Talk:Slow loris/Archive 1

Archive 1

illegal pet trade?

Some information on this would be a good addition to the article.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A valid question. Due to the increasing popularity of this animal due to the media exposure of one of these animals being kept as a pet in Russia, it has left many readers interested in ownership.

I can first tell you that there are more than two statutes in the United States, several in Canada, and one international treaty that protects endangered and threatened species. In the US, the most notable would be the Endangered Species Act of 1973 which forbids the "importing or exporting, taking, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, transporting, or shipping" — essentially trafficking endangered species without permission. In short, it is illegal in many advanced western nations that are pro-conservation to own endangered or threatened species. In places like Russia and China, however, it is not illegal to own certain 'rare' pets, hence the slow loris pet from Russia that has become so famous. Mkdw^talk 08:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Some sources indicate that the slow lorris makes a bad pet (beyond being illegal). Unfortunately, most sources are just forum posts and stuff; here's a potentially good one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6731631.stm Kimera757 (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

popularity

In May/June 2009, the Slow Loris became really well known because of a video of one being tickled: http://bestofyoutube.com/story.php?title=slow-loris-loves-a-nice-tummy-rub

You can see what this did to the Google search (it looks like it spiked at 100x the previous volume): http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22slow+loris%22

Can someone, who is better at writing within Wiki guidelines than I am, put in a section about "Slow Loris in popular press" (or something like that) with a link to what has become a bit of a viral video?

Also, this raises one question in my mind- do all loris so enjoy being tickled?

Dear Stevenj

The purpose of a discussion page is to discuss things. Not to delete other people's comments without adding value, leaving just your topic. If you have opinions on the above topic, please add comments. 193.134.170.35 (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

Let's get this party started! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 17:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sections

Everyone who wants to be involved needs to list the sections that they would be interested in writing. Personally, I favor the general article structure used on Lemur. I hope that's okay with everyone else. We can always add or merge sections if needed. The headings are listed below. (I have already taken the liberty of merging quite a few of the headings.)

• 1 Etymology (needed?)
• 1 Evolutionary history – VisionHolder « talk »
  • 1.1 Distribution and diversity
  • 1.2 Taxonomic classification and phylogeny
• 2 Anatomy and physiology
• 3 Behavior and ecology
  • 3.1 Diet
  • 3.2 Social systems
  • 3.3 Predator avoidance The Arbiter^Talk
  • 3.4 Reproduction
• 5 Ecology
• 5 Conservation status – VisionHolder « talk »
• 6 Cultural references The Arbiter^Talk

As for myself, I would be most interested in writing the "Evolutionary history" section (given it's close tie-in to the Lemur evolutionary history article I've previously written), although I may require some assistance with the taxonomic classification section—both in terms of acquiring sources and mentally processing the 200-year mess of prosimian taxonomy. I am also interested in writing the "Conservation status" section. I don't know what we'll find for "cultural references" from SE Asia. As for the YouTube video that's driving this page's popularity, I'm not sure how we can mention it unless we can find a reliable source about it. I can also help with the anatomy section since I have a pretty good primate anatomy book on-hand. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I am adjusting the section headings, most notably by merging "Behavior" and "Ecology". Since there are three people interested in the "Behavior" topic (or subtopics), I ask that you discuss amongst yourself how to divide it up. This section will be the largest in the article, so I'm sure there will be plenty to divide up. Also, there appears to be a lot of information about captive care (from a zoo perspective), and that raises the question of where (and if?) to include it. Thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 22:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I think I'll take "Predator avoidance", and since I'm pretty active in WP:ZOO and Portal:Zoos and aquariums, I can take the zoo perspective captive care stuff. Would this be about how they are raised in captivity? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

About captive care, I'm not sure. I've have to see what's available in the literature. There are links to some material at: http://www.loris-conservation.org/ – VisionHolder « talk » 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I’m taking predator avoidance and cultural references. I signed my name next to the sections I’m doing. Could everyone else please do the same? The Arbiter^Talk 22:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

References

I have the following print sources on hand to assist in the article's creation.

