. The lead already says the family--it's an euplerid--and says it's related to the fossa. I've edited a little to emphasize that
269:
I am not quite sure we're referring to the same thing—are you saying things like "BioScience 44(1):12–18" should be replaced with "BioScience 14(1) pp. 12–18"? The reason for my reluctance is that I have written many articles with a consistent citation style. I am hesitant to make changes so as not
378:
The technical language is no doubt correct, but leaves the article rather puzzling for non-biologists. After reading it carefully, I'm still unclear a) how big it was - eg how long, and b) when it might have survived to. The lead should be expanded on, explaining what it's family (or whatever) is
300:
I understand your argument, but can't agree. We assume a certain minimum knowledge in our readers. In this article, the term "Africa" is not linked, because such a link would be more disruptive to the vast majority of readers who know what Africa is than it would be helpful to the few who don't. I
757:
Added "later in the
Holocene" in parentheses after "recent geological past". I chose that method of implementation to demonstrate that the mention of the Holocence does not come from the cited source, but is inferred from all previous material. Feel free to revert of change if you disapprove. –
283:
a scientific journal, and its readership may be less familiar with the citation styles of scientific publications than you are. The fact that you are following a previous practice is neither here nor there. Unexplained numbers at the end of a citation may or may not signify page numbers to a less
176:. We don't know much about it, except that it was quite big and that it is probably no longer there. I got some help from Visionholder, who also made the map, in finding information and Sasata gave a great GA review. We hope that its smaller, surviving cousin, the
654:." In the Wiki article under question, two paragraphs up from the "recent geological past" passage it mentions that their remains are found in Holocene cave sites. Unless you can offer some suggestions, I think this is the best we can offer. –
310:
Brian, medical articles follow the same citation style used here (no page numbers on journals); there have been several discussions on that, but I can't recall where to find them, but I'm OK with this for journal articles that aren't gynormous.
223:
I also wonder whether the page ranges need to be given in this list of sources, since the relevant pages are included in the citations. If you want to keep them I suggest they are given a "pp." so that people know what these numbers are.
680:
Yes, it probably went extinct (if indeed it is a separate species) during the last few thousand years, after human colonization of
Madagascar, but there is nothing specific known, and the sources are correspondingly and rightly vague.
244:
I don't think that's necessary, as we can expect readers to know some basic citation formatting, and if you are referring to the places I think you are referring to, even the regular citation templates do not use "pp." there.
780:
On second thought, I've just removed the phrase, as the article already says it is known from
Holocene deposits and the "recent geological past" piece is so vague that it doesn't add anything. I do think the meaning of
743:, the meaning of the latter phrase is unambiguous there, but it is ambiguous here (well, not if you read the whole section, but in its paragraph it is). Suggest changing to "Holocene" or "later in the Holocene".
441:
do just the same. I suppose I could add something like ", which includes all indigenous
Malagasy carnivorans", but that starts to go from providing necessary background to losing the focus on the main points.
117:
839:
Otherwise, it appears to be a focused, well-written article. The explanations throughout help with the jargon terms of the article; obviously a lot of research went into this. Well done.
794:
Thanks for the fix, I now support (see below). As an aside though, big-R "Recent" is indeed used for "indistinguishable from now", but little-r "recent geological past" is ambiguous.
887:
Looks great, only issue I had was addressed already (above). I learned a ton reading it - I didn't know much at all about this group of animals. Thanks for the great article,
301:
think it's the same with this point; you can't gloss over the fact that it is a very common practice not to use "pp." for journal references as easily as you do.
459:, which is mentioned, is itself pretty obscure, and the lead needs to relate the species to some form of life the general reader might actual be familiar with.
379:
for non-specialists - "related to mongooses" or something; in an FA one should not have to follow links to find this sort of basic contextual material.
40:
860:
Thanks for the support and for catching that! I've attempted to re-word it for clarity. Ucucha may tweak it, but otherwise, we should be good there. –
477:, but it's better than nothing, and I realized that the lead indeed did not make it clear to the layperson even that we're dealing with a mammalian
88:
83:
92:
30:
17:
75:
715:
Actually, I'd like to reopen this issue. "Recent geological past" to someone who studies the whole of Earth history can mean the entire
942:
918:
896:
877:
854:
803:
789:
775:
752:
708:
685:
671:
637:
570:
530:
508:
485:
468:
446:
424:
398:
388:
368:
358:
323:
305:
293:
274:
264:
249:
239:
184:
164:
133:
938:
138:
79:
210:
Page total given for the Turvey book but not others. This isn't particularly useful info so I suggest drop it.
