Talk:Orangutan/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Maky (talk · contribs) 17:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I will be doing the review for this article. Please give me a few days to read through everything and leave comments. However, there are a few obvious issues that can be addressed in the meantime:

Issues:


 * 1) There are 2 citation needed tags in the body.  (I put them there.)  In fact, there are several other statements through the body lacking citations that I have not labeled.  Please find references.
 * 2) The lead is too short and does not adequately summarize the body.
 * 3) The anatomy section seems a little sparse... For example, I know that orangutans have a double-locking joint in their index finger, which gives them an immensely powerful grip.  I don't see any mention of that or any other special adaptations.
 * 4) It seems like there should be more about the evolution of the species.  There should be abundant literature, given the fascination with human evolution, and given their close relations.  For example, why do they reside in Asia when the rest of the great apes reside in Africa?
 * 5) Pictures and captions could be a lot more informative...  For example, the caption "Orangutan "laughing"" looks more like a joke (no pun intended).  If there is information in the article about the expression of emotions, elaborate in the caption, using the photo to illustrate the point.  Do the same with the rest of the pictures and captions, please.
 * 6) The "See also" section seems a bit long (with irrelevant links, like List of fictional apes).  A "See also" section usually suggests the article does not cover all the relevant information about the topic.  About the only time I use a "See also" link (not a section) is at the beginning of a section that offers an overview on a topic that is discussed at length on its own dedicated page.  (See Lemur for examples.)

Otherwise, the article looks better than it has in the past. Keep up the good work and I'll return shortly to do the review. – Maky  « talk » 17:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed, and I can't give a source for statements that I don't know if they need a source.
 * Will get to it.
 * I can only in information I can find in the sources I have. All the "special adaptations" are covered.
 * Same as 3. There's alot on human evolution but not that of the other great apes. Atleast step-by-step. Most of it seems to be on how closely related they are to humans. The best I can find is fossil species that where related to orangutans.
 * Will get to it.
 * Fixed.


 * LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I partially reverted LJ's edits, particularly because one added contradictory information, or at least apparently contradictory.
 * Only one citation was fixed. - I've found the other citation
 * I agree with Maky.
 * I agree with Maky. - Hand anatomy features added!
 * I agree with Maky.
 * I'll remove the pic, and see what I can do to find other, better images.
 * I'll restore LJ's edit to the See Also section, and perhaps pare it down further. - Removed section, included some links in the article.
 * UtherSRG (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank for the help UtherSRG. I fixed the captions and will get to the leade . As for the evolution of the orangutan, I really don't think much more can be added. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lede has now been expanded. LittleJerry (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's certainly looking better. Something I haven't seen, though, is any explanation of how males gain their flanges. This seems remarkable to me. What brings about the change? I know it happens when they gain their own home range, but that is only the start of the chain of events. There must be something about getting the home range that changes the male's physiology. Is it dietary? Is it behavioral? Something else? A combination? - UtherSRG (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Made some clarifications. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I found this abstract on the anatomy of the cheek flaps. I think you'd do a better job at paraphasing it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. I should have some time tonight, and thanks for the compliment. *grins* But really... it's just the sound of other males' calls that prevents the flap growth? That's fascinating. I wonder what the hormonal mechanism is... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to the PDF? (Or anyone else for that matter.) If you do, could you email it to me. Otherwise I'll buy it tomorrow. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't. Won't the abstract be enough? LittleJerry (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It'll do, but I prefer using the full text and not just the abstract. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Images: The captions have greatly improved, although I removed a lot of the location information and other details that are not relevant to the article. (That extra information should be found in the image description on Commons.) However, I think that File:Orangutan_-Zoologischer_Garten_Berlin-8a.jpg would be the best image for the taxobox, since it shows the entire body of the animal. Also, one of the baby photos seems to have nothing to do with its caption. We might also need to crop the nest photo. As for the video, I'm not sure it has much value to the article... but I'm open for a second opinion. Otherwise the article is coming along beautifully! Let me know when you're ready for me to perform the review. It sounds like you have a copyeditor planning to visit very soon. – Maky  « talk » 04:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I used an image of an unflanged orangutan as the lead image as it is more representative. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I must have missed that one when I was looking around Commons. –  Maky  « talk » 00:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess there wouldn't be a copyeditor. Does the article need an extensive copyedit? If not, I'll remove it and you can get on with the review. LittleJerry (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not getting back to you. I'm not sure if it will need a copyedit.  I can help a little when I review it.  I'll try reading/editing some now, but I'm about to head out of town for the weekend.  I'll make sure I make some time to post my comments when I get home Sunday night.  Again, sorry for the delays. –  Maky  « talk » 12:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments — I will add to this list as I make my way through the article both this morning and Sunday night. – Maky  « talk » 12:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Mapa distribuicao pongo.png needs a summary box on Commons like all the other images.
 * In the lead, the etymology of the word is provided, but is not cited in the body. Furthermore, it is customary to include the genus name, not the etymology in the first sentence.  As long as the etymology can be cited somewhere in the body, it can be included in the lead, but I don't suggest putting it in the opening sentence.
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The image wasn't done, but I fixed it. – Maky  « talk » 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There will be more tonight, but an expert in the field of primatology contacted me on Facebook and informed me that the following statement is not factually accurate: "Funded in part by the Australian Orangutan Project, it employs between six hundred and a thousand people at a hundred sites.[61]" Apparently it has only four sites, and the source you cite is not reliable... though I need to look into it more.  Can you see if you can find a better source with more accurate information? –  Maky  « talk » 17:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed for now. LittleJerry (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The populations on the two islands were classified as subspecies until recently, when they were elevated to full species status..." When? The term "recently" can become dated.
 * "To further confuse, the name morio, as well as various junior synonyms that have been suggested, have been considered likely to all be junior synonyms of the population listed as pygmaeus in the above, thus leaving the east Bornean populations unnamed." This is a very difficult to follow sentence... even though it is a very confusing topic.
 * "The draft of the genome sequence is based on a captive female named Susie." Did the source give Susie's SSP ID number? Just giving the name sounds like trivia, but providing an ID number and maybe location would make it encyclopedic.
 * In the "Anatomy and physiology" section, I suggest moving the talk about the cheek flaps on males nearer the beginning, before you talk about size differences (where you refer to "flanged adult males").
 * When you discuss sizes, you offer both metric and English units, but you flip-flop on which you offer first. I suggest starting with metric in all cases, but consistency is even more important.
 * There seems to be a mix of American and British English in the article. Please stick to one.
 * There are a few citations needed.
 * "Male orangutans exhibit arrested development." This is mentioned rather abruptly, and it takes a while to introduce what is necessary for people to understand it. I suggest rewording, and maybe saving the wording "arrested development" until after you've explained male development.
 * "Like the other great apes, orangutans are among the most intelligent primates." For the record (and you don't have to change anything), I strongly dislike statements like this. I know primatologists, behaviorists, and ethologists love to write things like this, but there have been enough studies to show that there are many types of "intelligence", and lumping them all into one and comparing between species is horribly inaccurate.  However, the literature supports the popular notion you cite and it is generally true, so it can stay.  I'm just objecting for the record.  If you wanted to vastly improve it, I would suggest digging up what kinds of tasks/intelligence they excel at and focus on them individually.  That would be more encyclopedic than such a generalized statement anyway.  If you did that, it could be moved directly under the level 2 header (offering a general introduction to the section, as well as other lesser points that don't fit under the subsections), leaving more detailed discussions of tool use and learning capabilities in their respective sections.
 * The first mention of the construction of day and night nests should be under "Ecology and behaviour" section because many species build nests and it's not considered tool use. What is described under "Tool use and culture" is a case of cultural transmission.  (Also, day and night nests need to be introduced further up.)  Also, because nest building is not tool use, I don't feel comfortable with the following statement: "Orangutans do not limit their tool use to foraging, displaying or nest-building activities."
 * Who are Gary L. Shapiro, David Premack, R. Allen, Beatrix Gardner, Francine Patterson, and Francine Neago? A primatologists, I assume?
 * Why is listing in Encyclopædia Britannica mentioned in the article?
 * Birutė Galdikas sounds like an important figure in the research or orangutans. Is there a reason why Galdikas' importance in research is not explored further?
 * "...because of disruption in people's property" How do you disrupt property?  I think you mean something else.
 * "Since recent trends are steeply down in most places..." This could be a little clearer.
 * "Some United Nations scientists believe..." Hmmm... see WP:WEASEL. Please attribute these claims a little better, if possible.
 * "...could lead to irreparable damage to orangutan habitat by the year 2012." This will become dated very fast.  Is there anything more recent?
 * "Several hundred Bornean orangutan orphans who were confiscated by local authorities..." When?
 * The lead could be longer still. Brief summaries of the extinct relatives, conservation programs, the confused taxonomy, genomics, anatomy (male dimorphism), etc. could all be added.  Just remember that most visitors never read an article fully, but most will read the lead.  The lead should summarize everything succinctly.

