Jump to content

Talk:White-nosed saki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Adding information to this article.

[edit]

Hey there,

I am currently taking a course which requires me to improve on a Wiki stub. I have chosen this article and will slowly be adding more information as I go along. I have currently only added two sentences to the lead which refer to information I will expand upon in designated sections of the article.

If you do come across this message, feel free to provide me with any advice on the contributions I have already made.

Thanks!

(Vikster28 (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
White-nosed saki
White-nosed saki
  • ... that the white-nosed saki monkey (pictured) is the only species in the genus Chiropotes which has a brightly coloured nose? Source: Emmons, L. H. (1997). Neotropical Rainforest Mammals (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-20719-6.
    • Comment: I have added a lot of information to this article for an educational course and would love to have wiki editors/viewers check out the revised article.

5x expanded by Vikster28 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hey there, I am unsure if the source provided is able to be checked without purchasing the book. This information was already included in the article prior to my expansion so assumed it would be correct. Only after submitting my DYK did I see that those revising the posts needed free access to the source. I attempted to make a new DYK entry but couldn't as I had submitted this one. Hoping this can still be accepted but let me know what I am able to do if not. I would love to have this newly updated article published on the main wiki page for everyone to check out as I am a new wiki creator and have worked hard on this article! Vikster28 (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Vikster28, welcome to Wikipedia!
First thing: I moved your comment above for technical reasons, as you are supposed to use the "review or comment" button directly above your hook to reply to it (it's a technical thing and only applies in DYK, and it confused me as a newcomer as well). So yeah, click that thing and you'll be replying in the proper way, and the comment won't get lost accidentally ;)
Second: Nope, sources don't actually need to be available only for a hook to pass review. I can't find the actual rule atm, but there's a special little icon reviewers can use to indicate that they can't access the source themselves, but trust the article editor enough to pass it. So for example, if you'd try to convince me that the book by Emmons ("Neotropical Rainforest Mammals") proves that spaghetti was discovered in Antarctica, I'd strongly doubt that and request you to procure the book. However, with a claim that sounds very reasonable and an otherwise splendid article, we Wikipedians trust in one another to not actively lie to hurt the project ^^
Okay, so much for that. I'll be reviewing shortly, but one more thing: Please hang in there! A lot of student editors leave/disappear before the DYK can be approved, which is a shame especially with good articles. Just check back every few days if there's something to do still, it won't take that long :) --LordPeterII (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: No - There might be a better one
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Greatly expanded, went from Stub to B-Class, earwigs finds nothing. The claim in the lead section about the "pink nose", although somewhat obvious from looking at the picture, is actually not supported by the source cited – this needs to be rectified. And that also begs the question: Wouldn't this be an even better hook? Something about the white nose being in fact reddish. I'll check the article body in more detail still, but it looks solid. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few more observations about the article: Solid quality, you definitely spent some time digging up sources and expanding. But I'd still like to see some small adjustments, because anything appearing on the front page should be as polished as possible:
  1. The species is listed as vulnerable, but there's currently no explanation why, or whether there are protection efforts. This is no must-have, but a short section would be nice and could be easily compiled from e.g. this source, which has the interesting note that their tails are used as dusters.
  2. The main issue is the confusion on white nose (hair!) vs reddish-pink nose (skin!), which this source doesn't explain properly. There's an explanation in the lead section that dead specimens had lost the reddish hue and retained only their white facial hair, hence the ill-fitting name. But in the "Physical characteristics" this explanation is not given, and the claim that their nose might be white or red now confuses readers. This needs to be re-phrased to be crystal-clear (and sourced!) for the article to pass DYK.
  3. There are some instances of needless repetition, which isn't terrible and won't disqualify the article, but it reads clumsy. For example, "terra firma" (which sadly doesn't have its own article) is repeated thrice in a row. Likewise, "very few [means of] communication" is repeated needlessly.
  4. Statements that are poorly worded:
  • "Both the female and male are considered a “medium-sized” species." The male and female are probably not different species, right? ;)
  • "The two body parts which they require for feeding and movement is their tail and teeth." This reads weird, as they certainly use their legs to move as well (again, this source points out their quadrupedal movement); and on the other hand it is quite commonplace to use teeth for feeding. Don't get me wrong: Canine teeth are certainly extraordinary, and a tail that changes flexibility with age also. But I think you could change the sentence quoted above to better reflect why these two body parts are important.
  • "... and possibly a small area east of Bolivia." Should that read "in eastern Bolivia"? Because to the east of Bolivia there's Brazil, which seems weird as it's already mentioned above. And in any case, to the east of some country is a very vague statement. I know it was in the article before you started, but with your knowledge you can probably tell what it's supposed to mean.
Apart from that, splendid! The structure is solid, the amount of footnotes is commendable, and I love that you even made a pie chart for their diet. That's how a Wikipedia article should look like! I'm sure you'll easily fix what I nitpicked above, and this nomination will get approved :)
--LordPeterII (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your extensive feedback and advice. Also, thank you for moving my initial comment. I wasn't sure where to add the comment since I initially pressed on "review or comment" and it didn't allow me to. Luckily now its working! (or at least i'm hoping i've now responded in the correct place, please let me know if not). I am planning to add some more to the article (e.g., on conservation which you have mentioned) so will definitely look into fixing up the article where required based on your suggestions. It really does help to have someone look over the article so I can improve on it where needed :) Once I manage to get this all done, should I be re-nominating the article or will this nomination remain active? Once again, Thanks for your help!
Vikster28 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikster28: Yep, your reply was done in the intended way now :)
The nomination will stay in effect. I'll approve it once you've rectified the remaining issues.
Oh, and as stated above, I encourage you to explore some other hook. I'd approve the first one if need be, but the white/red nose thing sounds way catchier to me. I'd give an alternate hook myself, but then I'd be barred from approving the nom. If you can come up with one, just add it in a comment and call it ALT1. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that makes it easier. I will just let you know that (like i've stated in my previous comment) I will be adding a fair bit more information by the end of this month. This is the point at which I would also make the adjustments you have suggested. I wasn't sure if this would cause issues with the nomination considering I am further expanding the article and this may therefore create a need for more editing upon suggestion. Sorry about this, I hadn't previously considered waiting until I added everything. The only reason I haven't yet uploaded the extra information is because I am still working on completing it/editing it. And I'm not able to wait before doing this as I need to have it uploaded by a certain date as part of my education course. Do you know if this will affect my nomination at all? If I do need to resubmit because of this I completely understand as it was my error in getting too ahead of myself with the DYK nomination. Sorry for all the questions. I'm a new wiki editor so am still learning the ropes of how everything works. Truly do appreciate your help though! :)
Vikster28 (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Yeah ordinarily you'd submit after you're finished with major editing. But dw, I can wait. DYK is one of the few areas where time is of any importance in Wikipedia; but even here we are just volunteers. Your real-life education course deadline is probably more critical ^^ If it's happening within the next month or two, just add the rest when you're ready. Then once you're actually satisfied, best ping me with this {{ping|LordPeterII}} in a comment here, so I get notified and don't miss it. Then I'll check the article again. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry, that was my bad getting too carried away. Will ping you when the article has been updated. Thanks! Vikster28 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vikster28, just checking in since it's now almost a month since we last spoke. What's the status of your editing? It's fine if you still need time, but I wanted to make sure you didn't forget about the nomination. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Vikster28, an update:

