|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Mandrill was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
Should a segment mentioning the Mandrill in Popular Culture be added? One example that comes to mind is Rafiki from the Lion King —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MelicansMatkin (talk • contribs) .
Maybe a separate section on mandrills in popular culture is warranted, but a reference to The Lion King in the introduction to the article seemed (to me) totally inappropriate. Danny oldsen (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Terrestrial - it doesn't live in water
The Mandrill is of course a terrestrial mammal, the sentence about its feeding habits needs to be altered to say something like "ground-dwelling" instead of "terrestrial". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) .
- Terrestrial means ground-dwelling, in this context, as opposed to aquatic. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
How recently has it been classed as separate from baboons? Aeronox 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Groups of up to 800 individuals?
This passage sounds extremely dubious to me. I cannot imagine a primate living in a group with 800 individuals unless it is in captivity. I'm going to remove the passage until someone either corrects it or finds a reliable source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now it says that the largest group ever recorded was 1300. According to [], groups range from 345-850, which would make the original claim accurate, and the new "largest group recorded" at least plausable. A quick google searchs finds the claim of 1300 mentioned in a book here: [] 126.96.36.199 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence from the lead that said that the word means "man-ape" according to the OED. I have access to the OED, and it says nothing of the sort. The etymology is in doubt, and the full story is too involved to go into in this article, this not being a dictionary. The "man" part might be a corruption of "martin", an old word for "monkey", and the "drill" part might derive from an African word for the animal, but the OED doesn't say which word in what language, so why bother? --Milkbreath (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Colors - Pigments
Does anyone know the physiology of the brilliant coloration of these animals? Does their skin actually produce several different pigments, or is it something like bird feathers where it's just how the light hits it? I would think monkeys just had regular melanin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look here for at least a partial answer. In short: translucent epidermis, melanin granules in dermis, and blood vessel dilation give the red, pink, mauve and blue colours. That's the best I could find with a quick Google or two :) Kay Dekker (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
What is meant by "The Mandrill is the world's largest species of monkey"? Does that mean the madrill is the most populous or what? If the is meant to be size wise I think it is incorrect because gorillas are certainly bigger. Does any one know what this sentence is talking about or should it be removed? Tubbablub (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Gorillas are classified as apes, not as monkeys. --Kay Dekker (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- It seems they're similar-sized to the (closely related) Drill? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mandrill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This is an excellent article and with a little work and a peer review may be a candidate for Featured Article status; for Good Article, I just have a few minor concerns:
- Answers.com is not considered a reliable source. Since the fact it is backing up is supported by two other sources, it can be removed.
- Done Solar Police 17:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- The lead could use to be expanded; I would split into at least two paragraphs, and add information on the species' location, social behavior, and conservation status.
- Done Solar Police 18:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- In the sexual selection section, it mentions dominant and subordinate males, but does not explain how a male transitions between the two states.
- Not done It already states
- Gaining dominance results in an increased testicular volume, reddening of sexual skin on the face and genitalia, and heightened secretion of the sternal cutaneous gland.
- When a male loses dominance, the reverse happens, although the blue ridges remain brightened.
- There is no other research other than this. Solar Police 19:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not done It already states
- It would be nice to clean up the citations so the cleanup box in the References section could be removed, although that is not explicitly required for GA.
- Not done I do not know how to clean up citations and since it is not required for GA I don't think I will do it.
- Cleaning up citations is the least of the problems with this work. At the very least, citations have to lead to an article that supports what is written in wikipedia. I have checked citations that reference 34 and it is obvious whomever authored this work is citing work that does not match what is written in the cited article. This is extremely damaging to the whole wikipedia project.
As I read back in the comments here I can see that Answers.com was used as a research source. Anyone can go to answers.com and ask a question, then answer it, and cite it here at wikipedia. I removed one citation, but the sheer amount of non-matching citations makes this a problem I do not have the time for right now. This article not GA material. It is a shame that this many years in, wikipedia is still subject to this type of nonsense.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- This review is placed on hold for a minimum of seven days to allow the above concerns to be addressed.
- how about taxonomy? Who was the first to described the species and when? What is the etymology of the specific epithet sphinx?
- Has there been any phylogenetic work that discusses its relationship to other primates?
- are there any subspecies?
- are there any predators other than man?
- what's the population? Has this increased or decreased in recent decades? Has its conservation status changed?
- overall, the level of coverage seems pretty thin compared to other GA-level articles on primates. See [here] for examples. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my concerns above. I posted a clarification of one of my questions above; if you could address that as well as the additional concerns identified by Sasata above, I'd appreciate it. –Grondemar 21:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Additional comments by Jack
I would echo Sasata's comments, the level of coverage is pretty low with comparable GA primate articles. Many of the references are from zoo websites or newspapers rather than peer-reviewed scientific literature. Here are some additional comments.
- The references must at least have a title, author, and date.
- Generally there are no references in the lead of the article, a section which is only meant to summarise the following referenced content.
- The prose flicks between their and its. Species articles are written in the singular, always its.
- Try to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates article structure here.
I think quite a bit of work is needed to push the article in line with other primate articles of GA standard but it is certainly attainable! Keep up the good work and it'll get there. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- As Sasata and Jackhynes have identified concerns on the broadness of the coverage of the article, and there has been no edits to the article by the nominator to address these issues (and no edits at all since December 28), I am going to close out this review without passing the article as a Good Article. I encourage the nominator to re-nominate as soon as the concerns above are addressed. Thanks. –Grondemar 20:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The mandrill article is listed as a “B” article. The contents are limited to description, ecology and activities, social behavior and reproduction, and status and conservation. No section has any subcategories. Within social behavior and reproduction, group living is briefly described with sources followed by a more extensive overview on reproduction. There is opportunity to improve this section by expanding upon the social behavior if references are available. Additionally, there is likely a correlation to kin selection based on the breeding patterns of adult males. Overall, the article needs more information in each category with an increase in organization. The citations appear to be numerous and sufficient. The article is listed as a high priority article for editing in the primates WikiProject. A few members edit the article multiple times a month. Though there are nearly forty citations on the article, it appears from the talk section that more concrete information is needed before this article and be improved further. Katims90 (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.|
Change of images
I have moved the previous lead image as this is only the male and gives no indication of body shape, body size, quadripedal stance, etc. I included an image of a female in the taxobox so readers gain an idea of the extent of sexual dimorphism - a very important aspect of mandrills. I moved the previous lead image (what a great photo!) to replace a "mandrill with a flower" which I felt was not particularly informative. Happy to discuss these changes.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)