• Fitch-Snyder, H; Livingstone, K (2008). "Lorises: The Surprise Primate". ZooNooz. San Diego Zoo: 10–14.

• Sussman, RW (2003). Primate Ecology and Social Structure. Vol. Vol 1: Lorises, Lemurs, and Tarsiers. Pearson Custom Publishing. ISBN 978-0536743633. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

• Ankel-Simons, F (2007). Primate Anatomy (3rd ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-372576-3.

• Nowak, RM (1999). Walker's Primates of the World. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-6251-5.

• Chatterjee, HJ; Ho, SYW; Barnes, I; Groves, C (2009). "Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates using a supermatrix approach" (PDF). BMC Evolutionary Biology. 9 (259). doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-259.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Unfortunately, I don't have Acrobat, so I can't scan them and send them to everyone else. However, I will gladly look up information upon request.

Also, if I can find a good reference (possibly on the IUCN Red List site?), I can also try to make a range map for the genus. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'll claim the "Behaviour" section for now, with the caveat that it doesn't really matter that much to me what section I work on, and anyone else is welcome to "trade" for it. I've got online access to academic databases and am walking distance from a University library. I'll start a sandbox soon and report back here later (assuming we're doing the sandbox method like with Fossa). Sasata (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Here's my sandbox, not much there yet, just collecting sources. Will update when I actually get something done. Sasata (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll take "Ecology". I have acess to a few online databases...But not too many print sources. Visionholder if you ever find a way to scan them it would be great if you could send them to me. :) Thanks! By the way...are we doing the sandbox method? I guess that would be the best way to go, but then again, I could use a few more mainspace edits in my edit count lol. 00:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)The Arbiter^★_★^★
    • IMO, this article needs so much work, as long as your edits don't "break" anything, I don't see any problems with you writing your section on the mainspace. As for scanning the sources, I'd need to find a free PDF converter. Once upon a time, I had a PDF print driver that would output in PDF format, but I no longer have that. Sorry. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Microsoft Word? If so, you could scan them into Word and then Save the file as a pdf. Otherwise, you could probably find file converters all over the internet. Try here and here. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 02:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• I can take a shot at "Diet" and "Social Systems", since I have Sussman's book, although others will probably need to fill in some details. A few other offline sources that might be useful are:

• Menon, Vivek (2009). Mammals of India (Princeton Field Guides). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691140674.
• Campbell, Christina; et al., eds. (2006). Primates in Perspective. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195171334. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor= (help) (There is also a 2009 edition)
• Rowe, Noel (1996). The Pictorial Guide to the Living Primates. Pogonias Press. ISBN 978-0964882515.
• Strier, Karen (2002). Primate Behavioral Ecology (2nd edition ed.). Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0205352364. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) (There is a more recent edition of this book as well)

Rlendog (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just a heads up - I am finding next to nothing on social systems. Sussman's book just says that little research has been done, and I haven't found more than a couple more sentences worth of material than that (basically that they are usually found singly, but sometimes in pairs). I have had a little more success finding material about diet. Rlendog (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's entirely possible that very little is known about certain aspects of their biology. If that's the case, we can always divide up the sections again to make sure that everyone has something to work on. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Gimme a week or so and I'll be ready to do some work on this. Shoot me an email with any relevant info sources. I'm in the whirlwind of post-wedding chaos and will be back at work on Dec 15. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Here’s my sandbox guys, I’m working on ecology…if anyone finds good sources, please email them to me! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 15:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few links that might help in reference finding:

• http://www.loris-conservation.org/
• http://www.loris-conservation.org/database/Coauthors/Helena.html
• http://placentation.ucsd.edu/pygmylorisfs.htm
• http://www.archive.org/stream/reviewofprimates01elli#page/21/mode/1up

