Talk:Cotton-top tamarin/GA2
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zad68 (talk · contribs) 04:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Continuing the failed GA1 was determined to be questionable, maybe bordering on problematic, so we're going to move to working here on the GA2 area.
Status = PASSED
editImpressions after first read-through: what a tremendous improvement. Not a lot to pick on with the prose, so it'll be investigating the sourcing and making sure the article content is reflecting the sources accurately. Zad68
03:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Sourcing review complete, see notes below. Zad68
04:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Jack, I'm leaning a little harder on you than might be done for other reviews because I'm sure you've got your eye on FA for this article, and I'm sure you can respond to the requests/suggestions. Zad68
19:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
All items addressed, happy to pass it for GA! Congratulations, nice work. Zad68
17:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
GA table
editRate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Really nice image selection! | |
7. Overall assessment. | Very nice article! |
Notes
editMOS compliance
editGeneral
editLead
edit- but no reason it couldn't be a bit longer and provide more detail, in my opinion
Etymology
editTaxonomy and phylogeny
editPhysical characteristics
editHabitat and distribution
editEcology
editBehavior
editOddly, total care
- "Oddly" sounds like editorializing, consider removing- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Still, evidence indicates
- "Still" sounds like editorializing, consider changing- This is actually what it says in the paper. It was hypothesised but evidence actually indicates it doesn't have an effect. Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
it is unclear whether the cotton-top tamarin acts solely using judgements on reinforcement history.
- it would be nice if a source were provided
- Done Jack (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
This cost-benefit evaluation better equips cotton-top tamarins to form cohesive living units with kin and with foreign tamarins.
- it would be nice if a source were provided
- Removed possible WP:OR. Jack (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Some of these forced evictions from the group may also involve spite. Specifically, in evicting subordinate females, a dominant female may be releasing her daughters from the group and putting them in high-risk of predation, while simultaneously losing the cooperative breeding benefit those females would offer when in the group.
- it would be nice if a source were provided
- Removed possible WP:OR. Jack (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
in high-risk of predation
- consider "at high risk of predation"- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Though aggression can occur within groups...
- the paragraph starting with this is in the Spite section, are we still talking about spite here? It looks like the subject has switched to response to territorial threats -- ADDING: Can this be fixed by simply changing the section name from Spite to Aggression
- Renamed to Spite and aggression. Spite is important in the altruism discussion. Jack (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Researchers say its repertoire...
- consider "Researchers describe its repertoire of 38 distinct sounds as ususually sophisticated..."- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Using this range of vocalizations
- needs a comma after- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
emotionality
- consider "emotion" or "mood"- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly, infants are thought to imitate adult speakers
- "interestingly" sounds like editorializing, consider removing- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
calling, when in the presence of infants
- remove ", when"- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
While it is unclear whether infants are shadowing the calling behavior of adults or if they are comprehending danger remains unclear
- "unclear" twice and not grammatically correct, please fix, maybe "Whether infants are shadowing the calling behavior of adults or they are comprehending danger remains unclear."- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It also performs seemingly altruistic alarm calls
- consider "It is also used for"- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
differences in individual's alarm calls.
- do you mean "differences in individuals' alarm calls."?- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Despite this research indicating that food calls may be informative
- can this single-sentence paragraph be combined with the paragraph before it?- Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Conservation status
editand the cotton-top hass
- hass -> has- Done Jack (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
under Appendix I banning
- "Appendix I" is a redlink, will it reasonably ever be an article distinct from CITES?- Done Jack (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Media
editReferences
edit- section exists and uses WP:MOS-compliant style
Sourcing
edit- I'm concerned about what appears to be taking a primary study and generalizing the finding. For example, a primary study of say 20 tamarins in captivity and making a general statement about tamarin behavior. In some places in the article this appears to be being handled in a way that I'd expect, like "some studies indicate that cotton-top tamarins have the psychological capacity to participate in reciprocally mediated altruism" sourced to a primary study, I'd like you to review to make sure results of individual primary studies aren't being used to make general statements. I saw that in GA1 and want to make sure it's really fixed. Or, if it should be OK to do that, explain it to me.
- Primary sources are allowed when used carefully, and so long as there is WP:NOR. I've tried to introduce secondary sources to all the really general statements, otherwise in the subsections of Communication and Social systems there are primary sources and I believe the text follows their findings accurately and without interpretation. Jack (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Other comments on problems with the references:
- Savage et al., 1988 and Heistermann et al., 1989
For this one and Heistermann, I can only see the abstracts, and they both talk about scents but I don't see the word pheromones, which the article uses. Is that OK?
— pheromones are just chemicals that trigger a behavioural response, i.e. the scents they are talking about are pheromones.
- Washabaugh et al., 2002
I do not see (at least in the abstract) support for article content "and paternal experience with previous infants appears to better prepare infants for social behavior in their first few months of life".
— will have a look into this, source isn't exactly saying what text says.
marking with a red X until fixed- Done It now follows the article more closely. Jack (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done It now follows the article more closely. Jack (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hauser et al., 2009
Source used in support of idea of mutualism, but mutualism doesn't appear to be mentioned in source.
— from the paper:First, identifying cooperators requires an ability to recognize the partner's motivations—do they incur a cost in order to cooperate (altruism) or do they only cooperate when they also benefit (mutualism).
The paper, which mentions mutualism four times in relation to cotton-top tamarins, shows from previous experiments that cotton-top tamarins are in the latter camp.
- Thanks, that was exactly what was needed as I don't think I had access to the full paper
- Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1995
Possible WP:SYNTH problem with Clutton-Brock?
— this is a secondary source reviewing primary literature.
- Hammerstein, 2003
This document does not mention cotton-top tamarins.
— true but I think the article is worded so that it doesn't need to mention them in the source. This reference is backing up the sentence:researchers believe that repeated interactions in a cooperative society ... can heighten the chances that an individual will designate behavioral punishments to others in its group.
- Current article wording is
Further, in captivity these primates are not observed to increase altruistic behavior with fellow primates who are committed fully to cooperation. Based on this, researchers believe that repeated interactions in a cooperative society like that of the cotton-top tamarin can heighten the chances that an individual will designate behavioral punishments to others in its group.
, trouble is "like that of the cotton-top tamarin", is found in Clutton-Brock but isn't found in Hammerstein. Can this be fixed by simply dropping this phrase? I'm not going to require a change for GA here but it might need to either be changed or defended at WP:FAC, it's up to you.- Done I've added another sentence to separate the statements. Jack (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Current article wording is
- Savage et al., 1988 and Heistermann et al., 1989
- Some format and duplicates to fix.
- super
Sources table
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In this table:
|