Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Javan Rhinoceros

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 promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

[edit] Javan Rhinoceros

I've been working on this for about two months. I'm pretty confident that the sources are the best available (it's a relatively small community researching these rhinos, and they're all in the references). Circeus mentioned that he's not happy with the ordering of information -- I'm totally open to suggestions for restructuring, but haven't really had any luck soliciting other opinions on this article or with rhinos in general. As with my other nominations, I'll be extremely responsive to this page, so please let me know what needs addressed. I'm confident that we can get this article across the hump during the FAC process. JayHenry 21:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

*Comments - sorry, been busy elsewhere. What was Circeus' issue. If I were doing it I'd rename Habitat and distribution to Distribution and habitat and put it before behaviour as with other WP bio articles in general. I mused on this with lion and felt that a standard format was really worth pursuing. Eventually it'll look really cool and professional when clicking between FAs. I don't think it is a total deal-breaker or anything but...anyway, I'll keep reading. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh no worries, we have 2,100,000 - 1,600 = way too many non-featured articles to work on! Not sure what he wanted, hopefully he'll weigh in. I moved it to match most FAs. I guess the issue I was having is that it's entire range is now within nationally protected conservation areas, so I was having trouble deciding if it should be distribution or conservation, but actually reading it this morning I think it works pretty well the way it is. --JayHenry 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than that, I think you're just about there. MOS calls for a lead of 2-3 paras. Paras 2 and 4 slide nicely together though whether you put it before or after para 3 is hard to decide...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I merged paragraph 4 into paragraph 2 rather than vise-versa. What do you think? My reasoning is that with only 50-60 survivors, the species is a little bit more conservation-focused than biology/zoology-focused, though that could be my bias showing through as I'm primarily interested in these topics from the conservation standpoint. --JayHenry 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - ok, I'm happy :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  Oh don't make it too easy on me. I'll get lazy! --JayHenry 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Quick Comment I'm planning on giving the article a thorough review soon (tonight/tomorrow), but I noticed that what you call the Javan Rhinoceros changes between Javan Rhinoceros, Javan rhinoceros, Javan rhino, and Javan Rhino. Could you pick one or two (in my opinion, either Javan Rhinoceros or Javan Rhino would be fine) and standardize it throughout the article? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  Good catch, I switched all references to this and other species to Javan R... I think I've seen debate in other articles on whether or not to capitalize animal names and I want to say: I have no preference in this debate, and am happy to go with whichever style the community prefers. --JayHenry 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  Looking over the literature, it actually looks like the preference is for Javan rhinoceros. Can someone who's been involved in these discussions previously weigh in regarding capitalization? --JayHenry 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Some comments. There are a couple of issues:
  1. In the lead section, the assertion of possibly word in the statement "It is considered possibly the rarest large mammal on earth" needs some supports.
  2. Per WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section, some controversial statements should have sources. So I'd like to challenge sources of (1) the fact that the trading horn is only conducted because of Chinese medication using the horns (What about European's hunter picture with the dead rhino? Were hunting horns for fun attributed to the rhino decline also?), and (2) the fact that Vietnam Wars has something to do with the rhino's habitat (Are there sources saying the figure of rhinos before the war is significantly higher than after the war?).
  3. There are some repeating number of rhinos throughout the article, but some have inconsistencies. The Vietnamese rhino is said of no more than 8 alive, but in the Taxonomy and naming section it mentions less than 12 (though it's correct by math logic, but it's less accurate). The Javan rhino at Ujung Kulon is said to be 50-60 in the lead section and in other places, but in the Distribution and habitat section it says 28-56. We need more accurate figure for a feature article.
  4. I find the last statement of the Cat Tien subsection: "While it may be nearly impossible for the population of Vietnamese rhinos to recover, conservationists point to other species which neared extinction but made recoveries, or survived for centuries, such as the collared lizards of the Ozarks" is unnecessary. It shows an opinion by conservationists and it has no encyclopaedic value to be inserted there.

Overall, the article looks already good. Some subsections are still not comprehensive enough (reproduction and diet), but maybe because studies of this animal are scarce. I've massaged a bit the text: (1) changed the section name of "Javan Rhineceros in zoos" into "In other captivities" per WP:MOS (avoiding article's title in the section name), (2) disambiguated sunda into sundaland and it should only refer to the biogeographical region, not the Indonesia province. As an addition, it'd be better if there is a diagram of the physical characteristics as in other featured articles of flora and fauna. — Indon (reply) — 10:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you so much for giving it such a thorough reading. Very good points!
  • I can add citations to the lead. That's no problem.
  • I think it is pretty clear in the article how the war altered their habitat. "Extensive defoliation, land mines, agent orange, etc." I don't even think it's a controversial assertion that the Vietnam War wreaked havoc on the wildlife, especially the megafauna, of the region. You are right that hunting for sport was once a contributing factor and I'll add that.
  • The different numbers come from different estimates, I will make it clearer by whom and when different estimates were made.
  • Also, I tried to make it really explicit that the animals are not studied directly, so there's very little known about their behavior. I already mentioned this in the lead, but should I make it even more explicit?
  • As for the opinions of conservationists, I'd like to see what other people think. It seems to me that there's a really important distinction between a subspecies that conservationists agree is doomed, and a population that conservationists believe has a chance of survival. Perhaps it could be worded better, but the opinion of conservationists (and these aren't, like, college students with GreenPeace T-shirts; the people that do this research are conservation biology Ph.D's) seems like really important information to me. ** Thanks again for reviewing the article and hopefully we can iron all this out! --JayHenry 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • For the Vietnam War, when I was reading the lead, it looks like that the only culprit that is now only no more than 8 Vietnamese rhinos alive is the war. For the last point, of course I believe they are highly respectable scientists who made that comment. However, that kind of comment, in particular with non-quantitative words like it may be nearly impossible statement, fits in a news article rather than in an encyclopaedia. It doesn't even fit in a scientific publication without some proofs. That's my two cents. — Indon (reply) — 08:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Upon further reflection, I think you're right. The way it's written now could even be considered weasel-wording. I'll make adjustments to all your comments later this evening. --JayHenry 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Hey Indon, I took a stab at making fixes per your suggestions. Thanks again for your attention, the article is definitely improved from your input! Let me know if you can think of any further suggestions (or if I didn't quite get these satisfactorily enough). --JayHenry 04:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I edited a bit, and now the article looks very good. I'll support it (see below). — Indon (reply) — 08:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support (as per discussion above). — Indon (reply) — 08:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support—Tony (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.