I'll post more as I find them. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made a 3.5 Mb PDF file of the ZooNooz article that covers general info about lorises (including the genus Loris, which is not covered by this article) and a 1.0 Mb PDF covering the slow loris material in Walker's Primates of the World. Anyone who wants copies to work from may email me through Wiki and I will send the files. As for the other book sources, there could be dozens and dozens of pages, so I'm not sure where to start. Also, I have emailed one of the leading Nycticebus expert (Helena Fitch-Snyder) and requested help obtaining photos. If I'm lucky, we should get something better to work with. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a new link to the list of links above. It's an older book (pre-1923), but it might have some useful info or pictures. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Formatting references

Are there any strong opinions about how to format references? Personally, I prefer using list-defined references, and also the use of cite templates ({{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc.). For an example, see the Lemur article. LDR makes it easier to track down references and keeps the text from getting too thick with code. I also tend to use the {{R}} to help reduce reference clutter, but it's not the end of the world if we don't do that—especially since this article won't be nearly as large as the Lemur article. As for the cite templates, you sacrifice the flexibility of formatting your own references, but gain the ability to standardize format.

So, obviously, my vote is LDR with cite templates. If others agree, I can go ahead and start structuring the existing references in the article and get the appropriate References/Notes section(s) set up with hidden text explaining how it works. Any other ideas or votes? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources has been the bane of my existence for a while, there are so many ways to do it. Is it possible to user the list-defined references along with the templates? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 15:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the cite templates with LDR. Just look at the Wiki code behind Lemur for an example. All LDR does is move the defining reference tag (with the cite template) into the references section. I used the R template so that I could clean the text up even more, so that instead of saying "<ref name=ref1/><ref name=ref2/><ref name=ref3/><ref name=ref4/>", I would use "{{r|ref1|ref2|ref3|ref4}}". – VisionHolder « talk » 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Then we definitely need to figure something out…because we don’t want to repeat references, but at the same time, we want to “combine” our references and therefore we must cite things exactly the same. The Arbiter^Talk 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Other notes

We have photos! Courtesy David Haring at the Duke Lemur Center, we now have a total of nine quality photos of both Nycticebus coucang and Nycticebus pygmaeus. I will be uploading them shortly. I am still hoping to reach one of the loris experts about photos of Nycticebus bengalensis and the effects of the exotic pet / traditional medicine trades. If I cannot acquire photos of the pet trade / traditional medicine, is everyone okay with leaving the existing "pet" photo with a caption along the lines of what I have given it? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The following photos are now available:

Nycticebus coucang

• 
• 
• 
• 

Nycticebus pygmaeus

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Enjoy! – VisionHolder « talk » 23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice procuring! Makes me want to work on the species articles too ... perhaps a good topic might be in the making. Hope you can get some of bengalensis too! Sasata (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, N. bengalensis is not kept in captivity. To acquire those, I need to get one of the researchers to respond. Although I have connections in the lemur world, my name hasn't spread too far out yet. Therefore, my emails may be getting deleted before they're read. I'll keep trying, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I've went ahead and added some of the photos to the article and the species articles just to give some ideas. If you are responsible for a section, feel free to replace images, move them around, and/or re-write the captions. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what I have so far: User:Rlendog/slow loris. I am not too optimistic about finding much more about diet and social structure, since there seem to have been few studies done. For my sandbox I did not concern myself with the reference format, since I can reformat as needed once the material is in the article. I am not sure how this collaboration method works though. Should I start adding material to the article, or should I leave it in my sandbox for now? Rlendog (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks excellent! Out of curiosity did you search for anything about captive diets or dietary issues? Otherwise, I would suggest adding it directly to the article. On the last collaboration, we worked in sandboxes because we wanted to get a DYK for the effort. However, this article is already fairly large, and I don't see us getting 5x expansion out of it. For that reason, I'm going to work directly in the article... hopefully starting next week once I finish re-vamping Ring-tailed Lemur. As for the references format, if people don't mind, I would prefer to use my suggestion above, only because it keeps the references easy to find and the text body relatively clean. (No one else seemed to have any comments or objections.) If you want, I can set up the references prior to your insertion so you have something to follow.

