# Talk:Pygmy slow loris

Hi, there is a recent publication about how sunlight and temperature affect slow loris' behaviour. I think the information there should be added to the article. Maybe User:Maky could do it. (If he had time, of course) [1] --Andresisrael (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this.  I added the important information, but didn't touch upon the conclusions because this is a newly published primary source. – Maky « talk » 04:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Studbook records show that the youngest pygmy loris male to sire offspring was a little under 18 months of age, and two females have conceived at 16 months. -- Fitch-Snyder, H.; Jurke, M. (2003). "Reproductive patterns in pygmy lorises (Nycticebus pygmaeus): Behavioral and physiological correlates of gonadal activity". Zoo Biology. 22 (1): 15–32. doi:10.1002/zoo.10072. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
The reference was originally the Husbandry manual so I changed it to this^ paper which I think is correct. I can only see the abstract which states the youngest male to sire offspring was 73 weeks, which is a bit over 16 and a half months so I've updated the article accordingly. I don't have access to the paper though so can't be any more specific than the page range.
I don't have access to any of the remaining sources without page numbers so someone else will have to have a look at them.
Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is kind of where I'm stuck.  Sasata wrote the article with those sources, and I think he's the only one that can get them.  If it hadn't been for this, I would have at least submitted it for GAN.  Thanks for taking the time on it, though. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to the following papers?

Zhang, Y. -P.; Chen, Z. -P.; Shi, L. -M. (1993). "Phylogeny of the slow lorises (genus Nycticebus): an approach using mitochondrial DNA restriction enzyme analysis". International Journal of Primatology. 14 (1): 167–175. doi:10.1007/BF02196510. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Duckworth, J. W. (1994). "Field sightings of the pygmy loris, Nycticebus pygmaeus, in Laos". Folia Primatologica. 63 (2): 99–101. doi:10.1159/000156800. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Nadler, T.; Streicher, U. (2004). "Primates in Vietnam – an overview". In Nadler, T.; Streicher, U.; Long Hà, T.. Conservation of Primates in Vietnam. Hanoi: Haki Press. pp. 3–11. OCLC 224818225.
Groves, C. P. (2001). Primate Taxonomy. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN 978-1-56098-872-4.
They are the final papers without page numbers, and after that I think it's ready for GAN. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have the first one, and added a page number for it. However, do we really need page numbers for these short papers for GAN? It's not a GA requirement to have page numbers on even the shortest sources. Ucucha (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I think the other two are just referenced in other papers, doesn't that give the original reference a bit more weight anyway? Jack (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been leaving Vietnamese authors named fully intact, e.g. Dao Van Tien, because the naming structure does not suit it's self well to referencing: [Surname] [Middle name] [First name]. Dao Van Tien would probably be referred to as Mr. Tien, because Van just means male, and surnames are generally very common. There is lots of debate about how libraries should index Vietnamese names (see Google), so I think that since we should use full names rather than rearrange them into strange orders. Jack (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that {{Sfn}} won't work unless you use the last (last name) parameter in the cite tags.  There can be similar confusion with Japanese, since given and surnames are reversed—hence "Yuki Midorikawa" would be an English representation of the name, and "Midorikawa Yuki" would be how the Japanese would write it.  Controversy or not, we need to pick something, otherwise the ref links won't work. – Maky « talk » 14:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, in this article we are already adjusting the names of Chinese authors for citation purposes (following the journals in which the articles were published).  I think it's only fair that we do the same for the Vietnamese names, which follow the same system. – Maky « talk » 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Ahh I didn't realise it broke Sfn. Fair enough, bring on papers by Nguyen, Nguyen, & Nyguen!! It's incredible that nearly 40% of surnames are the same! Jack (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
In this edit I have removed the unknown page numbers and left the references to refer to the full papers/book. Page numbers are not a requirement of GAN so I think this is the best way to get it listed or else it might sit here forever! The page numbers can be hunted down or replaced if the article is taken through FAC. That means it's time for someone to nominate it :) I'm happy to help it along if needed. Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully Sasata can dig up his sources again and fix the page numbers.  Otherwise, once I fix a few more ref links, I can nominate it for GAN.  Thanks for all the hard work, Jack! – Maky « talk » 14:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright... I have either found page numbers or eliminated unneeded refs that lacked page numbers.  We need to put the "Literature cited" section in alphabetical order, which I'll do once Sasata is done editing.  Also, I don't like the following ref: "Biodiversity and Protected Areas – Viet Nam" (PDF). Earth Trend. 2003.  I'm not sure if it's reliable, and there appears to be conflicting numbers found here.  Should we delete this piece of information until we can find a more recent and reliable source?  – Maky « talk » 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree; sourced axed. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Good.  If Jack finds a better ref, we can add something back in along those lines.  I'll start sorting the refs now.  – Maky « talk » 17:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Refs sorted.  Once Sasata is happy with the state of the article, I'll support GAN nomination. – Maky « talk » 17:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I put the article in the queue. Thanks for the kick in the butt guys; it'll be good to finally finish off the slow loris good topic! Sasata (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help!  As for the good topic... well, I have two more B-class articles about the new species I need to polish up... – Maky « talk » 20:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pygmy slow loris/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I will review this article within this day. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Sasata (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome! First, the intro says "crawling along branches using slow, deliberate movements in search of prey." Why should it be pointed out that the movements are deliberate? Seems like common sense.
