Talk:Primate/GA1

GA Review

A very fine and impressive article! Very well organized with good flow, and obviously written by a very knowledgeable person. Some comments for now, more to follow later:

• Lead
  • The first sentences are pretty long and complex. delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead does not summarize whole article; missing sections include anatomy, physiology, social systems, and NHP. delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Added summaries of those sections to lead. Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    • My opinion is that the lead with six paragraphs (five if one considers that three are rather short) is too long now. WP:LEAD does also not say that every section has to be mentioned, but the most important aspects. The content of a chapter may not be so important that it is worth mentioning in the lead. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

      • Yeah, it's a little too long now (sorry Rlendog!). I think the last paragraph could safely be taken out. Four paragraphs the size of the second one seems to me to be a fine lead size for a topic of this breadth. You can look at FAs of similar topics like the ones Sabine's Sunbird mentioned for an idea of length. delldot talk 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

        • I guess I got carried away! Anyway, I removed the last paragraph and tightened up some of the others a bit. If there is anything else you think is unnecessary in the lead let me know. I am not experienced in GA reviews. Rlendog (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • ...already existed in the late Cretaceous - how about Cretaceous period or something similar for context? delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Done. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • They are now thought to be most closely related to flying lemurs and, more distantly, to treeshrews -- who is 'they'? delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Replaced "they" with "primates". Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Distinguishing features
  • IMHO, if a whole sentence is from a single reference, there's no need to cite the ref more than once at the end of the sentence (although I can see the thinking with a list like this). Mid-sentence refs are distracting. delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Done. Jack (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • In the list of anatomical features, I would use semicolons to separate the items. delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Seems sensible, done. Jack (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Anatomy and morphology
  • Very nice skull image! As a bonus you might upload a new version with larger lettering. delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Is it worth it? I can read the labels as they are. Jack (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    No big deal if you don't want to. delldot talk 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Define difficult terms like 'brachiating', 'ventral', 'dentition', 'bilophodont', 'paraconid' and 'caudal' in the text (or replace with better-known terms). delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Replaced 'ventral', 'dentition'. Removed 'bilophodont', 'paraconid' and 'caudal' as excessive detail. 'Brachiating' however I have left for the time being. Jack (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    I think the term "brachiating" is needed - there is no simpler definition. I added a parenthetical explanation to aid understanding. Rlendog (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Excellent. Parentheticals are fine. delldot talk 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • endocranial volume (inner surface of skull) -- are you sure this is the correct definition? Volume doesn't seem to imply this (it implies three dimensions). Could the term be replaced so we can get rid of the redlink? e.g. reword the sentence, The volume within the skull of a human... delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    My fault for that bad definition, it was meant to be 'the volume of the inner surface of skull' but I only defined endocranium. Reworded sentence. Jack (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The primary evolutionary trend of primates...--Semicolons only for independent clauses (and a couple other specific circumstances). delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Replaced with brackets. Jack (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like the whole article should be checked for overly technical language and overly complex sentences. For example, While other mammals rely heavily on olfactory stimuli the arboreal life of primates... why not 'sense of smell' and 'trees'? delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Left arboreal but changed olfaction to sense of smell. Arboreal seems irreplaceable. Jack (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • No need to link common, well-known terms that aren't related to the subject. (e.g. 'finger'). delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Done. Jack (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The paragraph beginning The primate clavicle is retained as prominent... is unreferenced. delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Done. Jack (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • No need to use fancy words like 'whilst' that have more common equivalents like 'while'. delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

    Done. Jack (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to do this review in parts, so I'll stop reviewing here for now. Let me know when you've addressed these and I can do another section. I'd appreciate it if you could check the whole article for some of the issues I've brought up here, so I don't have to repeat myself. In particular, please check for overly technical language, and define all your difficult terms. Also, there needs to be at least one reference per paragraph IMHO, even if it's the same in the next paragraph (if you just use one, make sure it endorses all the info in the paragraph). All statistics and quotes need references. Keep up the good work! delldot talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great response! Let me know when you're done going through the article for technical language and missing citations so I can do another part. One thing I noticed while checking these: cusp is a dab link. Perhaps a check for others throughout the article? delldot talk 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay no more DAB or redirects as of now. Will try and do some more before asking you to review the next section. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Sabine's Sunbird

I know that there is usually one reviewer for GA, but I have some comments of a general nature I wish to make (should you choose to push this onwards to FA, which I hope you will). The article is very impressive, and I am sympathetic to the difficulties on working on a higher level taxonomic group (as opposed to a species) having pushed two family articles and a class article to FA. I hope you will consider these points (I'm sorry I missed the earlier peer review).

• There are a few conspicuous absences in the text, the most obvious being diet and feeding. It is alluded to in a few places but never really dealt with, but is quite an important subject.

  This has been covered by Rlendog. Jack (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Relationship with humans - okay, I see how this can be awkward, but you deal with conservation in one place and role in research in another, but are missing a discussion of such things as economic importance (they are crop pests, they are food (bushmeat) they are ecotourism draws (gorillas, lemurs)); their importance as disease vectors, their importance in culture (and Im not suggesting a laundry list of TV appearances by baboons and stuff, I mean things like Hanuman, Infinite monkey theorem, the Mayan Howler Monkey Gods.

  See also: Ebu Gogo and Monkey helper. Jack (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  See also: Monkey#Relationship with humans. Jack (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Conservation status - is rather light considering the importance. It also lacks focus; A section like it should start wide and then focus on examples. At present it deals with the primates of one islands, then allude to the wider situation, then another focused example. It should start with a description of what percentage of primates are threatened, and how many, then discuss the threats (and habitat loss is not the only one, though it is the biggest, you don't mention bushmeat in Africa for example or the pet trade in Asia), then focus on examples. Typically prehistoric extinctions are dealt with after recent ones. EDIT Also should cover what is being done - the conservation work started to protect primates.

  Okay had a go at this last night, will look over it today to check my tired work! Think I've got everything before the 'EDIT', will add that today. Jack (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, structure much improved and cone=tent covers a broader range of subjects.

• Interspecific associations - provides three examples of similarish interactions, but misses out examples of interactions with non-primates (like Axis Deer and Hanuman Langurs.
• Hybrids - isn't spectacularly important, and could get cut down if the article gets overlong.
• Overall structure - The structure of headings and subheadings needs some modification. Interspecific associations feels like it belongs with ethology not distribution. Why are Anatomy and morphology and Physiology separate heading, at best they should be linked subheadings. Likewise evolution and classification.

What headings would you suggest? I'm personally a fan of long sections not continually divided sub-headings. Jack (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I try something, and see what you think? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! Jack (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes, noting substancial, just hierarchy stuff. I have also changed ethology to behavior, as we are discussing the behavior of the animals in question, not the study of that behavior (ethology). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that isn't too brusing. I can re read the whole thing more closely if you like, and help some (I rather like primates). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's important to be critical so this will all be very helpful. One more glaring ommission is reproduction, surely the meaning of life, which isn't covered at all. At the moment the article currently stands at about 56 kilobytes which isn't ideal (WP:LENGTH) and I think cutting it down (while adding important information above) is going to be difficult. We should get all the information in there first and then subsequently think about trimming off the excess. Thanks for the comments and it'd be great to have someone with your experience helping out! Cheers, Jack (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Length is unavoidable in an article like this. And yes, reproduction is important too, but a big part of that is covering social systems - which you already have. However infant development and learning is going to be more important for this group that many. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The challenge with infant development and learning is generalizing the information appropriately. There is probably a bigger difference in infant development between a chimp and a mouse lemur than there is between a mouse lemur and many other non-primate mammals. I suppose it would have to be handled by giving the ranges and some examples, particularly at the extremes, similar to what had to be done in some other sections. Rlendog (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a section on development through life stages, including infant development.Rlendog (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I also added a section on diet and feeding. Rlendog (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Novil Ariandis

The article is surely good for an article about so different species, but apart from the comments above, I'd like to point out some additional issues:

• Try to remove as many technical terms as possible without losing accuracy. I had a hard time to understand several sentences.

  Could you give a few examples please? I've tried to remove/define as many as possible. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The chapter about color vision is quite long and should be shortened to a single paragraph in the anatomy chapter at the latest if more important information about hunting/diet, reproduction/life cycle/life expectancy and their relationship to humans is added.