And good news! I got another researcher to release more photos, this time of the Bengal Slow Loris (Nycticebus bengalensis). The only catch is that she currently has dial-up access only, so we're trying to work out the details on how to transfer the photos and the release. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We have more photos! This time we have Nycticebus bengalensis to round out the set. If you guys are up for a good or featured topic, I'm all game! I will post the photo gallery when I have finished uploading the files. I've also tracked down and requested permission to use a very good-quality photo of a slow loris getting its teeth cut—a common practice for the illegal pet trade. I'll post more shortly! – VisionHolder « talk » 00:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos from Helena Snyder

• 
  Nycticebus bengalensis
• 
  Nycticebus bengalensis with 6-week baby
• 
  sub-adult Nycticebus bengalensis
• 
  Nycticebus pygmaeus (from an animal market)
• 
  Nycticebus pygmaeus (from an animal market)

Photos from www.profauna.org

• 
  caged Nycticebus at an animal market
• 
  caged Nycticebus at an animal market
• 
  Nycticebus at an animal market having its fur dyed

As promised, here are the photos. Again, if I'm lucky, I should have a picture of a tooth clipping sometime soon. The only other photo I'm looking for is traditional medicine made from loris parts. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's great! I think a FT/GT is eminently achievable. Haven't done much yet myself, waiting for an opportunity to go to the uni library to tap into their mammalogy resources... hopefully this weekend! Sasata (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources for conservation and NPOV

I was wondering what you guys think of using the newsletters of the International Primate Protection League (IPPL) as sources in the "Conservation" section. It's a non-profit that is not NPOV, but they do run a sanctuary and work directly with authorities regarding confiscated animals. They know their stuff, working with it all first-hand. As long as I write in a NPOV manner, do you feel that would be fine? It's not like we have many other sources to go off of, and people should know more about these animal markets and what the exotic animal trade does. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have also found a CITES document that I will be using that may have other helpful biological/ecological facts for use in other sections. I went ahead and added it to the article, or you can following this link: CITES document

Also, since no one replied to my question about reference formatting, I have chosen one that I hope will make everyone happy. Instead of LDR, we can list all the journal articles, books, etc. in the "Literature cited" section. As long as you use the cite templates and end with "ref = harv", then you can reference using the {{Harvnb}} template, which will link the citation note (i.e. "Sanchez 2008, p. 10") to the full citation. You can see an example at the article Mikea Forest. Anyway, I'm writing the "Conservation" section tonight and hope to finish before the sun comes up. (There's a surprisingly large amount of info if I use the IPPL newsletters, along with the CITES document.) You should see what I'm talking about when I'm done. Any questions or comments, please post here. I'll be watching through the night. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have changed my mind about making the edit (to the article itself) tonight. Instead, I will be working out of my sandbox: User:Visionholder/Sandbox2. It turns out there there should be enough information between the "Evolutionary history", "Behavior", and "Conservation" sections to potentially earn us a DYK. I think it would be great if we could get this species mentioned on the front page, plus get a small extra bonus for our efforts. Anyway, please check out the bottom of my sandbox to see how I plan on doing the references. If you don't like that style of referencing, please speak up! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

More species!

Per Nekaris & Jaffe 2007, it looks like we have more than 3 species of Nycticebus. In fact, the IUCN Red List acknowledges 5 species (adding N. menagensis and N. javanicus). The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates (a publication by the IUCN, IPS, and CI) also lists N. javanicus independently. However, a 2008 publication by Groves and Maryanto treat menagensis as a subspecies of N. coucang while also recognizing N. javanicus. Nekaris & Jaffe 2007 splits N. coucang into N. coucang and N. hilleri as well as N. javanicus into N. javanicus and N. ornatus. (Are we having fun yet?)

