Talk:Philippine tarsier/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

Reviewer: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Citations
 * There are at least seven dead links.


 * Lead
 * Too short to adequately summarise the article.


 * "Being a member of a family that is about 45 million years old,[5] it was only introduced to western biologists in the 18th century." This seems to imply that the two things are related. Are they?


 * Anatomy and Morphology
 * "... the largest eyes on any mammal"? I think that needs checking again and properly citing, as it's difficult to believe that such a tiny animal would have larger eyes than a sperm whale say.


 * "The Philippine Tarsier has skinny and rough fur ...". What does "skinny fur" mean?


 * Range and distribution
 * "Tarsius syrichta populations are generally found ...". Called it T. syrichta in the previous section, ought to be consistent.


 * "Established populations are present particularly on the islands of Bohol ...". What does "particularly" mean here?


 * Home range
 * "Research findings also show ...". The research cited was published in 2002, hardly "recent".


 * "They travel up to one and a half kilometres across the forest and the optimal area is more than six hectares." It's not clear what "optimal ares" means here. The previous paragraph said that the average home range was about 6.45 ha. Is this just a repetition of the same thing?


 * Feeding ecology
 * Last paragraph needs to be cited.


 * Behavior
 * Seems to say about three times that they're only active at night. Once would be enough to get the point.


 * The last paragraph overlaps with what we've already been told in the Home range section. It and the one immediately before it are too short to be standalone paragraphs in any case.


 * This section is rather awkwardly written with most sentences beginning "Its ...".


 * "Its tactile communication is the social grooming done when one tarsier grooms the other, removing dead skin and parasites, observed in females on adult males, as well as in females on their offspring." So the females never get groomed?


 * Reproduction
 * Written as sries of short sentences that should really be combined into something less choppy.


 * "The Philippine Tarsier reproduces poorly in captivity.[16] the world's smallest monkey". Doesn't make sense.


 * Etymology and taxonomic history
 * First paragraph needs to be cited.


 * "The Philippine Tarsier has been called "the world's smallest monkey" or "smallest primate" by locals before." Before what?


 * "The Philippine Tarsier is considered to be the mammal with the biggest eyes, 16 mm across, in proportion to its body size". Already said this earlier.


 * "Much of the second paragraph appears to have been copied from here.


 * Importance to humans
 * This section is completely uncited.


 * Threats to the species
 * There are three requests for citation dating back to March 2008 that need to be dealt with.


 * Possession and display of tarsiers banned in Loboc
 * Does this really warrant a whole section to itself? If it does then it need to be completely rewritten, not a series of disconnected one sentence paragraphs. It has the look of undue weight caused by a too breathless reporting of a current event.

As these issues remain outstanding this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)