  Okay merged color vision. Jack (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The chapter about laughter is quite long and should be shortened at the latest if -"-.
• Laughter may not be confined or unique to humans, despite Aristotle's observation that "only the human animal laughs". I think we can do without quoting what Aristoteles said some thousand years ago.

  Bye bye Aristotle quote. Jack (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• But some behavioural psychologists argue that self-awareness of one's situation, or the ability to identify with somebody else's predicament, are prerequisites for laughter, so animals do not laugh like humans do. This argument needs a reference. How much is some? Few, a minority, a majority, most? That is, if you don't want to remove it completely.

  Removed. Jack (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The chapter about evolution and classification chapter should probably go before the anatomy chapter.

  You're probably right, though it needs to be cleaned up a bit before gracing the beginning of the article! Jack (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that Distinguishing features should be a level 1 heading.

  I'm not so sure about this, distinguishing features are very important in classification of any class/order/family/genus/species and should be given a prominent placing within a clade article. Jack (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  Okay, that was just a suggestion. On the other hand, one could also argue that parts of the content in this chapter could go into the lead and parts into other chapters. The looong second sentence is practically a list divided by semicolons rather than list points. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm not sure about this one. It's too technical for the lead, but you're right it is a bit long as a sentence. It's important to know the distinguishing features in one place, as many of their features are shared with other mammal species. Anyone else want to comment? Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Given their close genetic similarity to humans, they are excellent animal models with which to conduct experiments that are relevant to humans. This argument needs a reference.

  Okay added reference. Jack (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't be able to do any work till Friday but I'll be back! Good luck everyone! Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Next section of review by delldot talk

Looking very good! Some very minor comments for now, I'll be back tomorrow to finish this section of the review.

• General
• Overlinking common terms, e.g. fish, bird. Can you check the whole article? delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  I delinked the common terms that I found. Rlendog (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  I can't see any more, other than those that are useful to link to. e.g. Dinosaur. Jack (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Extra credit: Use en dashes (–) rather than hyphens (-) for number ranges per WP:DASH. (e.g. in page ranges in refs). delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  Okay the hypens within page ranges have been replaced, if you notice any more in the article it'd be great if you could change them. Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Extra credit: Make references consistent e.g. for author name (whole name, initial without period, initial with period). delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  All references should now be AuthorSurname, AuthorIntital(s). Jack (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Words to define or replace: folivorous delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Replaced "folivorous" with "specialized leaf-eater". Rlendog (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• What type of English is the article written in? I see both Behavior and organisation . Can someone do a check to make them all one spelling or the other? delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  Okay it's all American spelling now. Jack (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Distinguishing features
  • Primates have radiated in arboreal habitats - I'm not familiar with radiated in this sense, can you explain? delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    I've changed it to diversified. Does that help? It could be changed to "spread" but that wouldn't really have the same meaning. Jack (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Anatomy, physiology and morphology
  • keratin nails on the anterior ends - any way to avoid the unfamiliar term anterior? delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I removed the term "anterior".Rlendog (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • all mammals, with the exception of some primates and marsupials - sounds funny because marsupials aren't mammals. delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    Not sure what you mean; marsupials are mammals. Jack (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Well I'll be. Sorry about that. delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Behavior
  • This organisation can be seen in chimpanzees, the males will cooperate in defending their territories. - not clear how the first and second parts of the sentence relate. delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Reworded the sentence to hopefully clarify. Rlendog (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Diet and feeding
  • enabling them to exploit particular food specialities -- food specialties? Is this correct? delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    I tried to clarify that sentence; replaced "food specialties" with "particular foods that they specialize in eating." Rlendog (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    I've just removed that part of the sentence. It wasn't really needed. Jack (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! I'll be back to add more later. delldot talk 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Next bit by delldot talk

Looking great folks, excellent work on the quick responses above.

• Behavior
  • Just a suggestion: seems like it might be logical to move the Cognition and communication and Laughter sections up to be closer to the other social subsections, rather than discussing social stuff, feeding, then social stuff again.

