Talk:Prince Bernhard's titi monkey/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 02:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Lets get this reviewed.

Copy-vios

• It is estimated that it will lose 44.5% of its current range over the next 24 years (three generations). A bit too close to the original, bordering on close-paraphrasing.

  I mixed it up a little. It should be better now.

Images

• Rights are in order
• I found [1] on the commons if you want to add it.

   Done

Sources

• I managed to find [2], its an excerpt from the Associated Press. It has a bit of interesting info but nothing groundbreaking. I tried to find the original, no such luck.

  Added a little.

• This source describes the discovery in closer detail [3].

  Not much new, but again, I added a little.

• Noticing a lot of sources citing the same papers, I get what you mean by this is the majority of info.

Prose

• would recommend collapsing Etymology and Taxonomy.

   Done

• I see in FN 1 that the species was discovered in 1998. This article says 2002. Thoughts?

  Where does it say that? I looked through that and a few other sources and the only date I have seen is 2002.

The specimen apparently died from natural causes and was collected by M. G. M. van Roosmalen in November 1998. Correction, it was FN 2.

Well, 2002 was when it was first described, but I added a mention of this as well.

There are a few details that could be added from FN 1 but I won't quibble over relatively minor bits of info. The differences between it and closely related species would be nice to add.

I included some of these details.

• Thermoregulation can be expanded and should be reworded for a more encyclopedic tone. Source goes very in depth.

  I improved the tone and added some detail, although I didn't want to risk WP:INDISCRIMINATE by going too in-depth. It should be sufficient the way it currently is.

That's really all I could find. The page is very well written overall and a few expansions/clarifications are needed. I made some minor clarifications, feel free to double check my edits. On Hold. Etrius ( Us) 02:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

How does it look now? An anonymous username, not my real name 04:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work!! I gave the page a second pass and there are no major issues relevant to GA criteria. Page passes. Congrats!!! Etrius ( Us) 13:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.