Wikipedia:Peer review/Primate/archive3

Primate

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's had quite a bit of improvement over the past month and will be pushed towards FAC. From an outsiders point of view what does this article need to get it to that goal?

Thanks, Jack (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Current ref 4 is just a title and publication date. Needs journal title, author, etc.
 * Current ref 6 is lacking publisher and last access date
 * Would be nice to have ISBN numbers for the books
 * Current ref 11 is lacking a journal title.
 * Current ref 12, is that an article from a collected work? Or a book? Needs page numbers and publisher at the very least.
 * Current ref 36 is just a title link. Needs publisher and last access date at the very least
 * Current ref 37 needs last access date
 * Current ref 40 is just a title link. Needs publisher and last access date at the very least
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Think I've sorted all of that out now. Jack (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that is generally well done, but still has a ways to go to get through FAC in my opinion. Here are some suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A model article is useful - I note there are a bunch of potential model FAs at Featured_articles
 * 2) The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see anything on hybrids or legal status (to name a few). Please see WP:LEAD
 * 3) Biggest problem I see for this going to FAC is lack of references. There are whole sections and paragraphs and even a direct quote or two without refs. This would be the kiss of death at FAC. A few examples - the last two sentences in Skull and brain, the whole sections Hands and feet and Limbs and vertebral column and Locomotion, anything that seems to refer to specific data like There is some evidence from the fossil record that suggests that there was convergent evolution of dimorphism, and some extinct hominids probably exceeded dimorphism of any living primate. needs a ref, as do direct quotes like despite Aristotle's observation that "only the human animal laughs".
 * 4) My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * 5) Current ref 2 is a note on etymology and needs to give a source
 * 6) Current ref 15 is broken (red Cite error)
 * 7) Some refs give the full journal title (Constable, J. L. et al (2001). "Noninvasive paternity assignment in Gombe chimpanzees". Molecular Ecology 10 (5): 1279-1300.), others give abbreviated journal titles with periods (Surridge, A. K., and D. Osorio (2003). "Evolution and selection of trichromatic vision in primates". Trends in Ecol. and Evol. 18: 198–205.), and others give abbreviated journal titles with no periods ( Kay, R. F. (1975). "The functional adaptations of primate molar teeth". Am J Phys Anthropol. 43 (2): 195–215.). These should be consistent for all refs.
 * 8) Similarly, why do some mentions of primates give just the English name and others give that and the Latin genus and species after? Consistency
 * 9) It is hard to avoid in an article like this, but wherever possible, explain or avoid jargon, see WP:PCR and WP:JARGON
 * 10) Per [WP:MOS#Images]] use thumb to allow reader prefernces for image size to take over (tamarin photo for one example)
 * 11) Captions should explain better than "Three primate species" - which three?
 * 12) Avoid needless repetition.


 * So far 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 have been covered. Will try to sort out references next. Jack (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)