    They've been moved now. Jack (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • If you're concerned about length, you might consider moving the laughter section to a more specific page, e.g. Chimpanzee. It's not clear that this applies to all primates. You could probably get away with moving the first sentence into Cognition and communication, since we're talking about vocalizations that do communicate something. This would also help flesh out Cognition and communication, which is a little short. delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    I've removed the section entirely. The section had been copy-and-pasted from Chimpanzee anyway. Maybe something should be said about laughter as a form of communication, but only if there are reliable sources to back it up. Jack (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Evolutionary history
  • Citation needed for the sentence beginning Recent molecular genetic research on primates, colugos, and treeshrews has shown that the... delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Refs added. Rlendog (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Good. Author and publisher would be nice for the first ref. Not necessary to pass as a GA, but you might want to fix before FAC: some references have pp. before page numbers and some don't. delldot talk 17:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I added more info to the citation, but I'm not sure I actually got this right. I provided the authors and the journal this article appeared in (Science, 11/02/07), but the website is not the actual article (which I do not have access to), it is just an abstract or summary of that article. Rlendog (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

          I think a url is only listed when there is a free online version of the paper. Otherwise you can just use the doi link to find the paper. The correct format for this article (consistency) is (note spacing as well): [First author surname][comma] [First initial][full stop] ([Second initial])[full stop][comma] [Second author surname]... e.g. Hynes, J. C., Other, A. N. & Example, A. N. (2008). Jack (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

          • I see you already fixed that. Thanks. I wonder if a link to a web site that actually shows the abstract stating the information would be useful (e.g., http://www.citeulike.org/user/zwang/article/1857456) but if that is not the way it is done then so be it. Rlendog (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

            The doi link will give you an abstract, so anything else is unnecessary. Also a further note on reference format, the page variable should be as follows: |pages=1–100 It doesn't need a preceding p. or pp. and the dash should be an en dash rather than a hyphen. It's the first character in the "Insert" toolbox below the edit summary box. Otherwise good work! Jack (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Evolution
  • None of the paragraphs in this section appear to be fully referenced. If you're using a single reference for each paragraph, I'd recommend citing it at the end of the paragraph (if and only if it endorses all the info in the paragraph; otherwise it'll be necessary to individually cite each sentence). Otherwise it's difficult for the reader to know where the info came from. All sentences with statistics or dates (e.g. 7 Ma) should be sourced. delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Hybrids
  • These morphological ambiguities have led to hybrids in zoos. - not clear. The ambiguities led to the creation of hybrids? Using active voice might help. delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    See below. Jack (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • In the third paragraph, the first sentence refers to intergeneric hybrids, so the reader is expecting the rest of the paragraph to be about that, but it does not appear to be. delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    See below. Jack (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a lot of detail for such a general article, could some of this info be moved to more specific articles? delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    I've moved the second and third paragraphs to more specific articles. The section is a much better size now. Jack (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Relationship with humans
  • I think this section should have a more general intro rather than launching into the content. Perhaps a list of the relationships that exist? delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    Added general introduction. Jack (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Role in scientific research
  • It is considered the proper term when referring to primates used in animal research or kept as pets. - considered by whom? Citation needed, or better, reword to clarify. Or eliminate. delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    Removed. Jack (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The first paragraph doesn't have to do with their role in scientific research. delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    Removed. Non-human primates is self-explanatory. Jack (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Conservation
  • Deforestation, forest fragmentation, primate crop raiding, and primate hunting for use in medicines, as pets, and for food are cited as common threats to primate species. - Cited by whom? If it's by the IUCN, the sentence could be rearranged to put the list at the end of the sentence (this way the reader doesn't have to wade through the list before they know what they're reading about) and put the verb into active voice. A citation would be nice for this sentence.

