Talk:Sunda slow loris

message: Why is it listed as "lc"? As far as I know, it is listed by "Vulnerable" by IUCN in 2002. Matahari Pagi 08:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Check the ref to IUCN 2006. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: This article seems to be more about Slow Lorises in general than the Slow Loris article. Couldn't these two be merged?-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, how do you mean it is more about the genus than the species? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible merge? 

message: This is in the venomous mammals category, but no information on whether this is true or not is present in the article. Flaunting ignorance, Is it...? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is partly my fault.  While the collaboration group slowly re-works all the slow loris articles, we are primarily focusing on species details on the species pages.  Once these species pages are fixed up, we will write the Slow loris article, providing more general information.  From that general information, it will be much easier to provide and reference general information (such as the venomous bite) on all of the species articles, including this one.  (A lot of the shared traits for this species are discussed at the genus level, not the species level.)  I sincerely hope to be able to provide this general anatomical information within the next couple of weeks.  The short answer for you is yes, they have a venomous bite, although the venom comes from a gland on their forearm. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venomous  

message: I have added a block of text taken from the Bengal Slow Loris article to fill in the taxonomy section, although we really need to find a source that talks about all of those synonyms.  I haven't re-organized the "Physical description" section until we straighten out the details at Talk:Slow loris#Topic development.  Like I said there, the subsections are probably too small to merit headings.  We also need to decide if we're going to standardize English (British vs. American) across the topic.  As for standard references,  can save some space, but it depends on how much you use .  In some articles, we note page numbers for journal information as well as books, while in others (like this one) we only care about books.  I don't care either way, and I don't think it matters if we standardize.  Other than that, the article looks really good!  Let's straighten out these issues and then nominate for GAN. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still a little confused by the phylogenetic tree we have, why does N. coucang appear in so many places! Why does one have an asterisk by it? Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Most of those synonyms are probably the result of the early-20th-century conviction in some quarters that every mammal on every island in the Sunda Islands represents a distinct species. The list is missing tenasserimensis, incidentally. Ucucha 00:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I found out tenasserimensis is actually a synonym of N. bengalensis, not this species (see MSW 3), so there is no need to mention it here. I've expanded the synonyms list. Ucucha 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-GAN review 

message: I believe we've finished meeting the requests for the GAN review, and now to look on to an eventual FAC run.  The first glaring problem involves references.  Typically, we either list all book and journal literature in the "Literature cited" subsection or we use a "Books cited" subsection for books only.  So far, this article is a mix.  Looking at refs #17 and #18, both are Chen, et al.  If we are going to list all journal and book references in "Literature cited", then the second one needs to be placed below and specific page numbers need to be provided for these refs.  The same goes for numerous other journal refs.  We need to decide one way or the other, and I realize that it gets complicated because some journal articles are 1–2 pages long, while others are 20–40 pages long.  For that reason, I generally treat them all the same so there are no grey areas.  I don't mind moving the full citations to the "Literature cited" section, but I will need help tracking down page numbers.  If you want, I can leave the page numbers blank so that others can fill them in in the short footnotes ().  – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference clean-up