That should be it. If these items can be addressed and no other issues pop up, I will be ready to pass the article. – Maky  « talk » 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I covered pretty much all of them. With regards to the size measurements, some sources give the English sizes and others the metric sizes. Hence theres a difference in which is presented as the size and which is presented as the conversion. I also think it wouldn't look right to keep repeating "primatologist" for each of those people. As the the American vs British spelling, I could only find "center" as an American spelling. I'm not that familiar with most other American vs British spellings. I thought the article was converted to the latter. LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with most of the changes, but a few points (not struck) are still not addressed or answered. I fixed the measurements, and Jack seems to have looked it over for UK/US spelling issues.  As for the people without fields, are they all primatologists?  They may belong to several related fields.  But if you don't see anything easy or concrete, it can stand as it is. –  Maky  « talk » 04:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, a few more points upon further review:


 * From the lead: "The largest living arboreal animals, they have proportionally longer arms than the other, more terrestrial, great apes." This is not stated or cited in the body. Also, the size and sexual dimorphism should be documented in the lead.  Again, skim the article, note the most critical highlights, and summarize them in the lead, please.  Things like size are obvious questions that the general public will ask.  If you want me to create a full list of points to mention in the lead, I will summarize them.
 * "Individuals from the Bornean species would also have have their genomes sequenced." Besides the double "have", why are you saying they "would" have their genomes sequenced?
 * File:Orangután de Borneo.gif is a very nice addition. Although it's not necessary for the GAN, I suggest contacting the author and requesting that they add references to their image on Commons and attribute the free images they used in the creation of their animated GIF.  Otherwise if anyone ever takes this image to FAC, they will have to address this or the image will have to be removed.

Btw, I noticed that you removed the range map because you felt it was outdated. If you haven't done so already, I would suggest visiting the image on Commons and noting this in the description, and ideally provide a source. Otherwise someone may come along and add it back, or worse, it may be use on other Wikis. You might also be able to put in a request at Graphic Lab/Map workshop to see if someone could make a new map, possibly based on the IUCN Red List maps. – Maky  « talk » 04:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed everything expect for Francine Neago's profession. I know she is a primatologist and conservationist but I can't find her name anywhere in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The genus Pongo was erected by Lacépède in 1799, for what was then the sole species of orangutan." — This has a footnote, but no citation.
 * I'm still concerned about the lack of discussion about Birutė Galdikas, who started the Orangutan Project under Dr. Leakey. She's about as important to orangutans as Jane Goodall is to chimps, Dian Fossey is to gorillas, or Alison Jolly is to ring-tailed lemurs.  All come from an important time in the history of primatology.  I'm not asking for an entire section, but I think her studies deserve more than three passing mentions.  I suggest adding a small paragraph to the middle of the "Orangutans and humans" section.  I would also summarize it in the lead, at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph.  If you can get your hands on this book, that might help.

Otherwise, I've fixed the evolution stuff as best I can. There is some relatively new material that's come out where Jeffrey H. Schwartz and his peers have suggested that humans are more closely related to orangutans than chimps, but I think the academic community has largely put their foot down on this. For FA, this would be a required (brief) discussion given the flurry of discussion this sparked.

Anyway, sorry for dragging this out, but this should be it. – Maky  « talk » 01:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: A group of sentences that don't quite work together (Genomics section): ''Orangutans have 48 diploid chromosomes, and its genome was sequenced in January 2011. Following humans and chimpanzees, the Sumatran orangutan has become the third species of hominid to have its genome sequenced. Individuals from the Bornean species have also had their genomes sequenced.'' – Its genome? Plural/singular, which species? Chimpanzees are not a species. Did the Bornean orangutan get its genome sequenced after January 2011? Jack (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going through the article one last time. I have already noted a few more needed citations. Please do not delete this material because I think it needs a mention. If you can't find a citation, please say so and maybe we can request help on WP:PRIMATES. – Maky  « talk » 16:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright... finished reviewing. As long as you fix those missing citations, I'm ready to pass the article. –  Maky  « talk » 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'm glad to pass this article. – Maky  « talk » 20:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Excellent work! Great to see another primate GA!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: