# Talk:Nycticebus kayan

This is in reply to the discussion that was started on Template:Did you know nominations/Nycticebus kayan:  To be honest, we don't need a lot of detailed information about the toxic bite in each and every slow loris species article.  The article Slow loris discusses it as well as the primary and secondary literature allow.  I suggest linking back to that (in the "Behavior and ecology" section), otherwise we will be trying to standardize eight or nine full interpretations of the literature.  It's a fascinating topic that's horribly misunderstood (and poorly discussed by the news media) but this article doesn't need to go into gory details.  As for conservation status, there's not much that can be said besides the speculations given in the news articles... which are far from authoritative.  Anyway, I will be adding a lot more information from the research article when it's published.  I have a copy, but I'm not sharing it or citing it until it's published.  In the meantime, feel free to develop this as much as you can, but please don't duplicate (or contradict) the "Slow loris" article. – Maky « talk » 23:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nycticebus kayan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, some quick thoughts-

"the northern and central highland region of the island of Borneo in Indonesia." This is ambiguous. Borneo is not in Indonesia; Borneo is an island shared between several countries including Indonesia. If the entirety of the loris's range is in Indonesia, it does belong in the first paragraph, but this is not the best way to do it.
Good catch.  Sorry, I'm used to hearing "the islands of Indonesia", and didn't think carefully about the wording. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"This population was originally thought to be a Bornean slow loris" Group noun (population) to singular noun (a slow loris)
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"species of slow loris of the genus Nycticebus" Is this not redundant?
I put the genus in parentheses. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"Additionally, N. kayan emerged as a new species, which had previously been overlooked" I assume you mean by this that it was previously considered no different from the nominate subspecies? If so, perhaps say so?
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"Data suggests that" What sort of data?
I have tried to clarify this.  It comes from "Table II: Chi-Square and Pair-Wise Comparison Results".  I did not add this bit, and I'm not really hot about it because the text does not discuss it much, and in places seems to contradict some of these relationships for the various groups.  However, I wanted to try and maintain the work of the other authors, so I massaged it as best I could.  If you would rather see it removed, just say so. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see more of a basic description, rather than jumping quickly into its differences from other species. At least move the sizing information to the first paragraph?
Done. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
In the distribution section, it may be worth clarifying the countries in which the species is found.
Done. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"making its eyes appear larger than they really are." Why would that deter predators? Expanding on that would also help expand that paragraph.
Unfortunately, the source goes no further.  It reads: "The observed differences within Bornean lorises may be a result of mate recognition or an anti-predator strategy by deceptively appearing to have larger eyes and larger size."  If needed, I could find a source that talks about the strategy in general, but not for slow lorises.  I did search the book "Primate Anti-Predator Strategies" and came up with nothing. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You give the publication location of one journal but not others (probably not required) and give ISBNs for only some of the books (better to give it for all)
The location was only given for a book, and that has been removed.  The same book was also lacking a ISBN, but one is not available.  Instead, the OCLC was provided. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it right to say this was described in 2012, when the publication was 2013?
Sorry, I'm still trying to catch all of these.  It was announced in 2012 through a leak to the press, but the publication didn't come out until January 2013.  Hopefully I've got them all now. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If you have the Borneo category, do you really need Mammals of Southeast Asia?
Thanks for catching that.  Looks like people got a little overzealous with the categories. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Referencing and research seems to be very strong. The writing needs a few little tweaks, but, overall, a very nice article. I made some small changes; please double-check. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The edits were great.  I'm really sorry... I thought I had proofread the article the night I revised it, but apparently not.  I really appreciate the careful review. – Maky « talk » 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'm now happy to promote- this is a solid good article. I will, however, leave a few thoughts on improvement if you're looking towards FAC:
The description is still a little technical; it may be difficult for the non-specialist to read that and really have any idea how the species looks.
The lack of pictures is a shame. Distribution maps and pictures of closely related species may be good additions. A picture showing the faces of the various species so that the masks can be differentiated would be super helpful.
The Huffington Post is probably best avoided; if you're taking it to FAC, that may be picked up.
Slightly odd one that you've probably thought of, but perhaps best to wait a year or two. Since the recent split, I'd imagine academics are chomping at the bit to get publishing on the subject.
You don't even mention the authors of the original description of this new species in the prose.
As I say, they're just some things to muse on if you're looking to take this article further; it is very strong how it is regardless. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Btw, thanks for the suggestions.  I wasn't planning on taking it to FAC until more is published, and I do hope to add photos/illustrations, but it depends on what I can get people to release.  I'll try to work on the descriptions, but they're simply technical in nature (if you're talking about the fine details).  We'll see what I can do.  Btw, what's wrong with the Huffington Post?  Granted, I don't consider *any* news source reliable, and I don't read that news source (or know much about it), but the science article seems pretty sound. – Maky « talk » 02:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)