Improved:

  • A Conservation Section! Now their status as vulnerable is explained.

Remainign Issues:

  • Lead Section: In living individuals, it is actually bright pink (though with fine barely visible white hairs), and the pelage is black. – This sentence needs a citation that supports its statement. The currently provided source (Wisconsin National Primate Research Center) does NOT talk about a pink nose with white hairs. There are, however, sources that do... (hint hint) (It's actually sourced correctly in the article body, just not the lead)
  • Lead Section: This species are considered to be “medium-sized” – Now the sentence makes more sense, but we need are->is (minor, but easy fix).

... and that's it! Other parts of the article have been expanded nicely as well, and nothing seems off there. Basically two easy fixes to do, and then I'll approve the DYK nomination. Do it once uni lets you, and ping me back so I can add a green checkmark :) --LordPeterII (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I forgot one more thing: Vikster28 did you consider an alternate hook? I still believe the white-nosed-but-actually-pink-nosed thing is more interesting than the originally proposed (more generic) hook. A DYK code of honour prevents me from approving my own hooks, so again I ask you to consider proposing an alternate one :) If not, I'll approve the original hook. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LordPeterII: I am so sorry for the hold up and late response. I have been overseas and have barely any access to the internet. Thank you @Mary Mark Ockerbloom: for making those edits for me. I really appreciate it. I was wondering if this alternative for the DYK nomination may be better.
  • ALT1 that... the White-nosed saki (pictured) actually has a reddish-pinkish nose despite its name? The source for this is: Covert, T. (2018). "White-nosed saki: Chiropotes albinasus". New England Primate Conservancy. Let me know if that's better. I didn't want to make it too long. Also, just a heads up... I'm not sure how to attach the image as was done by someone else for me on the original DYK nomination. If possible, I would also like the image to be included as it explains what is being mentioned in the hook. Thank you in advance. Vikster28 (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on article expansion

[edit]

Hey there,

I have currently added a fair bit of new information to this article. I am still planning to add more. If you come across this article for any reason, feel free to give me any advice on editing for any of the new information.

Thanks!

Vikster28 (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, just dumping some sources here that I came across, so I can reference them (mostly as a reminder for myself, they shouldn't all be added):
(Tbh some of them might not be reliable, so I will check them later.) --LordPeterII (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the clarity of any future editor stumbling upon this section: The article now incorporates some of them, and the above post only remains here for historical reasons. And I want to stress that the link to the German Wikipedia was ONLY for me to check on their statements/sources, to compare them with the English article ones. Do NEVER ever cite a Wikipedia article as a source in another Wikipedia article. Should be obvious, but I've struck it through anyway. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White-nosed_saki&oldid=1209082405"