The question becomes: Which species do we recognize? I think N. javanicus seems to get a unanimous vote, but I'm not sure about N. menagensis. There's only one other source since 2009 that addresses N. hilleri and N. ornatus (here), but I can't access it... yet. (I've asked Ucucha to send it to me.) Maybe it will offer something a little more definitive... In the meantime, what do you guys want to do to? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just wait for more information/get more publications, and work on the other established species for now. I'm not well-acquainted enough with the literature to be comfortable stating an opinion about this yet. I'm sure I'll be less wishy-washy after the other 4 taxa are GAs or close to it ... Sasata (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest with you, after all the literature I've been through for the conservation and taxonomy stuff, I feel very comfortable with saying that we can safely create an article for N. javanicus. In fact, once I get done organizing my notes for the "Conservation" section (still!), I may "take a break" and create the article, then nominate it for DYK. (The same offer to help polish up for DYK credit will apply to all collaboration members.) I'm not so sure about N. menagensis, but I'm leaning to support. The other two just need mentions in the other articles... for now. If you disagree with any of this, just let me know. Otherwise, I think the only real debate will be over N. menagensis. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should go with the five species (bengalensis, coucang, pygmaeus, javanicus, menagensis). Recognition of javanicus is universal in recent literature, as VH says. N. menagensis is slightly more complicated, as Groves and Maryanto (2008) do not recognize it. However, the IUCN Red List does recognize it, as does Nekaris, one of the main slow loris experts. Groves and Maryanto (2008), however, say that they could be persuaded by genetic data that menagensis is a separate species, and the data in Chen et al. (2006, doi:10.1007/s10764-006-9032-5) seem pretty clear. In fact, N. menagensis may well be the most distinctive Nycticebus species genetically. Ucucha 21:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why Groves and Maryanto didn't look at Chen et al., which was published 2 years previously... Odd. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article for the Bornean Slow Loris (Nycticebus menagensis) had already been created long along and hadn't been properly linked to the others. It could use a serious clean-up. (A DYK is not likely there.) Otherwise, I have created the Javan Slow Loris article. I have not nominated it for DYK yet because it could use a bit more work. The only source cited that I've completely exhausted is the IUCN Red List link, so people can start with the existing refs. I've been working on these lorises non-stop since Saturday morning, and I need a break before work tomorrow. If someone else wants to help polish the article up for DYK, please do so. Otherwise I will try to finish it up tomorrow night so it can make DYK. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Having done some reading now, I agree it's commonly accepted that there are five species. I'll help with the Bornean Slow Loris tomorrow, but now must sleep... Sasata (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Groves and Maryanto (2008) was a book chapter, and book chapters often have delayed publication schedules. Ucucha 08:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This just in from Nekaris (via email): "N. coucang is now about six species, N. bengalensis will be about four." The publications aren't out yet, and I'm not sure how long it will be until they are published. I have requested that she notify me of the formal publications (and ideally the press release) so that we can get the articles up quickly and get them included in "In the news...". Looks like I've now become the official Wiki contact for lemurs and lorises. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Cryptic? Looks like the topic is gonna get bigger... Sasata (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, cryptic. I was planning to discuss that in the taxonomy section. As for the topic getting bigger, yes and no. Although things are changing, it will take years for the research to come out to fill in our knowledge of these species, and I really don't see the taxonomic changes adding more than a paragraph to this article along with a very small species article, mostly focused on taxonomy, geographic range, and population sizes. Trying to be optimistic here, I see this as making this topic more exciting and only slightly more challenging. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok guys, I have (finally) put the anatomy section into my sandbox. Just thought I'd let you guys know, I came down with the flu last Friday, so I'm trying to recover and work at the same time. :) The Arbiter^Talk 16:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm still struggling with my part. It may be another week before I have the Slow loris conservation article done, along with the summary section for this article. I'm not sure if I even want to think about the evolution and taxonomy section at this point. Either way, I'm hoping we'll be ready to put that stuff to use within a couple of weeks. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Topic development

Slow loris having its teeth cut for sale as a pet.

