The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [1].

---

Primate[edit]

Nominator(s): Jack (talk)

Recently listed as a good article, primates are an importance subject for any encyclopaedia. The article has seen significant improvement since July and is now stable. Jack (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. Per WP:FAC instructions, "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." There have been substantial rewrites and changes, long delays, new images, and it is not clear to me if new images or sources have been vetted. Please make an effort to respond promptly to concerns raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image concerns have been addressed. I was keeping track of what was left to do on the talk page, will attend to Dank55's comments shortly. Jack (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do the images need to be rereviewed or not? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image status was unclear before images were added, then some deleted, so I'm unsure where this stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only additional image since the images were reviewed, is Image:Shanghai-monkey.jpg (licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License). Jack (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I will support as soon as: I find out if my copyediting dealt sufficiently with SV's concerns, any new images and sources are vetted (per Sandy), and my previous comments are addressed. Nice job. I can't speak for Ruslik, but you've certainly been diligent dealing with his concerns; you answered my one remaining question; and neither SV nor anyone else has raised the concerns we saw before the restart, which I hope means that this round has fixed the problems to everyone's satisfaction. Well done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report: I'm doing a little more copyediting now. Jack, check my recent edits to make sure they're okay. Everything I wanted is taken care of now except for this:

• All the following are done: "Comparative analyses have substantiated the sexual selection hypotheses": which hypotheses? You don't seem to be talking about one of Darwin's hypotheses. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not entirely sure what I meant here, but I was reading from this reference. Does anyone else understand it? Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed unclear wording, it now reads: Comparative analyses have generated a more complete understanding of the relationship between sexual selection, natural selection, and mating systems in primates. Jack (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend either defining exactly what you mean by "primitive ... body plan", or removing it; the following material defines what you mean in detail, and is easier to understand, too. Readers could quickly figure out what "body plan" means from the wikilink, but they still wouldn't get what "primitive" body plan means here, I think. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I've done this one properly, the sentence won't really work if I elaborate too much on "primitive body plan". Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I've removed it for now. Btw, there are only 242 ghits for "primitive body plan", and some of those were not using the phrase in the specialized sense, so readers may have difficulty with the phrase. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding "all species possess some adaptations for an arboreal lifestyle", I think I agree that it's a little unclear, but maybe I'm just not getting it because I'm not a biologist. We primates have backbones, one form of which first arose among our fish ancestors ... does that mean we have "adaptations for a submarine lifestyle", even though we don't live underwater? Would it work to say this? "Not all primates are adapted for living primarily in trees, but all primates are adapted for climbing for many purposes, such as escaping predators." No need to list baboons, geladas, humans etc. here in the lead; that can stay in the relevant section. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "Some primates (including humans and baboons) do not live primarily in trees, but all primates [continuing as above]". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the second suggestion (but replaced the second "primate" with "species"). Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting more at "arboreal lifestyle"; for one thing, the word "lifestyle" has been so overused and misused that it's almost a word to avoid now, at least in a general encyclopedia. I'll replace this with "climbing trees", but feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading the article with SlimVirgin's objection about readability in mind, I've decided I don't have a general objection on these grounds. All of Monkey (start-class) and much of Ape (C-class) are more readable for non-biologists; as long as we have something for everyone, we've more than done our job. That's why people like Wikipedia; we're easily the top content site in the world (we're 5th by hits, and most people headed to google.com or msn.com are on their way to somewhere else). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I don't have a "general objection", but I made changes along these lines in my copyediting and asked for more changes here (such as my first two points). I just don't think the problem is unfixable, and I hate inefficiency more than anything; I'd rather get this stuff fixed now than have the article fail and have to do this all over again in a month. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding "30 grams (1.1 oz), to the Gorilla, which is 200 kilograms (440 lb)", these units weren't spelled out or linked at the first occurrence. Per WP:MOSNUM, they don't need to be linked (since they're not obscure units) although they can be at first occurrence; but "In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses (e.g a pipe 5 centimetres (2 in) in diameter and 37 kilometres (23 mi) long). [*] When there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The first occurrence was in the lead section, "Primates range in size from the 30 g (1 ounce) Pygmy Mouse Lemur to the 200 kg (440 pound) Mountain Gorilla." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also from WP:MOSNUM: "Avoid the unicode characters ² and ³. They are harder to read on small displays, and are not aligned with superscript characters (see x¹x²x³x⁴ vs. x¹x²x³x⁴). Instead, use superscript markup, created with ." Please replace "cm³". