Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orangutan/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [1].

Orangutan edit

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has several articles on Strepsirrhini primates that are at featured status, but this would be the first simian one. I brought this article to GA status back in 2012 and in the past couple months have done more editing and cleaning and got a copyedit. I think its ready. LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chipmunkdavis edit

First run comments
  • In the lead is it reasonable to say that older males "have" long calls, rather than that they do not "make" (or similar) long calls?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indonesian is a form of Malay, and quite a recent one, and so should not be mentioned separately to Malay. The source used states Malay.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Banjarese, I wonder if you can find any sources discussing the impact on that regarding orangutan sometimes being pronounced with an ou sound, rather than how it is pronounced in standard Malay. Interesting note on page 320, but there might be more out there.
I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple ways to pronounce orangutan, and I suspect they may exist in part due to the differences between Banjarese and Standard Malay. I was wondering if there might be more information to be found on that point. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything. LittleJerry (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't fully understand from the current wording how a name recorded by a prisoner in Angola came to apply to a Southeast Asian animal. Having trouble reading the sideways source at the moment, so if it's there please just clarify slightly.
It states that all apes were called orangutans at the time and pongo was given to the all apes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The part that is unclear is how it transitioned to the current usage. What does it mean that Lacépède followed Friedrich von Wurmb? Did von Wurmb suggest it when sending the skeleton? CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Etymology section could also use some information on the species and subspecies names.
That's important for their specific articles not this one. Even articles on species don't give etymologies for subspecies names. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a single species of Khoratpithecus be the closest relative to Pongo? Was it paraphyletic?
I guess. Genera descend from other genera just like species from other species. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the wording throwing me off. Rather than "believed to have been" it should be "believed to be" or similar, unless the science has changed since the mid-2000s. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the list of Pongo also be put into a phylogenetic tree format to show the relationships between the species and subspecies?
I can't find a source for a tree. LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least regarding the species the P. tapanuliensis paper provides one. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make cladograms. LittleJerry (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy does not explain how Simia satyrus became replaced by P. pygmaeus.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text clearly implies there was a P. wurmbii in 1808, which should be mentioned, as should whenever it was folded into P. pygmaeus.
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, when did the other subspecies names get assigned?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed information on subspecies classifiction, that's more relevant to the Borneo species article. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph on type locality probably could use some rewriting to make it more accessible.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The P. tapanuliensis source notes that P. abelii became a species in 2001, not 1996.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. weidenreichi is not mentioned in the infobox, or anywhere else. Perhaps more information on it could be included here?
P. weidenreichi is mentioned in body. Added to infobox. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More explanation on why there are multi-million year differences in species divergence estimates would be useful. Also, was the 2011 sequence not nuclear DNA?
Doesn't say why. DNA tests can be way off sometimes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it seems odd to specify that the 2017 study was nuclear DNA, as it implies the 2011 study did not cover nuclear DNA. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels like the third paragraph of the genomics section was put on without adjusting previous sections. It should all be written in the appropriate tenses to reflect current consensus.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No current comments for the Characteristics section. Will look further at a later time. As a general comment, image placement seems all over the place. (Eg. The video on faux-speech is above the tool picture, the opposite order to the text sections.) CMD (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faux speech is next to the paragraph on orangutans imitating sounds. It's not about language. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen the faux speech video is right next to the paragraphs on tool use. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's something wrong with your screen. I don't know what to do about that. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard computer screen. If it appears like that on my screen, it will be a very common problem. What needs doing is sorting out the images. At the moment all the images in the page are clustering together and pushing each other way into places they don't belong. Reducing the number of images (eg. what does the image captioned "Orangutans are the least social of the great apes." add?) and making selective use of galleries are both reasonable options. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of plants as anti-inflamattory balms may fit better in the intelligence or tool use section than in the diet section.
Not really. Its like how animals may wallow themselves in mud to protect against skin irritation. LittleJerry (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but it's not diet. Perhaps just move to the main section above? CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels odd that both the lead and one image caption emphasise the "even bird eggs", while the body text treats bird eggs simply as part of the list while specifically highlighting that they eat other primates.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In nest building, I suggest rewording "leave their mother for the first time", as leave might mean to disperse.