927:
Images - 1 x own work of contributor, one map adaptation from appropriately sourced paper. i..e good to go.
914:
869:
767:
663:
629:
522:
513:
I tried my hand at clearing some things up. If anyone dislikes any of my changes, feel free to revert. –
500:
354:
319:
289:
260:
235:
172:
This was the largest carnivore known from
Madagascar, large enough to eat some of the giant extinct
847:
703:
565:
71:
64:
932:
892:
799:
748:
437:
907:
863:
761:
657:
623:
516:
494:
464:
420:
384:
350:
312:
285:
256:
231:
157:
53:
786:
731:, and only to someone who studies exclusively the Quaternary would it mean specifically the
682:
482:
443:
431:
395:
365:
302:
271:
246:
181:
161:
617:
841:
696:
558:
456:
177:
928:
888:
795:
744:
411:
That doesn't help. Why should the reader have to follow a link to find out what the
460:
455:
has a much more expansive lead. Trust me, there isn't much focus to lose here. The
416:
380:
109:
650:. 2003: "The only extinct Carnivora known from Madagascar during the Holocene is
716:
728:
452:
412:
284:
informed reader; my suggestion is that these numbers should be made explicit.
599:— I'm not sure why "however" is needed here, lck of evidence isn't a contrast
478:
732:
724:
720:
197:
References: No. 5, Goodman et al 2001? Not listed, perhaps 2004 misdated?
473:
Fair enough, I added a little. Mongooses aren't really that similar to
227:
Those are formal long-form citations, so they include the page ranges.
782:
230:
OK, but please add "pp." so that it is clear what these numbers are.
833:
First described in 1902 and recognized as a separate species in 1935
255:
be done so simply? If you can't spare the time, I'll do it for you.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
581:
However, the two have not always been accepted as distinct species.
173:
583:— Why "however", you've just said they are similar, not different
646:
Alright... the best I can find is the following from
Goodman
429:
As far as I can see, it is; current featured articles like
906:; have images been reviewed? Please ping me when clear.
719:; to someone who studies the Phanerozoic, it can mean the
607:— can you give an indication of what time span this means?
143:
118:
Featured article candidates/Cryptoprocta spelea/archive1
105:
101:
97:
57:
349:Otherwise, all sources look good, no other issues.
955:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
451:Never mind "other featured articles"! Your own
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
597:However, living species of comparably-sized...
961:No further edits should be made to this page.
835:- a separate species from fossa or mongooses?
591:— don't need "together", "with" alone will do
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
218:, in keeping with the style I use generally.
785:as "Holocene" is fairly well-established.
741:went extinct in the recent geological past
180:, will follow this species into FAC soon.
122:
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
694:Fine with me, changed to support above
125:
115:
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
279:My basic point is that Knowledge is
415:are? This is not the FA approach.
24:
216:The Natural History of Madagascar
737:existed during presumed Holocene
589:it occurs together with remains
1:
723:, to someone who studies the
31:featured article nomination
978:
829:- I have just one concern.
394:Eupleridae is its family.
943:01:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
919:23:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
897:23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
878:01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
855:00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
804:23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
790:18:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
776:17:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
753:16:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
709:09:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
686:20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
672:14:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
638:13:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
571:10:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
324:01:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
306:15:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
294:10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
275:15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
265:15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
250:20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
240:08:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
958:Please do not modify it.
735:. Since the source says
531:22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
509:21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
486:16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
469:14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
447:14:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
425:13:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
399:13:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
389:13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
369:21:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
359:20:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
185:14:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
165:14:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
36:Please do not modify it.
605:recent geological past
364:Thanks for the check!
192:: Minor matters only.
201:Yes, 2004, corrected.
