Talk:Mantled guereza/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I will review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to cover all the points today but might have to leave the evolution/etymology section for another day if I run out of time. Jack (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• If available, there could be some discussion about the discovery and naming of this taxon.

Started an etymology section. Jack (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Added information about the discovery. Jack (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Those sections are much nicer now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise, is there material enough for an evolution section, to put it in context? What are its relatives and such?

Had a quick look and I'm not sure if I can find enough information for a section on its evolution however I think I will include relatives etc. in the taxonomy section. Could include the discovery there as well. Jack (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Added how the species fits within the Old World monkeys. Jack (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Both of these features vary in color among subspecies." In which way?

I've added a few more sentences giving example of colour changes. Jack (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• " In multi-male groups, one male can mate with the females on some occasions." What does this mean, that they take turns mating with all of them, or that only one male is allowed to mate with them?

Fixed. Should have read In multi-male groups, more than one male may mate with the females. Jack (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the physical description of the juvenile should be moved to the description section?

Yeah you're right, moved. Jack (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Something seems to be wrong with the following sentence: "It is likely that the mantled guereza prefers second growth forests due to increased food choice weaker chemical defenses from the plants."

Now reads: It is likely that the mantled guereza prefers these forests due to increased the number of food trees and the weaker chemical defenses of the species within Jack (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• The text directly under the ecology headline looks like it should be moved to habitat.

But it's talking about the ecology of the monkey, not the habitat? Jack (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

At the time I read it, it only talked about where it lived, so was about habitat. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the chunk of text I'm referring to: "The mantled guereza is primarily arboreal, but does sometimes descend on the ground to forage and travel, perhaps more so than most other colobines. It is diurnal and rests for up to half the day. Foraging or travelling are the next most common activity. Sometime after dawn, mantled guereza groups leave their sleeping trees and will return to them at dusk. During the day, the mantled guereza has long rest periods in between periods of moving and feeding.[19][20][21] Other activities, including grooming, greeting, playing and being vigilant, are performed to a lesser extent." To me, it looks like it is almost entirely about habitat. FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Habitat is the environment in which a species lives, while those sentences talk about the ecology of the animal, the way the animal interacts with its environment. Jack (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ecology is the interaction between living organisms, that section is merely about where the animal lives and where it moves to, but I guess its no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• When the above is done, diet would fit better under behaviour, as in most other articles.

An animal's diet is part of its ecology not its behaviour. How it eats, or its foraging strategy may be classed as behaviour, but the species it feeds on is part of its ecology. Jack (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The ecology section itself is usually under behaviour too. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean underneath or within? For primates, if there is enough information we have separate sections for Ecology and Behaviour, and placement isn't standardised. I find it helpful to have the habitat and ecology sections close together as they relate to the same thing. Jack (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Both, but it's no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• "It consumes a number of plant species but only several make up most of its diet at a specific site." Sounds weird. How about "only some"?

Changed. Jack (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of white space, and have removed some. Perhaps that under distribution could be removed if the image was right aligned.

Yeah I'm not either but I've tried to left-right align all the images. The distribution section has whitespace when viewed at high display resolutions. Is it really necessary to move the image? Jack (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to, but maybe if you flesh it out for potential FA, there might come enough text to fill it up. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah agreed, for the moment I don't think I'll be adding too much more to the section but will keep it in mind if it goes to FAC. Jack (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Like all colobi" and "with its unique stomach.". If all its relatives have this, how is it unique?

Changed to specialized stomach. Jack (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In some populations, groups may defend core areas" what is a "core area"? The territory of the group? If so, why not just state that? FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Defined term: In some populations, groups may defend core areas (which exist as a small part of the home range) Jack (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Everything looks good to me now, apart from the white space, and well, I still think that chunk under ecology belongs to habitat, but whatever. Won't hold it back. I'll pass it next time you respond. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk, really appreciate the review. I guess we just do things differently in WP:PRIMATE which is fine, thanks for understanding. Jack (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I think the article is quite nice now with the classification stuff added, so good luck! FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 5 April 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: