# Talk:Cotton-top tamarin

It seems that this page has a pretty complete description of the Cottontop.. anyone else think it is time to de-stub it?    Katy 16:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It contains well more than a couple sentences therefore is not a stub.  Cburnett 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the article needs more information on the scientific name in order to "de-stub."  Does this species have some sort of infatuation with their mothers?  Or does Oedipus refer to something else entirely?

I did a little searching on the 'net and found that "oedipus" comes from Latin, from the Greek Oidipous: oidein, "to swell" and pous, "foot."  Does this contribute? divokz 16:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This article does not list the size of the animal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.243.254 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 

Another writer has now listed some of the physical characteristics for the species, but I will edit the organization of that section soon to make it more accessible to readers. Nsavalia23 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a "taxonomy and phylogeny" section, with the material coming from the  Spanish Wikipedia.  That version makes a reference to GROOVES, which I believe is meant to be  Groves; however, the reference cited:

"Defler, T (2003). José Vicente Rodríguez Mahecha (ed.). Primates of Colombia (2nd ed.)." is a book I don't have access to.  Can someone who does have access confirm or deny this? --Greenbreen (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This article, as a top-importance start-class piece, needs some work. In its current form, the article is mostly informative about the species’ endangered status and conservation efforts. A number of changes are needed to elevate this article. First, a broader description of the species is needed in the top overview section. This should give more background on the species, including where it is specifically from since this information is only mentioned in an accompanying graphic. A behavior section would also help organizationally. Sections that touch on social behavior, reproduction, and diet should be added under an overarching general behavior category. Communication could also be expanded on and added to this behavior section. This section at present is mostly concerned with expressing emotions like those perceived by humans, but there is no discussion of alarm calls or many other forms of animal communication with more ecological validity. Any information on the cottontop tamarin's social behavior in the wild will really move this article forward. Though the cotton-top tamarin is critically endangered and there may not be a large population in the wild, there may still be evidence about their behavior in captivity that would be useful to mention. In general, the behavior section should include the types of groups (if any) the cottontop tamarin lives in. This section should also start addressing questions about kin recognition and selection, the role that nape length may play (i.e. possibly a “greenbeard” trait), and altruism and spite in the population. Nsavalia23 3:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


### Primary review
Nsavalia23, you did a great job adding to the article! It is now very informative, and I certainly learned a lot about the social structure and communication behaviors of these amazing primates. I made some minor edits to the article by changing some sentence structures and some wording. One suggestion I have is for you to cite the last sentence of paragraph 3 under "Cooperation and Altruism." Also, why is "Cottontop tamarin" never capitalized? I'm not sure, but aren't specific animal names usually capitalized? Ihyuan (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ihyuan, thanks for your suggestions and edits! I must have overlooked the capitalization, but will make sure to go back and fix that. I will also be sure to go back and cite that hanging claim you mention above. Nsavalia23 (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


### Secondary review
This is a well written article. While reading, I edited some minor grammatical errors in the behavior section. There wasn't anything significant that took away from the effect of the article. I feel that the Cooperation & Altruism section is a bit lengthy. I think that if that section was divided into two different sections it would be more effective. I didn't want to change it on the article for you just in case if you had your own ideas for how to divide it (or leave it whole). Overall, a great article. Jeremy.winkler (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy.winkler, I appreciate your feedback and grammar fixes. I reassessed that section and have split it up into "Cooperation", "Altruism", and I changed "Punishment and Spite" into simply "Spite" for now. In the coming few days I will be sure to review these sections to make the distinctions more clear, particularly between the "Cooperation" and "Altruism" sections. Again, these sub-headings are likely to change again after further review. Nsavalia23 (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


### Tertiary review
This article is well-written and very informative. I also edited some of the grammar errors, specifically in the Taxonomy and phylogeny and Physical characteristics sections. I also reworded some things to make the paragraphs run smoother and to help clarify meaning. Overall, though, great job! WhitleyTucker (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

WhitleyTucker thank you very much for your additions to the whole of this piece. I have not yet started working on sections outside of behavior, but you and the other writers for this page have paved a neat path for doing so. Your edits to the clarity and flow of this page are also greatly valued! Nsavalia23 (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This article has come a long way, the social systems and communication sections are now fairly thorough but will require further work. Mostly citation formatting and trimming/grammar checks will be needed. I am hoping to add two more sections to the Behavior section: "Reproduction" and "Dispersion and philopatry." While much of the information for both sections will come from McGrew & McLuckie (1986), the former may rely heavily on French et al. (1983, 1984), Savage et al. (1988), Price (1992) and Ziegler et al. (1993), and the latter should incorporate Patricia Neyman's work from 1978 and 1980. 
While this is all a good start, these future edits and help from other contributors should hopefully jumpstart the Cotton-top tamarin article on its way towards A-rank or Good Article status! Again, work on the pieces outside of behavior remain to be edited in a serious way. In particular, physical characteristics, phylogeny, and conservation could benefit from more info/expansion. The opening section should also be lengthened, possibly with more location specifics. And of course, more pictures and feedback!
Nsavalia23 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nsavalia23! I have to say first that the cottontop tamarin looks really cute! I love the pictures shown in this entry. The article is very well-written and offers rich information on the behaviors of the tamarin. I mainly looked at the new communication section and corrected a few grammatical mistakes. The inline citation and Wikipedia links all look great. There is one thing that I am confused about. You talked about the "habituation-discrimination paradigm" in "General calling" but there seemed to be no explanation on what the paradigm is. I checked on wikipedia and there isn't a link for that. Maybe you can elaborate a little bit about what the "habituation-discrimination paradigm" is about. Also, I noticed that there is a gallery on the bottom of the entry. This is nice! However, if you can actually incorporate some of them inside the main text, it will be more interesting to read. I look forward to seeing your two additional sections on reproduction and dispersion and philopatry. Thank you for your hard work and earnest attitude towards this article. I have learned a lot. Keep up the great work. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I made some minor grammatical/wording changes and added a few hyperlinks. Overall, the article looks really good. Zhangt2413 (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This article cites some papers authored with Mark Hauser, who is a well-known fraud, having fabricated some of his data. Whatever the merits of these particular studies, it might be prudent to find some alternate sources to cite instead.

 This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by  the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page. 
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)