56:02:47, 26 June 2010
652:Cryptoprocta spelea
72:Cryptoprocta spelea
65:Cryptoprocta spelea
438:Galerina marginata
206:Literature cited
168:
151:
150:
969:
960:
911:
875:
872:
866:
852:
844:
773:
770:
764:
706:
699:
669:
666:
660:
635:
632:
626:
618:subfossil lemurs
568:
561:
528:
525:
519:
506:
503:
497:
432:Banksia sessilis
316:
154:
123:
113:
95:
48:The article was
38:
977:
976:
972:
971:
970:
968:
967:
966:
965:
956:
909:
870:
864:
862:
848:
842:
768:
762:
760:
704:
697:
664:
658:
656:
630:
624:
622:
566:
559:
523:
517:
515:
501:
495:
493:
314:
214:Added also for
86:
70:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
975:
973:
964:
963:
950:
948:
947:
946:
945:
922:
921:
900:
899:
881:
880:
837:
836:
830:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
712:
711:
689:
688:
675:
674:
641:
640:
610:
609:
601:
593:
585:
574:
573:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
457:Fossa (animal)
404:
403:
402:
401:
372:
371:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
221:
220:
219:
204:
203:
202:
190:Sources issues
170:
169:
156:Nominator(s):
149:
148:
147:
146:
144:External links
141:
136:
128:
127:
121:
120:
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
974:
962:
959:
953:
952:
951:
944:
940:
937:
934:
930:
926:
925:
924:
923:
920:
916:
912:
905:
902:
901:
898:
894:
890:
886:
883:
882:
879:
876:
873:
867:
859:
858:
857:
856:
853:
851:
846:
845:
834:
831:
828:
825:
824:
805:
801:
797:
793:
792:
791:
788:
784:
779:
778:
777:
774:
771:
765:
756:
755:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:
710:
707:
702:
700:
693:
692:
691:
690:
687:
684:
679:
678:
677:
676:
673:
670:
667:
661:
653:
649:
645:
644:
643:
642:
639:
636:
633:
627:
619:
614:
613:
612:
611:
608:
606:
602:
600:
598:
594:
592:
590:
586:
584:
582:
578:
577:
576:
575:
572:
569:
564:
562:
556:
555:
550:
549:
532:
529:
526:
520:
512:
511:
510:
507:
504:
498:
489:
488:
487:
484:
480:
476:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
445:
440:
439:
434:
433:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
400:
397:
392:
391:
390:
386:
382:
377:
374:
373:
370:
367:
363:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
325:
321:
317:
309:
308:
307:
304:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
282:
278:
277:
276:
273:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
253:
252:
251:
248:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:
226:
225:
222:
217:
213:
212:
211:
208:
207:
205:
200:
199:
198:
195:
194:
193:
191:
187:
186:
183:
179:
175:
167:
166:
163:
159:
153:
152:
145:
142:
140:
137:
135:
132:
131:
130:
129:
124:
119:
116:
114:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
957:
954:
949:
935:
904:Image review
903:
884:
865:VisionHolder
861:
849:
840:
838:
832:
826:
763:VisionHolder
759:
740:
736:
695:
659:VisionHolder
655:
651:
647:
625:VisionHolder
621:
604:
603:
596:
595:
588:
587:
580:
579:
557:
553:
551:
518:VisionHolder
514:
496:VisionHolder
492:
474:
436:
430:
375:
351:Brianboulton
348:
286:Brianboulton
280:
257:Brianboulton
232:Brianboulton
215:
209:
196:
189:
188:
171:
158:Visionholder
155:
139:Citation bot
69:
54:SandyGeorgia
49:
47:
35:
28:
717:Phanerozoic
705:talk to me?
567:talk to me?
729:Quaternary
453:Noronhomys
413:Eupleridae
739:and then
698:Jimfbleak
560:Jimfbleak
479:carnivore
475:C. spelea
939:contribs
929:Casliber
889:Awickert
885:Support.
796:Awickert
745:Awickert
733:Holocene
725:Cenozoic
721:Cenozoic
554:Comments
552:Support
376:Comments
134:Analysis
50:promoted
910:Georgia
827:Support
461:Johnbod
417:Johnbod
381:Johnbod
315:Georgia
126:Toolbox
89:protect
84:history
787:Ucucha
783:Recent
727:, the
683:Ucucha
483:Ucucha
444:Ucucha
396:Ucucha
366:Ucucha
303:Ucucha
272:Ucucha
247:Ucucha
182:Ucucha
174:lemurs
162:Ucucha
93:delete
908:Sandy
871:talk
843:ceran
769:talk
665:talk
648:et al
631:talk
524:talk
502:talk
313:Sandy
178:fossa
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
933:talk
915:Talk
893:talk
850:thor
800:talk
749:talk
465:talk
435:and
421:talk
385:talk
355:talk
320:Talk
290:talk
261:talk
236:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
281:not
52:by
941:)
917:)
895:)
802:)
751:)
701:-
563:-
481:.
467:)
423:)
387:)
357:)
322:)
292:)
263:)
238:)
160:,
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
59:.
33:.
936:·
931:(
913:(
891:(
874:»
868:«
798:(
772:»
766:«
747:(
668:»
662:«
634:»
628:«
527:»
521:«
505:»
499:«
463:(
419:(
383:(
353:(
318:(
288:(
259:(
234:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.