Wikipedia:Peer review/Cotton-top tamarin/archive1

Cotton-top tamarin
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for taking it to WP:FAC. I did the GA reviews for it, including a close look through the sourcing, and I believe the article is already pretty close to FA standard (although this is my first run at trying to take something through the FA process, so what do I know!). I'm not the main author of the article, User:Jackhynes did most of the recent content work, but Jack was gracious and said he'd be OK with me trying to take it to FA.

Thanks,  13:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

 * Don't bold items not in the lead.
 * 03:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd combine the first two sections into a taxonomy and naming section.
 * 03:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jim
As far as communication for now...  Jimfbleak  -    talk to me?  14:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 1 lb (0.5 kg)—very unusual to give Imperial precedence in any science article, let alone one for a species not native to the US. Also inconsistent with the description section
 * 03:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * primates, taxonomic, mandibular, molar, monogamous, prosociality, frequency-modulated—link at first occurrence
 * except "prosociality" as prosocial behavior already linked earlier


 * grammatical structure, which is acquired. —seems to fade away, perhaps a couple of words to indicate how is it acquired?
 * - the point the article is trying to make here is that grammatical structure is a feature that must be acquired, and isn't innate... tried to reword to emphasize this  04:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * five percent of its previous size. —I assume you mean area
 * 04:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Pinché tamarin in English". — how is this English, looks French to me?
 * good catch, fixed  04:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * in French—Colombia is Spanish-speaking, no justification I can see for having French, German Russian or any other languages
 * removed... I looked into maybe whether the main conservation union used French officially, the IUCN is a Swiss organization, no compelling reason to keep French.   19:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The species was first described by Linnaeus in 1758—not under that name though, Simia oedipus according to p. 28 of Systema Naturae.
 * thanks  19:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * modified claws—how are they modified?
 * I think, I tried to explain how they're modified with some copyediting, suggestions for improvement how to word it welcome.   20:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Many have stripes—many individuals?
 * good suggestion  14:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * above 400 meters, but has been encountered up to 1,500 meters. —conversions
 * 04:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that birds of prey was linked to bird, not bird of prey
 * fixed now  14:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The species is now protected by international law, and although they are numerous in captivity, they are still critically endangered in the wild—changes from singular to plural
 * 15:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Proyecto Tití —English translation?
 * 15:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Up to you, but as a layman there seems to be so much on communication that the article may be a bit unbalanced
 * I investigated exactly that in doing the GA reviews, and found perhaps the most noteworthy thing about these fuzzy little dudes is their communication, it'd be easy to demonstrate that using secondary sources if the question came up.   17:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "snake" and "hawk" are a bit vague, particularly the latter where even the definition is vague. The list of predators seems minimal—no eagles or large owls?
 * identifies "white hawk, jaguar, and tayra"
 * This identifies "margay and tayra"
 * Will look for more specificity  15:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Internal and external parasites?
 * Source cited says "intestinal parasites" and that's reflected in the article, external parasites wasn't covered, not sure what further content change you might be looking for here?  14:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ref 2 needs italics for binomial
 * 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What is ref 5? Doesn't look right either for a book or a journal article
 * It is this book by Estrada, filled in ISBN, not sure what else is wrong with it?   14:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ref 32 is faulty
 * volume parameter fixed  14:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the origin of the binomial? I'm intrigued by the oedipus bit  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * explained in article  15:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * exported for research into Epstein-Barr virus, colitis, and colon cancer. &mdash; not sure it's clear that the tamarin is prone to these in captivity  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * made more explicit  20:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Make refs uniform

 * Check that book refs have a publisher, and give location for all or none. Also isbn
 * all books have a publisher, they are all consistent about location (none), all books that have ISBNs I could find now have that field filled in  04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * check that web refs all have a publisher
 * 03:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Last ref lacks access date
 * all cite webs have access dates  04:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Some US states in full, some abbreviated. I'd suggest full since not all readers are Americans
 * taken care of for cite books - (locations removed)  04:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * pdfs variously have (PDF) or not. It's simple not to fill the format field.
 * consistently don't have them now  15:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You will find that at FAC consistency is important. A wide variety of reference styles are acceptable, but you must stick rigidly to whatever practice you adopt
 * I have absolutely no "religion" when it comes to citation style and will happily redo all the refs to make them consistent. Can you point me to an existing FA that has a ref style I can copy?  I'll just use whatever it is, I don't really care.    17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me, you've used the cite family consistently, which is fine, but you need to make sure that
 * you meet mos requirements such as a publisher for all citewebs and an isbn and publisher for all citebooks unless too old, page numbers for book refs
 * Need to find specific page numbers for:
 * Defler 2004 - no searchable text online, may need to find another source
 * Eisenberg 1999 - chapter 9, pages 230-
 * Estrada 2006 - page 35
 * Garber 1993 - hopefully, cite is localized to a specific chapter, about 25 pages
 * Hershkovitz 1977 - also localized to the specific 2 book chapters
 * 04:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * after the mandatory mos, you are consistent as to which fields you use, so for books give location for all or none, consistent access date style for citewebs, show PDF or not, page range style (101–106 or 101–6)  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * believe it's consistent now  15:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood now, will make refs uniform.  14:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All in-article refs made uniform, but it looks like I will have to go into all the individual DOI templates and muck with all of them now, they are all cite journals  04:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * done now, all DOI template are uniform

Final trawl

 * Ref 9 has no pages and you shouldn't have caps unless it's actually an acronym
 * Refs 10 and 16 have only the start of a page name
 * Refs 47, 48. If you don't know the author, it's normal to leave blank
 * It's not a requirement to alternate image placements. In particular, one of you left-aligned displaces a heading, which I can't say I like. However, that's up to you