Since we may be doing the entire topic as part of this collaboration, I wanted to let everyone know that I went ahead and wrote a huge chunk of the Bengal Slow Loris article this evening and submitted it for DYK. If everyone on the collaboration committee wants involved (and credit), feel free to help polish up the article and add from other sources. I primarily pulled from a single source, which is freely available. There are a few facts from that source that I did not get around to adding, so please look it over and finish it up if you want. The only reason I jumped the gun with this article was because I had inadvertently worked from notes about this single species as though it were about the entire genus. After writing a large chunk of text, I decided it was best to put it in the appropriate article. But since the rest of the material from the source was minimal in comparison, and since the article would merit a DYK with the addition, I went ahead and covered as much as I could. Again, everyone's welcome to take credit if they want to contribute something over the next few days. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Looks great. I will expand it later tonight after the youngins get to bed ... might be GAN-ready in a day or two! Sasata (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I'll write a GA about the sole fossil species of Nycticebus (Nycticebus linglom) for a possible future GT as soon as I get a copy of the species description. The species is based on a single tooth, so it won't be much work. Ucucha 19:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For those who care: My list of quotes and notes in my sandbox is growing quite large just for the "Conservation" section alone. I'm at 50Kb, although once I actually write my text, it should consolidate to about 75% of that total. My question is this: Should I just summarize for this article, and then write a separate article on loris conservation (which could include the slender lorises, genus Loris)? The material is quite in-depth. If you think it merits a separate article, please suggest a title. I'm thinking Loris conservation, but I know some people prefer the opposite order, Conservation of lorises. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Loris conservation as per bird conservation, though there is a new article called conservation of painted turtles. Jack (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I got a new photo from Dr. Sanchez for both this article and that new loris conservation article. (See right.) Very tragic to look at, but the photo's quality is superb! – VisionHolder « talk » 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I will be going out of town from Sunday through Wednesday to attend a funeral. Before I leave, I'm trying to finish up some GA reviews I started, and hopefully will work on the loris conservation stuff tomorrow. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This weekend I will make trip to the library and sign out or copy all the literature they have on this topic (including that article you wanted, VH). I'll put Bengal Slow Loris up for GA by Sunday night, and plonk down Bornean Slow Loris, maybe put that up for GA as well if it seems ready. In the meantime, here's something for us to keep of track of the topic progress:

Slow loris

8 articles

Conservation of slow lorises

Nycticebus coucang

Nycticebus bengalensis

Nycticebus pygmaeus

Nycticebus javanicus

Nycticebus menagensis

†? Nycticebus linglom

Sasata (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks good! Please do me a favor and include my name on the GAC(s). Internet permitting, I will try to follow and contribute while I'm away, and will definitely be involved when I get back. If you feel the Javan Slow Loris is ready for FAC, then go for it. Again, I will participate, particularly when I get back. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'd like a stab at the Bornean Slow Loris before it goes DYK and GAC, if you don't mind. I may have a few sources you don't have. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, will do. Sasata (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have a go at the Sunda Slow Loris, does anyone have any material they could email me? Cheers, Jack (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