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a mention could be made of the birth of twins.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest placing the reproduction and development subsection ahead of the social life and nesting subsections, as it contains information that better contextualises those other subsections. (eg. the earlier phrase about leaving their mother for the first time is much more understandable given the "never without physical contact" information.)
Moved after nesting. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The age at which children disperse away from their mothers should be included somewhere, probably in development, and perhaps dispersal should be explained since its only mention comes as "During dispersal" which reads as assuming knowledge from the reader. (May also be improved by the subsection reorganisation.)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CMD (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Url for "Deaner, RO; van Schaik, CP; Johnson, V. (2006). "Do some taxa have better domain-general cognition than others? A meta-analysis of nonhuman primate studies" is dead.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "solve some invisible displacement problems with a representational strategy" is jargon-heavy, and should be explained like "calculated reciprocity" is below. "cooperative pulling paradigm" could also do with a similar quick explanation.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first accurate description" should be reworded, as its specific meaning might not be conveyed to some readers.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest saying "Indonesian Borneo" instead of "Kalimantan, Indonesia" for accessibility.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the population table why are Sabah and East Kalimantan split but Sarawak and West Kalimantan combined?
That's what it does in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. That source (which has a more detailed table on page 7) appears to be using a preprint of what I think became this table. I would suggest using the final published source. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The authorities in "Since 2012, authorities" should be specified.
Why? Authorities is obvious: the government. And the source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 possible national governments and multiple possible local governments. From the source I suggest the article says for now that it's the Indonesian authorities. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about Pony and the albino should be moved into the Conservation centres subsection, and integrated with the other BOSF info.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current first and last paragraphs in Conservation should be merged. They both cover the same foundation (which I note lacks Foundation in its name in the specific article title, so perhaps this article should reflect that). CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CMD (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Chipmunkdavis, everythings fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The images seem better now, and I think I'll leave it for others to further comment on them. The Borneo Orangutan Survival information is still split across two unconnected paragraphs. CMD (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing the above. Will take another look soon with a more refreshed eye. CMD (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis? LittleJerry (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay. Looking at Primate, which is an older FA but still quite a decent article, there are several facts about orangutans mentioned there that are not included here. These include endocranial volume, an explicit note on climbing technique ("quadramanous climbing" although a less jargony explanation would be better), fishing and tool-assisted fishing (there are better sources than the one in the Primate article), a tad more on legal status, and a figure for extirpation rate in Sumatra. I believe all these would fit into the article, and they suggest further possible inclusions, such as historical population estimates (eg.). I would also suggest an explicit mention of only 3-4 births in a lifetime for each female.
Added more. I don't see the need for historical ranges and expiration rates. Those are more appropriate for the individual species and we already have the Endangerment of orangutans article. LittleJerry (talk)
The current "Interactions with humans" section is more about cultural significance than an overview of current interactions. Papers like this one are interesting in that regard. There also seems to be a minimal amount of information about cultural significance and opinions in the local area as opposed to globally. I'd also advocate the inclusion of some contextualisation about the local pressure for development, which is crucial to understanding orangutan conservation, rather than attributing it all to international demand. The only mention of local attitudes is a short brush into folklore, whereas they're often seen as obstacles to the economic advancement of those in poverty. These attitudes feed into the hunting, pet trade, and sometimes even indifference or distrust towards conservation.
Added more on local killing of orangutans. LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article should include information about domestic legal protection. (In Malaysia I know orangutans were supposedly covered under a 1972 wildlife protection act but looking now I can't find them in the actual law. They are however included in the replacement 2010 law (pg 101) as a totally protected species, as well as under the separate laws of Sarawak and Sabah.) CMD (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That again seems more important for the article on the Bornean orangutan. There are three species, and looking at the different laws that protect each of them is too much for this article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the species/sub-species argument with regards to the scientific name etymology information, but disagree it applies to much of the information here. The species split is for many purposes a technicality, and a recent technicality at that. Most of the laws I mentioned are older than the split between the species. Local communities are not distinguishing between species, conservation material doesn't distinguish between species, and I doubt many people in the wider world will either. Are there any examples of protections/treatment/etc. differing by species? Outside of scientific fields such as taxonomy and evolutionary implications, I can't see how what makes this article comprehensive will have shifted significantly since pre-2001. Taking your work on Wolf for example, that's an article that exceeds wp:size guidelines, yet it wouldn't greatly benefit from being stripped of most of its Status and Conservation section if at some point various subspecies became reclassified as species. CMD (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not an experienced FAC source reviewer, the general quality here is high (aside from perhaps dictionaries in etymology but they seem quite relevant to the section). The Pikiran Rakyat source should be reformatted to show it is a news source, with the name of the paper rather than the url. Nomoremonkeybusiness.com is a campaign source, appropriate for the information but could probably be buttressed by another source. Riskanalys av glas is dead and lacks an access date. It is citing something which could very easily be replaced by a higher quality source. Gill, Victoria needs an accessdate. The Nyaru Menteng source may one as well. National Geographic is formatted in a variety of ways. I can see some causes for differences (eg. magazine vs website), but not to the degree shown in the article. Similarly Mongabay and Eco-Business should use the names not the urls.