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 02:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• More readers will understand "social grooming" and "skin parasites"; is there a subtle and important difference in the terms "allogrooming" and "ectoparasites"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, they are the same thing. The terms were changed during GA review or FAC to allow easier comprehension for the layperson, along with a lot of other words. Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per M-W Unabridged, the eye is a "sensory organ" but vision is not. I'd prefer we avoid "color vision evolved to become the main sensory organ." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, I've changed it to "trichromatic eyes evolved to...". Hope that isn't too technical, the phrase is used and defined further up the page in the colour vision paragraph. Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how you reviewers feel about inline citations at FAC ... I saw someone complaining about citations for every sentence at WT:FAC ... but surely the 16 cites to Ref 27 at Primate#Life history and Primate#Diet and feeding is going too far. What's the right number of citations in these sections? Anyone? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Tarsiers are the most carnivorous primates, exclusively eating insects, reptiles, amphibians and other live animals." The most, or the only? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The reference used to source that statement said both "most carnivorous" and "only totally carnivorous" primate. I've changed it to say only carnivorous, and corrected the diet according to the reference. Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "frugivore biomass": why not "fruit-eating animals (by weight)"? Again, is there some subtle, important distinction if you switch to terms everyone will understand? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No difference, just more concise. I've changed it to: Making up between 25% and 40% of the fruit-eating animals (by weight) within tropical rainforests. Do you think it's okay to pipe weight to biomass? Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think that's a good judgment call, even though I tend to be stricter than some on Easter eggs. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in meter vs. metre. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Changed metre to meter. Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOSNUM, "Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification or currency article link (just $88), unless this would be unclear." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "... manual dexterity allows them to perform tasks that a quadriplegic is physically unable to do": a little awkward. You don't need a lot of manual dexterity to surpass a quadriplegic. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to ... manual dexterity makes them ideal helpers.' Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Behind the scenes, many zoos, particularly those with Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) accreditation, participate in the Species Survival Plan (SSP)": I doubt that this is "behind the scenes"; zoos that spend a lot of money on conservation probably trumpet their accomplishments. (The North Carolina Zoo, of which I'm a member, certainly does.) And there are two "many zoos" in a row; could these two sentences be combined? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Zoos and other Animal Welfare supporters generally oppose Animal Rights and the GAPs insistence ...": I can't see how we can make "Animal Rights" a proper noun, so maybe "animal rights initiatives" would be better, and "GAPs" needs an apostrophe. Since this is a contentious topic, I'm going to leave this sentence alone. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither animal welfare nor animal rights are proper nouns, corrected GAP's as suggested. Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Primate#Animal testing has an average of 1.5 sentences per paragraph; too short and stubby. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "estimates suggest" is redundant, but the main point is that you're probably running afoul of WP:WORDS here. Either your sources give enough weight for you to say that something is true (or at the least, that someone with at least a little credibility and solidity believes it to be true), or they don't. Words like "claim", "estimate" and "suggest", when used to undercut a source at the same time that you're presenting the source, are WP:Words to avoid. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Reworded to: Data for some African cities show that half... Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All the things you mention in Conservation are important factors, but here's another factor you may or may not want to mention: common chimpanzees are incredibly strong (my local zookeepers say, 10 times as strong as humans in their long muscles) and very aggressive at times (and you never know which times). The real danger posed by chimps in the wild in turn triggers our own baser instincts. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 06:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I hope it goes without saying, but don't throw this in there because it sounds good, add some version of this if it goes along with your thinking and it's already sourced or easily sourced. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "inbreeding, which can cause deleterious effects leading to a population bottleneck, whereby 50% of the population is lost": I don't get what you're trying to say here. Inbreeding might lead to a 10% or 100% loss, not always 50%. Are you saying that something special happens at the halfway point? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 06:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a poor attempt to define population bottleneck, sadly I used the definition of population bottleneck from Wikipedia; after doing a good search I can't find an reliable reference to source the statement so I've reworded the sentence to: leading to a population bottleneck, whereby a significant percentage of the population is lost. Jack (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that's it for me. I did most of the copyediting myself, but I didn't fix the things I listed above. See my standard disclaimer. Not too much left to do. Overall, it seemed like good, well-researched, persuasive writing. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your time, hopefully we'll get this through soon in great shape! Jack (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments (lead and Evolutionary history section)

