Talk:Slow loris/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this page for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Lead, "used in personal, social grooming, and feeding." Perhaps "personal and social grooming and feeding"? As it is, "personal" as an independent piece of the sentence doesn't make sense. Same sentence and comment in Description section.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Description, "The ears are reduced in size," Reduced from what? Also "their tail is greatly reduced" later in the section.~~

Fixed. Sorry, both the sources and I think in terms of related primates so the language tends to be comparative. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Description, "ranges between being perpendicular to pointing slightly backwards." Because you're taking about a range, I think that the "to" in this sentence should be changed to an "and".~~

Changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Behavior and ecology, "Slow lorises can produce" They can produce or they do produce?~~

Reworded. Sasata (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior and ecology, "an African palm civet (Nandinia binotata) averted a sample" I'm not sure what this means?

Oops... I think I looked at the text when I was paraphrasing and rather than using the wording I was thinking about, I typed the word I was looking at. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not completely understanding this sentence. Are you saying that a palm civet was offered a sample of this toxin and didn't eat it? The toxin was just in liquid form? Would anything eat a toxin offered in this state? Also, what does the second half of the sentence have to do with the first half, which talks about cat dander? Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the source (which took me a while to remember I viewed on Amazon's "Look inside" feature), and discovered I had mentioned the wrong details. I've added the 3 correct species that were tested, along with more details about the experiment. Just let me know if there are any lingering issues. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior and ecology, "the closely related pottos and slender lorises may share the trait." We don't know? Seems like something that we would be quick to find out, if for nothing more than the health of the scientists that work with them :)

As far as I know, few scientists work with them, and when they do, I'm sure the animals are sedated. Even in captivity (for a handful of slender lorises), the goal is to not be bitten. The only sources I have seen say "maybe" and don't give anything definite either way. Keep in mind that lorisiform primates (and prosimian primates in general) are very poorly understood. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Behavior and ecology. One paragraph says "long weaning times (three to six months)" while the next says "wean at five to seven months." Standardize, please.~~

Thanks for catching the conflict. I'm not sure why the sources disagree, but it might be a difference between captivity (the longer time) and wild populations (the shorter time). Anyway, I've removed the older (captive) data. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diet, "A 1984 study of the Sunda slow loris indicated that its diet consists of 71% fruit and gums and 29% insects and other animal prey.[64][76][78]" Why does this need three references to three different papers?

I removed the reference to Rowe, since that just duplicated the information in Bearder. However, the other 2 refs are needed because they address the study in different levels of specificity - Nekaris/Bearder gives the precise percentages, but doesn't explcitly mention the gums. Bearder mentions the gums, but only gives approximate percentages. Rlendog (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Diet, "Slow lorises can eat while hanging upside down from a branch with both hands." They eat with both hands while hanging upside down, or they hang with both hands while eating?~~

The former. I reworded to clarify. Rlendog (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused at the layout of the Diet section. In the first paragraph it talks about the composition of their diet. The second paragraph starts off with a description of their eating habits (not the food itself, but how they eat), but then switches back to diet composition, and then back to habits. I think it would make more sense to have all of the composition information together, then all of the habits information together. However, maybe that's just me...

I reordered it a bit, moving the 1st 2 sentences of the 2nd paragraph to the end. Now the 1st paragraph introduces the topic and gives the dietary parameters for the larger slow lorises, and the 2nd paragraph concentrates on the dietary parameters of the pygmy slow loris (and the information on exudates, which is primarily a pygmy slow loris issue). The last short paragraph deals with the eating habits. Rlendog (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diet, "may enhance their ability to feed on exudates: a long narrow tongue to make it easier to reach gum stashed in cracks and crevices; a large cecum to help the animal digest complex carbohydrates; and a short duodenum." For the first two adaptations you give a reason that a specific change is helpful, for the third (the duodenum) you just say it's different and leave it at that. Can we have some reason as to why a short duodenum is a good thing for their particular diet?

I checked both refs, but the Nekaris et al. ref only mentions the 3 adaptations (no explanation), while the Swapna et al. ref names and explains 2 of the 3. To be honest, I'm really not sure. Even my book on primate ecology doesn't go into it in detail. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing... Osman Hill mentions the anatomy of the digestive tract, including the short duodenum, but does not discuss it it further than that. There may be something in Kubota and Iwamoto 1966 (cited in Nekaris 2010) that we may want to try to dig up before the FAC. Sasata (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha and I are chatting in Gmail, and he looked up Kubota and Iwamoto 1966 and said it only talked about the tongue. Unless we can find a general primate book that discusses such adaptations, I think we're at a dead end. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wildlife trade, "Traditional medicine made from loris parts are thought to cure many diseases," medicine...are - singular/plural agreement.~~

Fixed. Good catch. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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 appears that there has been some disruption in the edit history recently between a new user and several editors who have reverted him. However, there were no posts to the new editor's page attempting to explain what was wrong with his edits. He appears to be adding a paragraph that, although POV and unsourced, was well worded and obviously not straight-up vandalism. Has anyone attempted to contact him to explain what was wrong with his contributions and perhaps see if he has anything positive to contribute to the article?

As far as I know, the "Society for the Protection Of Slow Lorises" does not exist, or if it does, it's not noteworthy. The way the insertion reads, it sounds like a smart-ass comment left by a viewer from YouTube. The Wiki articles have been mentioned and quoted a lot on the YouTube video comments, and some of the right-wing viewers are getting very upset with what they see as P.E.T.A. trolling. The other possibility is that this is a far-left nut that took some of the exaggerations he saw on YouTube and got a little over-excited. I didn't do the reverts, but if you want, I can go back and explain on his talk page. (It appears he only created the account to make those 3 edits and hasn't been back since.) But basically, the info is bogus and they were right to revert it. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Thanks for the review Dana. I've fixed some easy ones, and will leave the rest of the comments to VisionHolder, who either has the specific sources, or the primate knowledge to deal with them. Wasn't aware of the new user's additions, I'll leave him a note. Sasata (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I've finished going through the rest of the article now, and made a few more comments above. I'm now placing the article on hold to allow the rest of the comments above to be addressed. It's a great article! Also, just as a note, I reviewed the Sunda slow loris article a few days ago and placed it on hold. No-one has yet replied to any of the comments, so I'm hoping that someone watching this page might be interested in popping over there as well? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think someone else wrote most of the Diet section, so I will drop him a note and ask him to look those over. Unfortunately, I don't have access to some of those refs. Otherwise, I've fixed everything I can at the moment. As for Sunda slow loris, sorry for not replying. Jack mostly wrote it, so I left it for him. We didn't realize he was out of the country until yesterday, but it looks like Ucucha just got most of it taken care of. I just spoke to Jack and he said he'd visit to finish off the rest of the concerns. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 00:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Thanks for the review, Dana boomer, and thanks for jumping on this quickly, Sasata. My comments and fixes are noted above. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is still one issue above that I would like to see resolved, but since it is very minor, I am passing the article to GA status as it currently stands. Very nice work on this, guys (and gals, if any of you are!), and I hope I will see it at FAC at some point in the future! Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]