While here Bornean Orangutan in nest, Orangutanspeech.webm, and Orangutan using precision grip need alttext. CMD (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to add an accessdate to the Nyaru Menteng source. Otherwise, fixed all the others. LittleJerry (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"National Geographic Society" should be consistently (un)linked and consistently (un)italicised. The Oxford Dictionaries link is a redirect and the source needs reformatting. The etymonline.com source should also have its publisher fixed. CMD (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Range map should be scaled up and should include sourcing
  • File:Daniel_Urrabieta_y_Vierge_-_The_Murders_in_the_Rue_Morgue.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
Added.LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Female_Orang_-_Utan.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Primatenskelett-drawing-transparent.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When and where were these first published? And the last is still missing a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about. File:Primatenskelett-drawing-transparent.png isn't used in this article. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already added a tag to the last image. LittleJerry (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've added a tag stating the image was published before 1925. You haven't indicated when and where this was first published to qualify for that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done where? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, someone changed the template image back. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack edit

  • From the lead: Flanged (the distinctive cheek pads) adult males make long calls that attract females and intimidate rivals: the gloss disrupts reading quite a bit (the "the" is without reference) and not really comprehensible. In the "Characteristics" section "cheek pads" are not mentioned but "cheek flaps", is this the same (if so, please clarify or better use a single term consequently). But for this sentence, would "Flanged (with distinctive cheek pads) adult males …" work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • that Bontius' account referred not to apes (which were not known from Java) – Java wasn't mentioned before, so is here something missing or what does it mean?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The was renamed Simia pygmaeus in 1760 by his student Christian Emmanuel Hopp and given the name Pongo was by Lacépède in 1799 – Here are at least two grammatical issues.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Israfil et al – dot missing (et al.), but why not "and colleagues" to avoid the term altogether?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However a 2017 found – "study"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption: Adult male (left) and female – Since the differences between species were just discussed: Which species is this?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a male orangutan having arm span – "an" arm span?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • endocranial – link?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption: The orangutan's skeleton is well adapted for its arboreal lifestyle – Male or female? Important to mention since some sexual dimorphic characters just discussed can be seen here (sagittal crest; canines)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The joint and tendon arrangement in the orangutans' hands produces two adaptations significant for arboreal locomotion. – Is this the introduction for the following sentences? That is not totally clear. Also, the reference to the arboreal locomotion is already there in the previous sentence. The sentence does not really tell us anything? I would suggest to just remove it, it only leads to confusion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • not true knuckle-walkers; which involves – the ";" feels incorrect here; maybe insert "a form of locomotion"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life history – this section title does not work because "life history" has a much more narrow meaning in biology: The set of stages that an organism, or a species, experiences over its lifetime, from conception to death (from Wiktionary); it is therefore identical with "Reproduction and growth".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • more later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • During reading I felt that the first two paragraphs of the "Social life" section are a bit hard to follow as a common thread is sometimes not evident; there are different pieces of information somehow attached to each other and the logical succession of information could be improved. Particularly, I suggest to move the sentence Bornean orangutans are generally more solitary, moving and foraging alone while Sumatran orangutans travel in groups more often down to the place where travelling in groups is actually discussed.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • interberth interval – birth?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientists hope the data they collect will help researchers – this sounds as if "scientists" and "researchers" would be two different instances (I would remove both to be honest). This whole sentence does not tell us anything new about the apes themselves; hard to believe that there are not at least some opinions on their socialising patterns?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and preference was given to oral tool use – does this mean they put the sticks into their mouth to probe for insects rather than with their hands? Hard to believe.