  1) In the lead Prosimians most closely resemble early proto-primates,. However proto-primates are not mentioned in the main text. I suggest removing this passage about proto-primates from the lead.

  Changed to: Prosimians have characteristics most like those of the earliest primates, and included... Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  2) In evolution subsection I read The suborder Strepsirrhini, ... is generally thought to have split off from the primitive primate line about 63 mya (million years ago),. However in the next paragraph I read According to genetic studies, the lemurs of Madagascar diverged from the lorisiforms approximately 75 my. There is a contradiction here. Could lemurs and lorisiforms diverge from each other 75 mya ago, taking into account that Strepsirrhini diverged from primitive primates only 63 mya ago?

  Because of differences in genetic and fossil studies, there is no real consensus as to divergence points. The paper indicating that lorisiforms split 75 Mya (with a 95% credibility interval of 66.9–84.4 Mya) makes no mention of the strep/hap split. I recommend we follow the recent genetic study by Horvarth for lemurs, it has a much wider range than previous lemur studies (over 200 lemur species) though that leaves the question of where the strep/hap split was. I've seen the last common ancestor of the primates being: 77 Mya (Steiper, 2006), 64–80 Mya (Pace, 2007), 63–90 Mya (Martin, 1993), 81.5 Mya (Tavaré, 2002 - also thinks no more than 7% of primate species are represented by fossils), euprimates at 80–90 Mya (Martin, 2007) then I've seen the strep/hap divergence at: 50 Mya (Porter, 1997), 61 Mya (Yoder, 1997) and 80 (Martin, 2003) & (Tavaré, 2002). Though I do agree this needs to be clarified, I'll attempt to clear it up. Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope you will clarify this. Ruslik (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Will do, think I might need to get some outsider opinion first though. Jack (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 3) I also read in the second paragraph the three remaining families that include the lorises, the Aye-aye, the galagos, and the pottos.. So three families or four (lorises, the Aye-aye, the galagos, and the pottos)?

  There are many species within those three families. The more recognisable subfamilies from Lorisidae are mentioned (lorises and pottos), I've changed it now to "lorids"; the family name. Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  4) I see another inaccurate statement (fourth paragraph) In 2008, the Aye-aye family, Daubentoniidae, was confirmed to be a lemuriform.... However in the previous paragraph Aye-aye was listed together with lorises, not lemurs, and in the scheme in the next subsection Aye-aye has its own infraorder (Chiromyiformes). Please, clarify this.

  Now reads: In 2008, the Aye-aye family (Daubentoniidae) was confirmed to be a lemuriform and descended from the same ancestral lemur population that rafted to the island, it is contained within the Chiromyiformes infraorder, forming a sister clade to the lemurs. Lemurs/lorids split then lemurs/aye-ayes split, so aye-aye is lemuriform (as opposed to lorisiform) but is not contained within Lemuriformes. Jack (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  5) In the fifth paragraph of the evolution subsection I read and contains the two clades: the parvorder Platyrrhini that developed in South America and contains New World monkeys is one, and the parvorder Catarrhini that developed in Africa and contains the Old World monkeys, humans and the other apes in the other. "is one" "in the other" are redundant here, in my opinion.

  You're right, removed offending words. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  6) Although anthropoid primates could have made it to North America and island-hopped to South America during the Eocene,[20] and Antarctica supported large, dense forests for a southern migration, The language here is not encyclopedic, especially "made it to". Please, clarify this sentence (split it in two sentences).

  Okay, changed wording. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  7) The young Atlantic Ocean was not nearly as wide as it is today ... Please, specify what was the width of Atlantic in Oligocene/Miocene.

  Added reference to this statement, the reference has a picture of the width but no specific width value. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  8) Close behind came lorises and tarsiers, also African castaways. Again unencyclopedic language.

  Changed to: Soon after, the lorises and tarsiers made the same journey. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  9) In the Classification subsection In older classifications, the Primates were divided into two superfamilies: Prosimii and Anthropoidea. How old are those classifications?

  I've mentioned that McKenna & Bell disregarded Prosimii and Anthropoidea. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  After looking at this again, McKenna & Bell weren't the first to follow this classification. Added information to reflect this. Jack (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  10) I would appreciate more information about hybrids. It is interesting topic. How long do hybrids live? Can they breed, or they infertile?

  This section was cut down purposefully due to length constraints on the article. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments are helpful. I will continue tomorrow with other sections. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They look really helpful, I'll get on to them as soon as I can. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments 2 (Distinguishing features. Anatomy, physiology and morphology)

  11) Please, explain arboreal habitats at the first use.

  Added (trees and bushes) immediately afterwards. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  12) Please clarify that posterior lobe is in Cerebellum (I initially thought that it is part of the cerebral hemispheres).

  Changed to more concise wikilink: Posterior lobe of cerebellum. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  13) In the list of features not all items have inline citations.

  Am I out of practice on inline citations? The times I've seen it come up at WT:V, there was agreement that "five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes" was exactly the kind of thing people didn't want to see line-by-line citations for, they wanted a cite to a general textbook, which is in the sentence that introduces the list. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case it is better to remove citations from items altogether, because they create false impression that some information is cited and some is not. Ruslik (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I originally cited every distinguishing characteristic (to the same source, which was a list of distinguishing characteristics), the someone recommended that I just reference the whole paragraph. The paragraph was then turned into a list, and then people added extra distinguishing characteristics (which I don't believe are distinguished from other orders) and cited them to other sources. So the unreferenced points are all from the original source at the beginning of the paragraph. I'll have a look at what the best method of action is. Jack (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, I understand, Jack. I'm going to fix this in the way that I think Ruslik wants ... which is to copy the citation that's currently meant for just the whole list to the end of each line that isn't cited by another source. If there were only one major editor on this article, as often happens at WP:GAN, I think there might be an additional argument that citing some but not others may bring up a question in some reviewers' minds of where exactly the material is coming from and how the article was constructed. In an article that's a community effort, we can't, of course, restrict anyone's right to ask for sourcing for just one fact, or the right of any editor to exercise independent judgment that there's a better source out there for a particular fact than the general textbook. I think Ruslik is just asking for the reason he states: use consistent formatting ... if you put cites at the end of some elements of a list, then cite every element ... otherwise readers may misunderstand. I'll do that now. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  14) In the Anatomy section there is a sentence The primate collar bone is retained as prominent element of the pectoral girdle; this allows the shoulder joint broad mobility.. It is strange, in my opinion. It implies that primate's pectoral girdle is more mobile, because it has an additional bone (clavicle)?

  From the clavicle page: It serves as a rigid support from which the scapula and free limb are suspended. This arrangement keeps the upper limb (arm) away from the thorax so that the arm has maximum range of movement. This is an important characteristic of primates; without extremely mobile forelimbs brachiation would not be possible. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  15) The main hominid molar cusp (hypocone) evolved in early primate history, while the cusp of the corresponding primitive lower molar (paraconid) was lost. So I do not understand how many cusps humans have, five or four?

  They can have either 4 or 5. I've added it to the paragraph. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  16) at the time of dinosaurs is not very scientific. Please, specify time (or period).

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  17) In Sexual dimorphism subsection Studies are helping to find the relative contribution of the various selective and non-selective mechanisms in sexual dimorphism evolution and expression. Redundant sentence.

  Removed. Jack (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruslik more very helpful comments, I'm trying my best to keep up with you. Jack (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Final comments

  18) In the 'Social system' subsection the first sentence says Richard Wrangham proposed that social systems are best classified by the amount of movement by females occurring between groups Please, clarify if this theory is applicable to all animals (and humans) or only to non-human primates?

