Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 20:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments coming soon... Sasata (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's very good! Comprehensive, well-written, and interesting. Some of the taxonomy was difficult for me to wrap my head around, but I think you did a fine job in making it accessible. Of course, I have some nitpicks and suggestions:

Lead

• "Strepsirrhines include the lemuriform primates, which consists" -> consist?

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 14:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Also included in the suborder are the" suggest "The suborder also includes the"

Fixed. Thanks for the suggestion. – Maky ^« talk » 14:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• link taxonomically

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 14:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• the lead is pretty dense in details. I know you subscribe to the theory that most people will only read the lead, so teach them whatever you can before they lose interest; but I think those that do aren't going to care much regardless about the etymology of the word, nor the fact that there's been debate about 1 or 2 r's in the name. Consider trimming a little bit.

I've thinned it out a little bit. Let me know if that's good enough. – Maky ^« talk » 14:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The taxonomy of strepsirrhines is highly disputed at many levels and has a complicated history." can the underlined be replaced with "controversial,"?

Fixed. Thanks for the suggestion. – Maky ^« talk » 14:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• there's the feel of strong editorializing in the lead with "Confused terminology, oversimplified anatomical comparisons, and vague phylogenetic inferences have created misconceptions about primate and strepsirrhine phylogeny, illustrated by the media hype surrounding the single "Ida" fossil in 2009." As our article explains, the term media hype is usually used negatively, and it gives this paragraph a non-neutral POV feel. Reword?

I realize that it sounds non-neutral. I'm open to suggestions for replacing "media hype", but for some reason I haven't been able to think of one. At the time, "Ida" got a ton of attention in the press, in which information about the "discovery" got distorted even further. It didn't help that the authors of the original paper did a lot of cherry-picking. Today, I think that the vast majority of the authorities consider it a disgraceful episode. In other words, the consensus is non-neutral.

As for the editorializing, I felt that the body supported it: " the cladistic analysis was flawed and the phylogenetic inferences and terminology were vague" and: "Confusion of this specific terminology with the general term "strepsirrhine", along with oversimplified anatomical comparisons and vague phylogenetic inferences, can lead to misconceptions about primate phylogeny and misunderstandings about primates from the Eocene, as seen with the Darwinius hype." – Maky ^« talk » 14:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How about just changing "hype" to "attention"? That way the reader can decide for themselves if the attention was unwarranted or not. Sasata (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple enough. For some reason, I just couldn't get my head out of a rut to find other wording. Thanks. – Maky ^« talk » 10:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• there's 3 weaselly and repetitive "are thought to" in the final paragraph of the lead

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 14:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• if you're going to define million years ago as mya, this should be done one the first occurrence

Done... though it has a double parentheses that I can't think of a way around. – Maky ^« talk » 14:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe delimit with en- or emdashes? Sasata (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done... although I'm hoping someone at FAC will have a better idea. It just doesn't look good to me either way. – Maky ^« talk » 10:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

• link Greek; subordinal; description

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "When Reginald Innes Pocock revived Strepsirrhini" revived in what way; was it just not being used, and had another name replaced it?

Source does not say. According to my independent research, the name was used lightly between 1812 and 1918 and was generally considered synonymous with Prosimii. The other terms used at the time are discussed in more detail in the section on taxonomy. Should I repeat that information here? – Maky ^« talk » 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, it's good. Sasata (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evo history

• "… despite their smaller and less complex brains, which have not kept pace with that of the simians." Sounds odd to say that brains kept pace with each other

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• link radiation; transitional fossil

Linked the first, but "transitional forms" linked to transitional fossil several paragraphs before. Should I link both? – Maky ^« talk » 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, just missed that link. Sasata (talk)

• "The European branch are often" are->is

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "to survive past the Eocene/Oligocene boundary" perhaps give a year to make it easier for the reader?