One source that might keep you occupied is here. However, you have to keep in mind that the paper doesn't distinguish all the species recognized today, so when you're reading the section on that species, you'll need to pay close attention to which islands they're talking about. If that's not enough for you, just email me and I'll reply with some more stuff. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that source will be great for conservation, thanks! I've just done a large chunk of the behaviour section, haven't got enough time to finish the references now but will get onto that tomorrow. Alex I was wondering if you would like to tackle the taxonomy section as you seem to have immersed yourself in the nitty-gritty of it all. Cheers, Jack (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can, although with the Sunda slow loris, it could get quite ugly since this was the species that all the others were collapsed into and then split out of. However, I'll give it my best. Please be aware that I'm taking a small break from the slow loris articles to do Erik Patel a favor and finish the Marojejy National Park article. After that, I want to finish Slow loris conservation (which has been fully researched and partially written). I'm hoping to be ready to resume the species articles by Monday. I hope that's okay. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The range maps of each species should really all be the same colour or at least correspond with their colour on the slow loris page. Jack (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I can try to adjust the maps. I have asked the creator (Chermundy) to possibly re-create the maps as SVG files (making such changes a lot easier, plus making the maps more scalable). Up until this point, I've been waiting for Chermundy to make the SVG maps for the 5 species. If he were to do that, then I could easily create a combined SVG map for the genus and properly show ranges for 5 species instead of 3. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I will start working on the Pygmy Slow Loris in my sandbox, and will have something DYK-ready by Sunday night soonish. Sasata (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol! I have no room to criticize. I started by re-vamping my first FA, Ring-tailed Lemur, got half way done, only to be drawn into a very exciting slow loris collaboration. During that time, I have also written 3 other completely unrelated articles, all either GAN, FAC, or close to either. And now I've been drawn away from the slow loris collaboration by a collaboration on the Marojejy National Park article. The programmer in me is using the excuse that my workload is a "first in, last out" data queue with a few sporadic interrupt processes. Seriously, take your time. I hope to finish the Marojejy article either tonight or tomorrow night, and then I'll be away Tuesday and Wednesday night. After that, I plan to return to the slow loris collaboration with a vengeance, hopefully finishing the conservation article soon. And by the way... I got to sit in a room with three pygmy slow lorises today for four hours. Very interesting! – VisionHolder « talk » 04:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright... Conservation of slow lorises is now live. I still need to do a proofread/copyedit, and I'd like to add a few more pictures of animal markets from the Flickr links below. Once I finish that—hopefully tomorrow night—I will create a summary in my sandbox for the conservation section and start working on anatomy information. After that, I'll write about the evolution. If someone doesn't mind taking on taxonomy, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I would like to finish the parent article and then move on to polish up the last two species articles. In my opinion, this parent article has waited long enough. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll put my fungal articles aside for a while and start on the Pygmy Slow Loris in earnest. Once all the species articles are written it should be a snap to write up a taxonomy section for the genus. Sasata (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to any of the current taxonomy papers, which is why I haven't finished writing the Sunda Slow Loris section on taxonomy. Once that's done it can go up for GAN. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Consistency

Once the slow loris and Pygmy Slow Loris articles are completed we will need to think about the consistency of the topic. We need consistent section titles, section order, map colours and reference format. I'm quite happy to do some cleanup if we agree on the format. I generally follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/Article format when writing primate articles, is there a reason for not following it here? Obviously some sections are specific and may not be covered by the article format page. I'm not so sure about the references, I like {{r}} in that you can stack multiple refs together, don't know much about {{sfn}} other than I use it with books. What does everyone else think? Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Consistency is good, but not always practical. I agree that we should stick to one referencing system for the topic, but the headers are not as easy to accommodate. Some species have information about one topic, while others don't. Also, I think Sunda Slow Loris may have too many subsections. I don't feel that a single paragraph is sufficient content for second level header. I'll take a look at that today while I review the article and try to find sources that have not been included. As for the genus article, I requested feeback on the layout when the collaboration began (above), but got no replies. I modeled it after the article Lemur, with some modifications. I don't think a genus and a species will always be able to share an identical format. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me also clarify by saying that I see nothing wrong with standardizing the order and names of the primary headers in species articles. However, I feel that second-level headers can vary significantly, depending upon what is known about the species. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And another inconsistency we need to address is the type of English: British English or American English? Not my favorite topic, but it needs to be addressed. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind either, I've just written the Sunda how I know! I guess cause the rest are American English then it should be too. As for section headings: I agree more subsections should be joined, a single paragraph doesn't look right; as for section headings, which ones should we use then: Anatomy and physiology vs Physical description vs Description, Distribution vs Geographic range vs Habitat and distribution, etc.? Good work so far by the way! Cheers, Jack (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry... I feel the same way about writing in British English. Every time I read an article written in it, I learn new spellings I had never seen before. I'll make the change in a little bit. As for the header names, that's something that may need to be discussed at WP:PRIMATES as well. I don't think that guideline page was every discussed, and I think I even edited the list in my early days. If anything, we should standardize the first level names and order, if that's possible. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put a request for comment on the article format and changed as much of the spellings I could find, it's difficult to think in another language though :) Not far off GAN I reckon. Cheers, Jack (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've changed some of the section headings in the slow loris articles, even moved some of the information around. If you have any issues with the changes, bring them up here. I've tried to do so for consistency. The Habitat and ecology section in Bornean Slow Loris is a bit awkward, it's a shame more is not known about the behaviour of the species. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