That's what the research has shown. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • evidence of sophisticated tool manufacture – this is not explained and the reader if left wondering: How do they manufacture tools? For the reader this is difficult to guess. The material is wood I assume? They do not use tools to make tools or do they? Why is it "sophisticated"? Needs more explanation.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible linguistic capabilities – This whole section is solely about history of research: who did what and when. There is nothing about the actual scientific findings on this topic. If it is unclear if they have linguistic capabilities we at least need to hear the scientific opinions on this question. I think this section is the weakest of the article.
Removed. This is controversial and disputed anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • simians – not explained or linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orangutans that have loss their homes – lost?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It works to bring different stakeholders together to achieve conservation of the species and its habitat. – a bit awkward to speak in presence here, since this is subjective and predictive; uncontroversial statements can only be made about the past. What about "It proved to be efficient to bring …"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis and Jens Lallensack, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro, main ape line is a duplink of great apes.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the same photo of a male Tapanuli orangutan twice in succssion, a bit repetitive, nothing else that could be used for variation at one occurence?
Its easier to use this one. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under etymology, it could probably be more interesting to show a realy early illustration, do we know which is the first published?
Replacing old illustrations is too much of a headache. Especially since many don't come with dates. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have this one published by Linnaeus himself in 1763, which was not categorised properly (the last one is the organgutan):[2] FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this image[3] published by George Edwards in 1758.[4] That also seems to be an early English use of the name "man of the woods", which would fit neatly with the text under etymology. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "Man of the Woods" LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the image with the books[5] is problematic due to copyright of the book covers. But since Nikkimaria didn't bring it up, maybe it falls under de minimis.
  • The taxobox image is very unsharp, and the individual's head is in an angle that makes it hard to see the face. Any better photos to use?
No. LittleJerry (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Researching the man of the woods image, I also found this book[6], which states early scientists thought the sexes and growth stages were different species, which should definitely be looked into for the taxonomy section.
Added elsewhere. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the many other reviews seem to be done, the text appears to b stable, so I'll continue. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that his use of the word was misunderstood by Nicolaes Tulp, who was the first to use the term in a publication" When?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace published his account The Malay Archipelago: The Land of the Orang-Utan and the Bird of Paradise, in 1869" I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to convey in its context? If it is not the first mention in English, it seems kind of arbitrary and unnecessarily long.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lacépède used the term" You could give a longer version of his name (such as comte de Lacépède) as you do with other authors.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Linnaeus as Simia satyrus" Likewise, full name for Linnaeus.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in the Systema Natura" Link it, and perhaps add "the work" or similar, now you just assume the reader knows what it is.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in whether you give nationality and occupation for the people mentioned throughout.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pongo borneo" This name is not mentioned in the article body, and you don't explain how it arrived at Pongo pygmaeus.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genetics info seems arbitrarily divided between taxonomy and genetics. Why is it not in the same section, or in succession? Now it is divided by the fossil section.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The white space created by the long image under fossil record looks very intrusive. Maybe use another image, or is an image even needed there?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link the names of the different orangutan species at first mention in the article body and captions.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sumatran orangutan genome was sequenced in January 2011" and "Israfil and colleagues (2011)" Why do some studies get authorship and others don't?
This insist unusual in FAs.
Hmmm, in my experience it is mainly because it has been overlooked (nominators usually fix it when notified), it looks more professional when it is consistent.
Well they are both 2011 studies so I had to distinguish them. LittleJerry (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cladogram could contain links.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomy section looks better merged, I wonder if the skull photo should be right aligned so it doesn't clash with the header and image below it?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Orangutans' potential predators" A bit awkward, how about "potential predators of orangutans"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their hair seems unusually long compared to other apes (you only say coarse), mention?
I haven't read that. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ficus fruits fit both preferences" Maybe just say figs?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which contains the toxic alkaloid strychnine" So does this mean it does not harm them?
I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which involves consuming soil and other earth substances." Why?
It don't say but it usually helps with digestion. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have three very similar close ups of flanged males, but none show the throat pouch, which is notably absent from any photos. How about showing that structure too under Reproduction and development instead of the current male photo (which even crops the cheeks)? Here are some other photos:[7][8]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "climax with pulses and end with bubbles" I have no idea how to imagine these, any descriptions of the sounds?
Not given in source. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An orangutan at the San Diego Zoo using a tool" Add "to extract juice"? I thought it was insects from just looking at the photo.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was founded by Birutė Galdikas" Since she was already introduced, only needs last name.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November 2017" Month unnecessary. Only stated in intro anyway.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "younger males do not and resemble adult females" Only stated in intro.
They resemble them because they don't have the flanges. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of the brown or black hair typical of chimpanzees and gorillas" Only stated in into, not sure it is necessary.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, the intro could devote more words to physical features, not only their red hair and flanges is mentioned, but their long arms etc. are also notable.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the largest known primate, Gigantopithecus blacki." Not sure if this is necessary for the intro here, the subject is the genus, not the subfamily. It would be more relevant to devote the space to something about their own discovery, etymology, etc.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered to be critically endangered" To be is unnecessary.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice article and quick responses, which is lucky since I'm going away on vacation tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HaEr48 (support) edit

The article is in a good shape, thank you for your work. Some comments and suggestions:

  • The locals originally used the name to refer to actual forest-dwelling people, while the ape was called mawas. The locals of where? The Malay-speaking world is quite large, and Sumatra and Borneo—where the orangutans live—are two different islands
It doesn't say, but it should be obvious that "local" means near the orangutans. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but is it in Sumatra or Borneo? HaEr48 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is called "Malay words and Malay things" so I would say it's safe to assume it's in Malay, and glosbe.com and google translate confirm this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dunkleosteus77 that is not a safe assumption, Malay served as a lingua franca over a vast area for a significant amount of time, and there was significant local variation. A word from 1700 could come from anywhere. Even today both countries have a form of Malay as their official language. CMD (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This recent paper indicates mawas (sometimes maias) is used throughout their range. This source clearly evidences the term was in use in Sumatra in the 1960s. CMD (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source says that Malay-speaking people only used mawas or maias before the mid 19th century, and I don't get how the 2nd source is relevant to anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in question is which locals originally used to refer to orangutans as mawas. Does the first source not provide a potential answer to this? The second source I mostly included as an instance where mawas was used in English in a reflection of local use. CMD (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I got confused, I thought you were talking about the word mawas instead of orangutan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Chipmunkdavis's first link above is a really good find. Especially, the discussion in page 2 about how "orang utan" was first attested in Malay nnly to refer to a western word, and not as an indigenous name. I've always assumed that it was an indigenous name (after all, it is the current name in Malaysia and Indonesia, and "orang" and "hutan" clearly have Malay etymologies). Because we're discussing etymologies anyway, I think it is important that this is included in the article. HaEr48 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to this. I requested a copy. LittleJerry (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HaEr48 done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added this, which was what I was trying to suggest, would appreciate your opinion LittleJerry and Chipmunkdavis on whether this is significant and appropriate. HaEr48 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think may may have to avoid this since other sources state that "orangutan" was used by the people to refer to actual forest-dwelling humans. LittleJerry (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry: I don't think that's contrary to the fact that the word (referring to the animal) is borrowed from Western languages? HaEr48 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not contrary. "Orang" is still part of current terms for indigenous people. CMD (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess its fine then. HaEr48 can you finish the review? LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • published his account of Malaysia's wildlife: the Malay Archipelago's wildlife? The subject of the study appears to be the archipelago, which is much bigger than Malaysia; also, only a tiny part of the orangutan's range is in Malaysia.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • consisting of teeth ascribed to P. weidenreichi: P. weidenreichi has not been introduced.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Israfil and colleagues (2011) estimated that the Sumatran and Borean species diverged 2.9 to 4.9 mya: can we say what type of studies/evidence is used in this study? As opposed to the genome study mentioned in the next sentence. Same with the 2017 study.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • males develop a large sagittal crest and large cheek flaps: mentioned that the flaps are the same as the "flanges"? This is the first mention in the body
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to add an arrow/circle to an image showing in order to show precisely which is the flange? Even with the flanged : unflanged comparison it is not obvious to me.