Sure, removed "deliberate". Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
"has virtually no tail." It seems a bit vague. Wouldn't "a very short tail", or a measurement be more accurate?
Changed to "very short tail". Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
"The teeth on its lower jaw" wouldn't "in" its lower jaw be more accurate?
Yes, fixed. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
"Urine scent markings have a strong characteristic odor and are an important means of communication." If it is plural, shouldn't "an" be removed?
Sentence reworded. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of good photos on Commons[2], why use such a blurry one in the taxobox?
Swapped lead image for one clearer. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
On that note, if they commonly hang upside down, wouldn't it be nice to show it?[3]
Good idea, done. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Vietnamese (or where it's from) names work, but should the full name of Dao Van Tien be used in the taxobox, instead of a last name?
According to the IUCN, this is his author abbreviation (so no change). Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Al right. Again, I have no clue on how Vietnamese names work. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Does the caption of the image under Anatomy and physiology need to repeat the article at length? If you shortened it, you could also get rid of the white space under it.
I know that one of the helping authors is a fan of explicative captions (on the presumption that most readers will only read the lead and look at the pictures), but I trimmed it a little bit. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Seems like redundancy to me, but I guess its a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Another way to remove the white space could be to swap the position of the skull image and the face image. In that way, the living animal will also face the text, per MOS. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
"with no significant difference between the sexes" If there are any, they should be mentioned. If not, should be reworded. As is, it reads like you're leaving out info.
Hmmm ... it doesn't read like that to me. Can you suggest a wording you'd be satisfied with? (would prefer not to leave it out, as many animals show sexual dimorphism, and if there's no explicit mention, perhaps some readers might think it had been forgotten?) Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Then maybe say there are no significant dimorphism, apart from in size?FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no difference including size; I've reworded this to just say explicitly "there is no significant difference in size between the sexes." Sasata (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the text indicates there's a weight difference at least, which is what I meant. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
There is info about female attraction to scent marks under behaviour, but shouldn't this be under reproduction?
Possibly, but I think it also fits where it is (and reproduction follows shortly, so the material is not widely separated). Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
"Being a generalist food eater" sounds a bit awkward. It's like "water drinker" or something, common sense. Rephrase?
Done. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Seasonal weight changes are mentioned under anatomy, but it could be specified how they obtain higher weights under the diet section.
Again perhaps, but I think it works ok where it is. Will see if any of my co-authors have an opinion about this. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
My issue was not so much the placement, more that it needs elaboration. As is, it is just mentioned they are fatter in some seasons, not how. Do they eat intensively for a short time prior to winter, or is it a gradual build up in weight?
Added "The weight gains, achieved largely by increasing food intake, are triggered by changes in the length of the day and night." Sasata (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
"The population in China has been estimated at less than 500 individuals" and "In China, Daweishan, Fenshuiling, and Huanglianshan Reserve maintained approximately 80% of the population of the species in 2007" seem to contradict each other.
I don't see the contradiction; less than 500 individuals in China, of which 80% are in Daweishan, Fenshuiling, and Huanglianshan Reserves ... Sasata (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, because it kind of reads like it is 80% of the species worldwide, unless you specify/rephrase it is 80% of the species in China. Maybe it's just because the sentence is so long that it is unclear. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully clarified with "...maintained approximately 80% of that country's population of the species..." Sasata (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
There are some images[4][5] of a specimen with some kind of tracking device, could be nice to show under conservation.
Not sure what those are, so I'll wait for Maky to chime in. Sasata (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I see, could also be a collar and leash or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
That's it from me for now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It is pretty much a GA now, so I'll pass it next time you respond. Few remaining issues can be changed afterwards, or are optional. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your helpful review! Sasata (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Alright, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I've fix the taxobox so that it shows the new genus. However, I can't figure out how to make it bold. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)