Talk:Pygmy slow loris/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I will review this article within this day. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! Sasata (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Welcome! First, the intro says "crawling along branches using slow, deliberate movements in search of prey." Why should it be pointed out that the movements are deliberate? Seems like common sense.

• Sure, removed "deliberate". Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• "has virtually no tail." It seems a bit vague. Wouldn't "a very short tail", or a measurement be more accurate?

• Changed to "very short tail". Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The teeth on its lower jaw" wouldn't "in" its lower jaw be more accurate?

• Yes, fixed. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Urine scent markings have a strong characteristic odor and are an important means of communication." If it is plural, shouldn't "an" be removed?

• Sentence reworded. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are a lot of good photos on Commons[1], why use such a blurry one in the taxobox?

• Swapped lead image for one clearer. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• On that note, if they commonly hang upside down, wouldn't it be nice to show it?[2]

• Good idea, done. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how Vietnamese (or where it's from) names work, but should the full name of Dao Van Tien be used in the taxobox, instead of a last name?

• According to the IUCN, this is his author abbreviation (so no change). Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Al right. Again, I have no clue on how Vietnamese names work. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Does the caption of the image under Anatomy and physiology need to repeat the article at length? If you shortened it, you could also get rid of the white space under it.

• I know that one of the helping authors is a fan of explicative captions (on the presumption that most readers will only read the lead and look at the pictures), but I trimmed it a little bit. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Seems like redundancy to me, but I guess its a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Another way to remove the white space could be to swap the position of the skull image and the face image. In that way, the living animal will also face the text, per MOS. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• "with no significant difference between the sexes" If there are any, they should be mentioned. If not, should be reworded. As is, it reads like you're leaving out info.

• Hmmm ... it doesn't read like that to me. Can you suggest a wording you'd be satisfied with? (would prefer not to leave it out, as many animals show sexual dimorphism, and if there's no explicit mention, perhaps some readers might think it had been forgotten?) Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe say there are no significant dimorphism, apart from in size?FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no difference including size; I've reworded this to just say explicitly "there is no significant difference in size between the sexes." Sasata (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the text indicates there's a weight difference at least, which is what I meant. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is info about female attraction to scent marks under behaviour, but shouldn't this be under reproduction?

• Possibly, but I think it also fits where it is (and reproduction follows shortly, so the material is not widely separated). Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Being a generalist food eater" sounds a bit awkward. It's like "water drinker" or something, common sense. Rephrase?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Seasonal weight changes are mentioned under anatomy, but it could be specified how they obtain higher weights under the diet section.

• Again perhaps, but I think it works ok where it is. Will see if any of my co-authors have an opinion about this. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My issue was not so much the placement, more that it needs elaboration. As is, it is just mentioned they are fatter in some seasons, not how. Do they eat intensively for a short time prior to winter, or is it a gradual build up in weight?

Added "The weight gains, achieved largely by increasing food intake, are triggered by changes in the length of the day and night." Sasata (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The population in China has been estimated at less than 500 individuals" and "In China, Daweishan, Fenshuiling, and Huanglianshan Reserve maintained approximately 80% of the population of the species in 2007" seem to contradict each other.

• I don't see the contradiction; less than 500 individuals in China, of which 80% are in Daweishan, Fenshuiling, and Huanglianshan Reserves ... Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, because it kind of reads like it is 80% of the species worldwide, unless you specify/rephrase it is 80% of the species in China. Maybe it's just because the sentence is so long that it is unclear. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully clarified with "...maintained approximately 80% of that country's population of the species..." Sasata (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are some images[3][4] of a specimen with some kind of tracking device, could be nice to show under conservation.

• Not sure what those are, so I'll wait for Maky to chime in. Sasata (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I see, could also be a collar and leash or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's it from me for now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty much a GA now, so I'll pass it next time you respond. Few remaining issues can be changed afterwards, or are optional. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful review! Sasata (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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: