Talk:Mandrill/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 05:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent article and with a little work and a peer review may be a candidate for Featured Article status; for Good Article, I just have a few minor concerns:


 * Answers.com is not considered a reliable source. Since the fact it is backing up is supported by two other sources, it can be removed.
 * ✅  Solar Police  ►Talk  17:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead could use to be expanded; I would split into at least two paragraphs, and add information on the species' location, social behavior, and conservation status.
 * ✅  Solar Police  ►Talk  18:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the sexual selection section, it mentions dominant and subordinate males, but does not explain how a male transitions between the two states.
 * ❌ It already states
 * Gaining dominance results in an increased testicular volume, reddening of sexual skin on the face and genitalia, and heightened secretion of the sternal cutaneous gland.
 * When a male loses dominance, the reverse happens, although the blue ridges remain brightened.
 * There is no other research other than this.  Solar Police  ►Talk  19:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess what I meant was, do the animals fight each other for dominance, or does this change happen spontaneously or in reaction to some other phenomena? –Grondemar 21:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ with references  Solar Police  ►Talk  13:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to clean up the citations so the cleanup box in the References section could be removed, although that is not explicitly required for GA.
 * ❌ I do not know how to clean up citations and since it is not required for GA I don't think I will do it.


 * Cleaning up citations is the least of the problems with this work. At the very least, citations have to lead to an article that supports what is written in wikipedia. I have checked citations that reference 34 and it is obvious whomever authored this work is citing work that does not match what is written in the cited article. This is extremely damaging to the whole wikipedia project.

As I read back in the comments here I can see that Answers.com was used as a research source. Anyone can go to answers.com and ask a question, then answer it, and cite it here at wikipedia. I removed one citation, but the sheer amount of non-matching citations makes this a problem I do not have the time for right now. This article not GA material. It is a shame that this many years in, wikipedia is still subject to this type of nonsense.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.108.138 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 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:
 * This review is placed on hold for a minimum of seven days to allow the above concerns to be addressed.
 * 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:
 * This review is placed on hold for a minimum of seven days to allow the above concerns to be addressed.
 * This review is placed on hold for a minimum of seven days to allow the above concerns to be addressed.

Thanks. –Grondemar 08:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments
 * how about taxonomy? Who was the first to described the species and when? What is the etymology of the specific epithet sphinx?
 * Has there been any phylogenetic work that discusses its relationship to other primates?
 * are there any subspecies?
 * are there any predators other than man?
 * what's the population? Has this increased or decreased in recent decades? Has its conservation status changed?
 * overall, the level of coverage seems pretty thin compared to other GA-level articles on primates. See [here] for examples. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns above. I posted a clarification of one of my questions above; if you could address that as well as the additional concerns identified by Sasata above, I'd appreciate it. –Grondemar 21:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments by Jack

I would echo Sasata's comments, the level of coverage is pretty low with comparable GA primate articles. Many of the references are from zoo websites or newspapers rather than peer-reviewed scientific literature. Here are some additional comments. I think quite a bit of work is needed to push the article in line with other primate articles of GA standard but it is certainly attainable! Keep up the good work and it'll get there. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The references must at least have a title, author, and date.
 * Generally there are no references in the lead of the article, a section which is only meant to summarise the following referenced content.
 * The prose flicks between their and its. Species articles are written in the singular, always its.
 * Try to follow Ingenpedia:Ingenproject Primates article structure here.


 * As Sasata and Jackhynes have identified concerns on the broadness of the coverage of the article, and there has been no edits to the article by the nominator to address these issues (and no edits at all since December 28), I am going to close out this review without passing the article as a Good Article. I encourage the nominator to re-nominate as soon as the concerns above are addressed.  Thanks. –Grondemar 20:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)