No. LittleJerry (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Seems it will be useful for illustration, and needs only minimal effort. HaEr48 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by adding in an arrow. I can't just upload an image with an arrow on it. I don't see how one can't notice the cheek flaps. LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The flange is just the oversized cheeks which make the face look like a giant circle, as opposed to unflanged individual whose faces aren't that wide   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and secondary old growth forest: The article on old-growth forest says it is also called "primary forest", while there is also a secondary forest article which seems opposed to it – can you clarify or link which one is meant by "secondary old growth forest"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the climber species: Link "climber"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Adult males dominate sub-adult males: In what sense do they get dominated? Is there a good link?
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Females do most of the caring and socialising of the young: Is it possible to explain how the young gets "socialised"?
It already talks about "buddy travel". LittleJerry (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nesting: Does the nest get constructed each day/night, or does it last for a long time?
Each day/night. LittleJerry (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonnie, an orangutan at the National Zoo: Maybe mention which country's National Zoo this is?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argentina ruled that an orangutan: a court in Argentina? Or, could the court be named?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status and threats. In the table, suggest adding "Malaysia" next to Sabah and Sarawak, and Indonesia next to East, Central, and West Kalimantan, so that readers know the relative distribution between these two countries.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HaEr48, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work, and my feedback has been addressed. HaEr48 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dunkleosteus77 edit

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this review of Gigantopithecus literature, it is not reported from India and dates back to only 2 mya extending to 300 kya. I think the source is referring to Indopithecus which was split off. Gigantopithecus is also only confidently known from China, with potential occurrences in Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia (the Indonesian one doesn't seem to have gotten much attention) but these could possibly belong to Pongo. So if you're gonna include Vietnam, you might as say the other 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That complicates things since the 2011 study also finds the split between GAs and gibbons at 24.1 and 19.7 mya. The two different splits overlap some anyway.LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wanna check if "As in all Old World Primates, orangutan hands are similar to those of humans" should actually exclude New World Primates or if it should be switched to just "primates"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way you juxtaposed it, you seem to suggest that humans have a drastically short thumb and have equally curved phalanges as orangutans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't just keep adding everything. This page is not a dumping ground. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just arbitrarily mention 1 plant and on top of that present it as if it's the only plant orangutans are documented to use, especially if the total number of plants is 2, and all you have to do is change "plants of the genus Commelina" → "plants of the genus Commelina as well as Dracaena cantleyi"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this, "Orangutans have the most prolonged nursing period of any mammal, with the cessation of suckling (weaning) estimated to occur at 6 to 8 years of age in the wild."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weaning is already mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the article says they're weaned at 4   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial. That has been recorded in a ton of species and has its own article. Someone else can add it if they wish but I don't see why it would be important for FA. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you severely underestimate how well known homesexual activity in animals is among the general population   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. I don't see the need to mention it. There's already an article on the subject. LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are active at day and sleep at night. Its not that complicated. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Experiments have also suggested that orangutans can communicate about things that are not present, mother orangutans remain silent in the presence of a perceived threat but produce an alarm call to their offspring when the threat is out of sight." I'm not really getting the significance to intelligence. Don't a lot of animals have an all clear signal when the predator leaves? Also, why would the mother make an all clear signal to the offspring? Is the offspring hiding somewhere?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The offspring is with them. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the offspring is with her, why would she be producing an alarm call? Why is she signaling danger after the danger is already gone?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it will associate what they saw with danger. And it isn't a all-clear call. Its a delayed alarm call. LittleJerry (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's some good clarifying information to put down that it's for teaching purposes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the image caption in Tool use and culture, instead of drawing attention to the precision grip, you should draw attention to tool use   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you should specifically state that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well they're any natural material they could find. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leaves? bones? sticky sap? roots? pits?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tools use with the mouth. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then what specifically were the cultural differences?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Material. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should say that Galdikas was funded by Leakey so Camp Leakey isn't just hanging there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or (in the case of P. tapanuliensis) a more recent, report" recent is a relative term. You should use specific years if you're really trying to emphasize the difference in publication times   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know of it, but I don't see the need to keep mentioning different genera.
