GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Grondemar ( talk · contribs) 05:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an excellent article and with a little work and a peer review may be a candidate for Featured Article status; for Good Article, I just have a few minor concerns:
As I read back in the comments here I can see that Answers.com was used as a research source. Anyone can go to answers.com and ask a question, then answer it, and cite it here at wikipedia. I removed one citation, but the sheer amount of non-matching citations makes this a problem I do not have the time for right now. This article not GA material. It is a shame that this many years in, wikipedia is still subject to this type of nonsense.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.108.138 ( talk) 19:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. – Grondemar 08:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Additional comments
Thanks for addressing my concerns above. I posted a clarification of one of my questions above; if you could address that as well as the additional concerns identified by Sasata above, I'd appreciate it. – Grondemar 21:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Additional comments by Jack
I would echo Sasata's comments, the level of coverage is pretty low with comparable GA primate articles. Many of the references are from zoo websites or newspapers rather than peer-reviewed scientific literature. Here are some additional comments.
I think quite a bit of work is needed to push the article in line with other primate articles of GA standard but it is certainly attainable! Keep up the good work and it'll get there. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Grondemar ( talk · contribs) 05:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an excellent article and with a little work and a peer review may be a candidate for Featured Article status; for Good Article, I just have a few minor concerns:
As I read back in the comments here I can see that Answers.com was used as a research source. Anyone can go to answers.com and ask a question, then answer it, and cite it here at wikipedia. I removed one citation, but the sheer amount of non-matching citations makes this a problem I do not have the time for right now. This article not GA material. It is a shame that this many years in, wikipedia is still subject to this type of nonsense.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.108.138 ( talk) 19:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. – Grondemar 08:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Additional comments
Thanks for addressing my concerns above. I posted a clarification of one of my questions above; if you could address that as well as the additional concerns identified by Sasata above, I'd appreciate it. – Grondemar 21:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Additional comments by Jack
I would echo Sasata's comments, the level of coverage is pretty low with comparable GA primate articles. Many of the references are from zoo websites or newspapers rather than peer-reviewed scientific literature. Here are some additional comments.
I think quite a bit of work is needed to push the article in line with other primate articles of GA standard but it is certainly attainable! Keep up the good work and it'll get there. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)