  Only non-human primates. Made change. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  19) In the 'Interactions with humans' section there is sentence Some of these are zoonotic diseases that can also be transmitted to humans, most notably the potentially fatal Herpes B Virus. Please, explain what 'there' refers to in it. This sentence partially duplicates previous two sentences.

  Changed to: Viruses such as Herpesviridae (most notably Herpes B Virus), Poxviridae, measles, ebola, rabies, the Marburg virus and viral hepatitis can be transmitted to humans; in some cases the viruses produce potentially fatal diseases in both humans and non-human primates. Think I managed to remove an 'also' as well! Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  20) Within the order Primates, humans are recognized as persons and protected in law by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This sentence conveys an impression, that UN Declaration somehow mentions primates (includes humans and excludes other primates). However the declaration just states that everybody (meaning humans) has some rights. Primates are not mentioned in it at all.

  Added only before humans. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I happy to support this article if my last concerns are addressed. Some copy-edit may be necessary as some weasel words are too overabundant (also, for instance). However I am an expert in criterion 1a. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My concerns have been addressed so I support now. Ruslik (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks again Ruslik. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: footnotes and references ideally should be seperate. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes thing is mentioned at WP:Layout, but maybe that's not a persuasive argument (I couldn't tell your view on these things from your userpage). Would you do me a favor and read my blatherings at User:Dank55/Essays#What style guidelines are supposed to be on the value of style guidelines, and tell me if that's in any way persuasive about the value of arguing this on the style page rather than in the middle of someone's FAC? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it's just me who does it, but I sometimes put footnotes explaining a point seperate from citations, and use a, b, c, etc to denote them, qv The Trial of a Time Lord. It helps a bit with reading, e.g. I was a bit perplexed about the "every continent on Earth" statement, clicked the ref to see a citation, and it was an explanatory footnote lost in the sea of citations. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 04:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, I separate them myself (unless I'm being lazy, which is ... a lot :). But a lot of contributors don't like to separate them. My gut feeling is that we won't be able to get an agreement at WP:Layout to say they have to be separated, but it wouldn't bother me at all if people want that change. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would bother me; the distinction is artificial. Expository footnotes should also cite sources, at least for the assertions in the footnote, and many citations could use a word or two on the nature of the source. If your notes do fall neatly into two classes, it's harmless busywork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite right, Sept, they don't generally fall into two neat piles. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made the separation, per the comment. I only found two instances (humans inhabiting Antarctica and Article 6) but maybe I missed something. And, now that you reminded me, I need to get down to basement to finally start watching my DVD of Trial. :) Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by jimfbleak Primates ... as well as an increased reliance on stereoscopic vision at the expense of smell this sounds as if a good sense of smell and stereoscopic vision are mutually exclusive, and you can't have both. Is that correct? I can't see any obvious reason why a dog, for example, couldn't be good with sight and smell, jimfbleak (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As they increasingly relied on their stereoscopic colour vision, their sense of smell was less important and therefore was no longer selected for. See this graphic from here. Primates are far more reliant on vision, dogs are far more reliant on smell. Hope this answers your question, do you still think a change should be made? Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The prose looks much better than when I reviewed this article nearly two months ago, a few more suggestions:

• "Richard Wrangham proposed that social systems of non-human primates are best classified by the amount of movement by females occurring between groups." Sounds more like a suggestion than a proposition to me. Changing proposed will also eliminate the repetition of "proposed" occurs in the next sentence.

  Changed proposed to stated. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Non-human primates (NHPs) are rarely granted the same legal rights as humans, despite the close evolutionary relationship."-->Despite the close evolutionary relationship, non-human primates (NHPs) are rarely granted the same legal rights as humans.

  Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "In South America, but not in Central America, squirrel monkeys associate with capuchin monkeys."

  Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "A few hunters have found and killed individuals since then, and its prospects remain bleak." "its"-->the species'.

  Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Primate species each move variously by brachiation, bipedalism, leaping, arboreal and terrestrial quadrupedalism, climbing or knuckle-walking." What does "each" mean here?

