Talk:White-eared titi monkey

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:White-eared titi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review and will make some detailed comments within the next couple of days. At first inspection it looks well written and comprehensively referenced though I notice that the first paragraph of the Taxonomy section has no citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

First reading

• I will consider later whether the lead provides a good summary of the rest of the article.
• "Its southern range includes forests ..." - "The southern end of its range" would be preferable

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The species has a home range of 0.005 to 0.14 square kilometres (0.0019 to 0.054 sq mi) and has a complex vocal repertoire to maintain their territory." - This sentence is part singular and part plural. Also, "species" should be replaced by some more suitable term such as "family group"

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Link "predated", "pelage",

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the Taxonomy section needs a reference

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Anatomy and physiology" - This seems a strange heading for the section

  Done. Jack (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of "Anatomy and physiology" probably belongs in another section (depending on what you rename this one)

  Done. Jack (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The white-eared titi is arboreal, spending most of its time in the lower levels of the forest. It often leaps small distances between trees due to the discontinuous nature of the lower levels; these leaps are not more than several body lengths. The titi monkey is also known to enter the main canopy and may travel along the ground, though the later is rare." - "later" not "later", but these sentences could be better expressed.

  Done. Jack (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "During normal movement through its environment it walks, clambers and leaps, it also bounds and climbs." - Another awkward sentence

  Done. Jack (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "When confronted with a intruders they will respond with combative behaviour together, with males showing increased agitation to other males." - This sentence needs attention

  Changed to "When confronted with other family groups they will respond with combative behaviour together, males show increased agitation towards the intruding males." Jack (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "and lives in groups of 2 to 7 individuals " - These numbers could be expressed as words

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "A large proportion of the diet is leaves, preferring young leaves and leaf buds that are high in protein, ..." - This is ungrammatical

  Changed to "They mostly eat leaves, especially protein-rich young leaves and leaf buds". Jack (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• The ecology section has a number of references to "Titi monkeys". Do they refer to this species or to the genus?

  When it says titi monkeys it refers to the genus, when it says white-eared titi it refers to the species. There isn't much published research into the white-eared titi specifically, so I've sometimes used other studies to give an idea of behaviours/ecology. Jack (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "It is found in areas with dense vegetation, often choosing the inhabit in the thickest parts of the forest." - This sentence needs attention

  Done. Jack (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is a lack of consistency in the formatting of dates of retrieval for the references. In other ways, the referencing looks good.

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is close paraphrasing with some copy/paste in the use of information from the Primate Info Net source. This is rather serious.

  I would hope there is no copy/paste, and if there is then it would only be there by accident (I couldn't find any). I've done some wording changes to prevent the close paraphrasing, are there any sentences that you noticed in particular? Jack (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• The particular sentences I noticed as being close paraphrased were in the Behaviour section. You can see what Duplicate Detector brings up when set at 4 words and 20 characters. One other page of the Primate info net factsheet gives some duplication also. One offending part sentence is "foot grasp, lip-smack, nuzzle, gently grasp one another and sit pressed together" See what you can do to improve these sentences. I see they first appeared on June 1st 2010. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Had a good look through the article and hopefully reworded most of the offending stuff, I went back to a lot of the sources to check it was infringing too. Cheers, Jack (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll chime in and say I think another image with a clearer view of an adult is needed for the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the main image, unfortunately I don't have anything much better than that. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll get on to it as soon as I can, should have some time at the beginning of next week. Cheers, Jack (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've hopefully addressed all your concerns. Let me know about the paraphrasing issue. Thanks again for the review, Jack (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed two of the issues, and thanks for the copyedit. The first two references are often there in mammal/primate articles, admittedly it doesn't look great but articles pass GAN and FAN when referenced there. Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Concerns I had about close paraphrasing have been resolved.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A couple of problems with the lead: "White-eared titis live for more than 25 years." - This is not quite what is said in the body of the article. The last lead paragraph is a bit of a "non sequiter". It needs to explain how a declining trend results in a "least concern" assessment. This criterion now met
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.	References are well laid out.
	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).	Article is very well referenced
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I can see.
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).	This criterion is met.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
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.	Images are appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and several are by the nominator.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article now meets GA criteria Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Good article?

Hi and sry for my bad English! I translating this article into czech Wikipedia now. This article is there evaluated as a "good", but for me it does not fulfill the criteria. Description is very short, Habitat and distribution is short too. About reproduction is not information. It is very bad "GA". --OJJ (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

For example, that is a nice GA. --OJJ (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)