Talk:Central American squirrel monkey/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, comments follow

General there is a lot of overlinking, eg Costa Rica, Manuel Antonio National Park, please check and unlink.
- I removed many of the extra links. A few items are linked twice because they are in different sections and I thought the 2nd link could be valuable to readers who skipped down to a section. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text is a bit wordy in places, and could be trimmed. Too many howevers and it is believed - the latter is a bit weasle-wordy, state it as a fact or say who believes it if it's controversial.
- Got rid of those where I found them, and also tightened the wording. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it worth mentioning, perhaps under Taxonomy, that it was named after this guy by his fellow countryman?
- Good point. I included that in Taxonomy. Thanks for the suggestion. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedits I've made these changes. Please check and amend if you are not happy.
- They look good. Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ref in the taxobox title is dreadful - it's unnecessary, against MoS and looks awful - you don't need to prove that the species exists
- I moved the ref to the lead of the article. The MSW ref in the taxobox is actually pretty standard in mammal articles, incuding many Featured Articles. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead Lead section should not be longer than three paras for an article of this length. there is certainly scope for trimming, for example the repetitious first paragraph could be rephrased The Central American Squirrel Monkey (Saimiri oerstedii) is a squirrel monkey species from the Pacific coast of Costa Rica and Panama. It is restricted to the northwestern tip of Panama near the border with Costa Rica, and the central and southern Pacific coast of Costa Rica, primarily in Maunuel Antonio and Corcovado National Parks.
males only form dominance hierarchies - repetitious, perhaps - males only do so
But even - why but? no contrast here
- I incorporated your suggested wording and tightened the lead up further. It is now 3 paragraphs. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Description Even if you feel that it is necessary to link the units, you should only do so on the first occurrence.
- Done.~~
Distribution and habitat overlinking is rife here, and three very short paras each beginning with species name is not good, I'd condense to two or even one paragraph. What purpose does However serve?
- Reworded and fixed the overlinking.Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Social structure 35 and 63 hectares.- Needs US conversion
- Done. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Groups can cover 2,500 to 4,200 meters per day - better would be travel, unless they're really big monkeys
- Done. I also included a unit conversion. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But individual monkeys - non-contrastive but
- Removed. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
e.g., foraging, - list all the activities or remove eg
- Removed. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
three acres - needs metric
- Done. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third para is very choppy, can't you make longer sentences here?
- Made longer sentences. Hopefully it reads better now. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
even some birds of prey do so as well - the kite is a bird of prey, reads poorly
- Removed the awkward wording. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diet - I've fixed the typo (pollenator -> pollinator, and hyphenated the fractions. Another chop-chop section
- Thank you for fixing the typo. I also reorganized the paragraph so it is less choppy.Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Predators dives for cover in consecutive sentences
- Removed 2nd instance. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status I've copy edited, but kilometres and square kilometres don't have US conversions
- Done. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy See above for oested, also is it worth saying that its nearest relative in the genus is the Common Squirrel Monkey, Saimiri sciureus - that seems clear from the genus article
- I included the information about Oested and added information about S. oerstedii belonging to the S. sciureus group along with S. scuireus and S. ustus (I'm not sure S. oerstedii is necessarily more closely related to S. scuireus than it is to S. ustus).Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images appropriate and correctly licensed
References Why is there a linked date in author line of refs 1 and 20? Binomials need italics in Ref 16. refs otherwise comprehensive and appropriate
- I italicized the binomial. The liked date is the standard MSW3 citation template that is used as a taxonomy reference in most mammal articles. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done for now jimfbleak (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very insightful and helpful comments and the work you put into copyediting. I believe I have addressed the issues. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion, the image in the infobox is not clear, (masked by leaves, trees) I mean it does not present the full view of the monkey, it will be good if a better looking + complete picture is incorporated here, since this will be the first picture to be viewed. --Bluptr (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: File:Squirrel monkey1.jpg could be cropped down to give a decent image jimfbleak (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make a good image. I wish I had that when the article was in DYK. I will try to crop it down and use it in the taxobox (just need to get hold of my wife's computer, which has the necessary software). Rlendog (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the suggested image to the taxobox. I think it looks really good. I did apparently mess up when I saved the cropped file and so the image file name has the word "file" in it. I hope that isn't a problem, since I was not able to move the file to a new name. Rlendog (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA

I now think this meets all the criteria for GA, although the prose will need to be a bit tighter if it goes to FAC. A nice article, and the new image is so much better. jimfbleak (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]