  Changed to Primate species move by brachiation, bipedalism, leaping, arboreal and terrestrial quadrupedalism, climbing, knuckle-walking or by a combination of these methods. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The mean endocranial volume is 1201 cubic centimeters in humans, 469 cm3 in gorillas, 400 cm3 in chimpanzees and 397 cm3 in orangutans." Is there a reason for the absence of conversions?

  Brains are measured in cubic centimetres, I wouldn't have thought conversions would be very helpful. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "There are 21 critically endangered primates, eight of which have remained on the IUCN's "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" list" Per MOSNUM, comparitive quantities should be written out the same; i.e. There are 21 critically endangered primates, 8 of which have remained on the IUCN's "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" list.

  Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Accounting for 25% to 40% of the fruit-eating animals (by weight) within tropical rainforests, primates play an important role by dispersing seeds of many tree species." Important role in what? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to: important ecological role. Thanks for the comments again. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - the prose is much better now. Shyamal (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Like the lemurs, the New World monkeys had unclear origins. - is the past tense intended ?

  Changed to have. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...the evaluation of current populations as distinct species is in flux - statement can be improved but I am not sure how ? The same goes with the start of the sentence A few new species are discovered each year....

  Changed to: Although primates are well studied in comparison to other animal groups, a number of new species are still being discovered; genetic tests on some populations have also revealed previously unrecognised species. Not sure if this is too clumsy, or if I'm allowed to link 'being discovered' to Primates discovered in the 2000s? Jack (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In modern, cladistic reckonings, the Primates order is a true clade. - What is a true clade - I suspect you really want to say it is monophyletic - if so it should just be that the Primates form a monophyletic clade or such like...

  Changed to mention monophyly. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Biological anthropologist Colin Groves - could do without the prefixes, in fact even the mention of the author is not really needed - just the number of species in the year with the reference should do.

  Changed to: Primate Taxonomy listed about 350 species of primates in 2001,:ref: the author, Colin Groves, increased that number to 376 for his contribution to the third edition of Mammal Species of the World (MSW3). Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Primates have two forward-facing eyes - no objection, but is the two really needed !

  Removed two. Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• During the Eocene, most of the northern continents were dominated by two groups, the adapids and the omomyids - dominated or just occupied ?

  From Sellers' Primate Evolution: "Each of the major geological epochs are characterised by major primate adaptive radiation such that a relatively few taxa dominate the primate fauna." I've added the reference. Jack (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Adapids survived until about 10 mya. Omomyids, on the other hand, perished about 20 million years earlier. - more comfortable if the extinction order is put in sequence without the need for arithmetic and backward glances.

  Changed to: Omomyids perished about 30 mya,:ref: while Adapids survived until about 10 mya. Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• According to genetic studies, the lemurs of Madagascar diverged from the lorisiforms approximately 75 mya. These studies, as well as chromosomal and molecular evidence - Genetic studies presumably includes those "chromosomal studies".
• Catarrhines are routinely trichromatic due - the special phrase "routinely trichromatic" needs to be marked by italics - and should ideally be explained in a section within Evolution of color vision in primates.
• Variously, both Euarchonta and Euarchontoglires are ranked as superorders. - redundant and removable statement - clades are rank free and it is completely normal to "variously" indicate positions relative to Linnean ranks.

• comment I still don't understand why there is such a disproportion between the mentions of Chimpanzees (meant as the Pan troglodytes) and Bonobos.--Sum (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see much info specific to either chimps or bonobos, although I wouldn't say that there's a WP:WEIGHT issue with the slightly greater emphasis on chimps (despite being a bonobo fan, myself), given that comparitively little research has been done on bonobos, given their rarity and geographic isolation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Too bad you're a fan, articles should be written by scientists.--Sum (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mentions of the Common Chimpanzee = 3, mentions of the Bonobo = 2. Not undue weight, when refering to chimpanzees both Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus are included. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The term Chimpanzee is sometimes used in the article to just refer to the Common Chimpanzee. So the difference is higher and there is a problem with the consistency of the terminology.--Sum (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as before. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.