    This sentence is really just a general introduction. It is an amalgamation of a lot of different references which would be messy to cite after each threat but they are discussed later on in the section. Jack (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

    • This is fine, it was the are cited as that threw me. But I doubt it would be hard to find a review that lists all these threats. If you do it would be good to cite it, if not, no worries. delldot talk 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like the Conservation section could use some reorganizing. I'd recommend a paragraph each for deforestation/habitat loss, pet trade, poaching/hunting/primate meat, and maybe 'other'. Alternately it could be organized by region, but this might leave out the more general stuff. delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    It is actually organised by region. The order is: lead, Africa, Madagascar (which should probably be merged up), Asia, Central and South America, and then the States. The last paragraph might be better under the lead. What do you think? Cheers, Jack (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Good idea, that way you can go from general to specific. I see the organization now that you pointed it out, but it's a little awkward because there's not enough info to cover everywhere (e.g. just certain places in Asia). No big deal either way though. delldot on a public computer talk 03:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Who are Marsh, 2003; Turner, 1996? Can this be turned into a footnote like the rest? delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    My mistake, added full ref now. Jack (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like there's the opportunity for more photos, it might be nice to add them. For example, in diet and feeding you could show a monkey eating something (I'd recommend this one if we could figure out what they're eating, maybe check the article it came from). In Development through life stages, you could show care of the young, carrying the young, breastfeeding, play, or just a photo of primates in different life stages together for comparison (e.g. a baby, juvenile, and adult). In Interspecific associations, you could show members of the mentioned species together, if you can find any pictures. Sleeping as a group could be shown to demonstrate fusion lower down in the Social systems section. If you can find an image of a hybrid, you could use it in the Hybrids section. For the Conservation section, you could use images demonstrating habitat loss, hunting, or pictures of primates in pet shops, or people eating or selling primate meat. You could also have a picture of one of the species on the most critically endangered list or of Miss Waldron's Red Colobus. Locomotion could have an image of brachiation, knuckle walking, or climbing, etc. Distinguishing features could have an image depicting any of the features mentioned.
  • I added a few more pics. I'll look for a few more. Unfortunately, we are somewhat limited in what we can show by the pictures that have appropriate licenses. Rlendog (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Look great. I especially like the leaf eating one. The only one I'd take issue with is the picture of the capuchin with the caption about how they can be trained; seems to be reaching a bit. Ideally you'd have an image depicting one actually in the act of doing something mentioned in the paragraph. But I do understand about the limited free images. I think the article's fine either way, but I'd take this one out. delldot on a public computer talk 03:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I see your point about the capuchin picture. My preference is to leave it in (or maybe replace it with a smaller, suitable capuchin picture) for a couple of reasons. For one thing, the picture illustrates to some extent at least the manual dexterity referred to in the text that is necessary for these monkeys to be used as quadraplegix helpers. I edited the caption to reflect this. Also, we refer to capuchin monkeys several times in the article, and this (being a situation unique to the genus) seems like a particularly appropriate place to actually show what these monkeys look like. Rlendog (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Sounds reasonable, and good addition to the caption. Maybe keep your eye out for a free image of a capuchin doing something more complex with its hands though. delldot talk 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall, looks very good. I'd pass it right now if it weren't for the citation issue I mentioned. I'm sure it'll be GA in no time judging from the quality of work so far. delldot talk 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple more (very optional) suggestions:

• Under Cognition and communication, it might be good to have an example or two after the sentence Primates also use vocalizations, gestures, and facial expressions to convey psychological state. (Also a good opportunity for an image if you can find one).

  • I reckon this might help us with that. Only had a quick glance, but it looks like the right sort of information. Jack (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  I'd recommend a reorganization for the first two paragraphs under Relationship with humans. It currently goes pets, research, pests, service animals, conservation. Disease, service animals again. How about a reorganization to the tune of pets, research, service animals. Disease, pests, conservation. This would group similar concepts (e.g. monkey kills leading into conservation) and have you ending up with conservation, which would mirror the larger structure of the article. delldot talk 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Reorged as suggested. Rlendog (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed that you'd added the requested refs. Truly excellent work, folks. My last read through has me convinced that this is really an exemplary article: a thorough but not too detailed coverage of a tough topic. Well deserved: delldot talk 22:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Thanks for your review. I think the comments and processes made this a much better article now. Rlendog (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sorry folks, I sure messed up: I had forgotten to check the images. I did so and found a replaceable fair use image: Image:Caged monkeys.jpg. I explained my reasoning there and removed it from the article. I think the article's fine without it but another one of monkeys in labs or cages could be found if you want. Keep up the great work folks, I look forward to seeing this at FAC, I would say it's close! delldot talk 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)