You mention every other pongine except Indopithecus so I don't really see the reason to exclude this in particular when you've included all the others   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have mentioned the ones mentioned in my book. So its not arbitrary. Ankarapithecus is another member of Pongine. LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ankarapithecus is problematic and is also argued to be a dryopithecine here. Since your book gave Gigantopithecus evolving 5 mya instead of 2 mya, I'm guessing your book including Indopithecus with Gigantopithecus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you present something in a listing format as you did here, what you're telling the reader (whether you like it or not) is that this is a complete list and there are no other pongines, and considering this is such an easy fix I don't understand why you're blocking   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because having to dig up a source that mentions its date range and location is an unneeded effort. Especially if you have no access. I don't see the need to have to dig up a source on Indopithecus when it is not the subject of the article. You can add it if you wish. LittleJerry (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why you vehemently refuse simple and unobtrusive comments that take 5 minutes of googling. I wasn't asking you to add an entire section, just a single part of a sentence. Anyways, I've added it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have different ideas on what's unnecessary and what's not. Other reviewers, what do you think about the inclusion of zoopharmacognosy, Indopithecus, and homosexual behavior?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tag them; FunkMonk, HaEr48. LittleJerry (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the subject matter to have a strong opinion on any of these, but if as Dunkleosteus77 said there are only two plants with that purpose, I think it makes sense to include both rather than arbitrarily including one. HaEr48 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm actually reading the source, it specifically says "This plant [Dracaena cantleyi] was previously misidentified as Commelina sp. in 2008" and the 2008 source is the one used in this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added then. The other two to me are tedious demands. You can add them yourself if you wish but can we please move on from them? LittleJerry (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if we present a list of something (extinct relatives or plants), we should either make them very short and general, or make them complete, instead of arbitrarily missing the mark by one taxon or so. As for homosexuality, since it is a very notable subject when it comes to for example bonobos, I wonder why it shouldn't be included here too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I included the ones listed in my book. And not all apes display homosexual behavior as extensively as bonobos. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think there's a little bit more to add on sexual behavior. You've underscored how high forced copulation rates in orangutans are compared to most other mammals, and you don't have much of anything on female sexual behavior (this article talks a lot about female choice)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned female choice "While both strategies can be successful, females prefer to mate with flanged males and seek their company for protection. However, in some areas females prefer unflanged males during times of instability and do not resist copulations.". LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should specify that "While both strategies can be successful" this is for males, and that not resisting during times of instability (as well as after conception) is a paternity confusion behavior as an infanticide avoidance strategy, that it's suggested that females use facultative association to reduce the risk of contraception with an unflanged male, and that females can attempt to resist forced copulation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Females will mate with unflanged males outside of ovulation" it's probably more accurate to say "will not resist copulation"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77 everything else has been added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77? HaEr48? Chipmunkdavis? LittleJerry (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Has there been a source review? If not, please add it to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth what kind of review? Chipmunkdavis looked at source formating. LittleJerry (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look, but I think a full confirmation is best left to an experienced FA hand. CMD (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to look at every source, just some random ones that you can access. Like two or three. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, a good source review looks at the reliability of all the sources, not just "some random ones" or "two or three". --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it got confused with a spot-check, maybe. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth if its not a spotcheck then CMD already did a review of both formatting and source quality. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think given Chipmunkdavis' statement above that it might be best if there was a second look at the quality of sources and an evaluation of them against the FA criteria. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria could you do a source reliability check? LittleJerry (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN1 is misformatted. Ditto FN2, FN6. FNs 11 through 13 can be models for what these should look like.
  • Dictionaries are works and should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't italicize them. LittleJerry (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can, you'd just need to use a different parameter for them other than |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
  • Fn20: date doesn't match source
  • How does FN42 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • FN46: why not cite the original study?
Fine removed. LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent whether you format PLOS vs PLoS
  • FN70 should use work title USA Today and not the current |publisher=
What does this mean? LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A work title is a title of a larger publication like a newspaper or magazine. It's coded in the template using one of several available parameters, such as |website= or |newspaper=, which result in it being displayed italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN95 should use publisher CNN.
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • FN99 is missing website
  • Be consistent in whether book titles use sentence or title case
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN103 should use publisher PETA
  • FN104: The Telegraph is a work title. Ditto The Week, check for others
I don't know what you mean with these. What is "work title". LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN118 appears to be a children's book - why is this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth? LittleJerry (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get Nikkimaria to agree that the changes resolve their concerns. I can't know if they are or not until they weigh in. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, Nikkimaria only responds when something isn't fixed. That they haven't replied means that everything's fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replying: FN77 has an error in the author list, FN124 and 132 are still missing italics on website. Otherwise fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed rest. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Orangutan/archive1&oldid=970383883"