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic classification

• "This is because many experts disagree at nearly every level of primate classification," at->about?
• "To go with St. George Jackson Mivart's suborder Anthropoidea (=Simiiformes) for simians, William Henry Flower created the suborder Lemuroidea in 1883." this sentence construction sounds a bit odd to me (not fond of the start)

Let me know if it sounds better now. – Maky ^« talk » 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• phylogeny should be linked somewhere

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unlike the tarsiers and simians, strepsirrhines are capable of producing their own Vitamin C and don't need it supplied in their diet (biosynthesis)" How about piping biosynthesis to producing to avoid having the technical hiding awkwardly in parentheses? Uncap vitamin; avoid contractions

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "had been demonstrated by the early 2000s." year or decade?

Decade. I'm sorry, but I thought that was obvious. How do you recommend clarifying? – Maky ^« talk » 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought it was obvious too in other articles I've written, but it gets changed to "2000s (decade)". Sasata (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Strepsirrhini is composed of three ranked superfamilies, and 14 families, seven of which are extinct." remove first comma?

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it'd be better if the "Strepsirrhini phylogeny" cladogram told us the source up front.

Do you mean putting it in a caption? – Maky ^« talk »

• Meh,changed my mind, it's fine as is. Sasata (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• consider mixing up the two consecutive sentences beginning with "Because"

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy and physiology

• "Shed hairs that accumulate between the teeth of the toothcomb are the sublingua or "under-tongue". is this missing the words "removed by"?

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• caption: "Strepsirrhines are characterized by a typically longer snout and wet nose." "Longer" is a comparison: what is the snout length being compared to?

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "but they lack of fovea" fix

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "however, their have a relatively" fix

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• link tympanic cavity?

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The inside of their nose, convoluted maxiolloturbinals filter, warm, and moisten the incoming air," I think there needs to be a comma after maxiolloturbinals, or some other grammatical tweak

I don't follow you here. "convoluted (adj) maxiolloturbinals (noun) filter (verb), warm, (verb), and moisten (verb)..." – Maky ^« talk » 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this sentence basically saying "Convoluted maxiolloturbinals on the inside of their nose filter, ..." If it is, I think this is a clearer way to say it. By the way, is that fancy word spelled correctly? A google search for "maxiolloturbinal" only turns up two results, one of which is from this article! Sasata (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fluids travel from the rhinarium to the mouth and then up the nasopalatine ducts to the VNO are detected,"travel-> traveling?

Good catch. I had to read that twice to see it. Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if the parenthetical parts are needed in "chest (pectoral), "groin (inguinal)", and "grooming each other (allogrooming)" as the technical words are not used later in the article, and they don't really increase reader understanding. I can see their usefulness in some other instances though.

I included them because some readers (especially the ones making it this far) are probably more familiar with the technical terms, which are much clearer and specific—particularly when talking about the nipple locations. I might take out "allogrooming". – Maky ^« talk » 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior

• "during by day." fix

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• link predation

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 15:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "…due to their relatively large eyes; large, movable ears; sensitive tactile hairs; strong sense of smell; and the tapetum lucidum behind the retina." not sure why these aren't just regular commas here

I think I did it because of "large, movable ears"—the comma between the adjectives I think necessitates semi-colons for the rest of the list. – Maky ^« talk » 15:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Their gestation period and interbirth intervals are usually long, and the young develop slowly, just like in haplorhine primates." any ballpark estimates of gestation period and interbirth intervals available?

No, it was a generalization by the source. It's a relative thing, anyway. Smaller primates generally have shorter gestation periods and/or interbirth intervals than larger primates, but compared to other mammals, these traits are relatively long. For example, a dog generally produces a litter in about 2 months, whereas a comparable sized primates takes about 3 to 4 months just to produce 1 or 2 offspring. – Maky ^« talk » 15:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• link tool use by animals; monogamous pairing in animals; breeding pair; alarm call? Unfortunately, Female dominance is highly human-centric.

All linked. Yes, Female dominance has been a problem for a long time, and I've proposed a merger to free the term up for more general use. Yet despite the high traffic, no one seems to be commenting or helping. – Maky ^« talk » 15:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review! – Maky ^« talk » 15:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome! I've made a few responses above that you're free to use or ignore. I think I'm all out of suggestions for improvements. All images have appropriate licenses. I checked out several sources, but didn't find any issues, and am conviced the coverage of the topic is thorough. Happy to promote to GA at this time, and I look forward to its appearance at FAC. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]