More pictures

Dried slow loris (left), and loris ointment (right)

I am hoping to have a photo of loris ointment coming in soon from Carly Starr for use either on this page or on the conservation page. However, we don't really have any good pet photos, aside from the one with the teeth being cut. We currently have File:Slow Loris Female.jpg, but the quality is low. I was thinking about uploading one of the following from Flickr to replace it: [1] or [2] What do you guys think?

Also, it looks like someone did a decent job of taking photos of an animal market in Myanmar. All of these images are usable on Wiki. I'll probably use a couple on the Slow loris conservation article, unless someone has objections. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

More photos uploaded: dried loris and loris ointment. These are from Carly Starr. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Final push and response to the latest YouTube video

Because of the increased traffic from the new YouTube video that was release earlier this week ("slow loris with a tiny umbrella"), I am now pushing to finish up this topic's central article, despite still having one species article to write.

Sasata: I have finished most of my part of the article per our previous discussion. However, I did not have time to revamp the "Physical description". Monday night, I will finish that section and await your additions to "Taxonomy" and "Behavior and ecology". If you need help, let me know. Don't be afraid to work on the article Monday night—all I ask is that you mark it with {{Inuse}} and remove the template when you're ready for me to make my edits. I will do the same. Once you have completed your sections, I will finish re-writing the lead. (The conservation portion of the lead has already been written due to its importance for our YouTube visitors.) Currently, we're up to ~16,489 characters (with spaces), compared to ~6,898 characters (with spaces) prior to Saturday night's edit. You might double-check me because I'm having a hard time believing we may not come close to 5x expansion for the DYK credit. However, we can still count on significant expansion in the lead, "Taxonomy" subsection, "Physical description" section, and possibly the "Behavior and ecology" section. If it comes close, I can also add a "Human interactions" section to discuss some of the local beliefs and names of the slow lorises. In fact, I may try to add that tomorrow night as well. But again, because of the increased traffic, time is of the essence. Just let me know if you get tied up and unable to contribute. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have finished expanding the "Physical description" section and added a "Cultural references" section as well. I have also expanded the lead, although the behavioral information will need updating once that section is finished. I've looked through the "Behavior and ecology" section, and though significantly better than it was before we started, there is still plenty of room for expansion. I know for a fact that there are many more details about the toxic bite from the sources currently used as references, plus there is quite a bit of information out there about their territorial behavior, hunting techniques, and reproduction. Currently, Primate Info Net is used as a source, and although I respect it, I feel that we can do better for references. Again, I'm willing to help on this section, if needed. As for the latest word count, we are up to ~23,281 characters (with spaces), which puts us at 3.4x expansion. Since special cases can be made for 4.5x expansion (especially for an article like this), I'm sure we can still make DYK. We just have to finish and nominate by Wednesday. We can do it! – VisionHolder « talk » 09:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This genus article is nearing completion (minus tweaking and a few small additions), and has been nominated for GAN. Everyone in the collaboration team is welcome to append their name to the nomination as well as participate. I have also added {{Maintained}} templates to quite a few of the articles with my username. I am not trying to claim ownership of these article, but instead following a trend I do with all articles I'm involved in the writing of: Letting visitors and other editors know that they can contact me if they have questions about the article and its sources. All other collaboration members are encouraged to add their names if they would like. Also, I want to apologize for being pushy with this article. Besides the rush to update it for the incoming hordes related to the new YoutTube video, I am also running over on my promise to myself to take a Wiki-break, where I plan to focus my efforts on publishing my research and a book I'm writing. I am sincerely sorry if I'm stepping on any toes, and I didn't want anyone else to feel pressured by my deadlines. (Instead, I probably came across as an overbearing prick.) Again, I apologize. Unfortunately, I'm cursed by being both the type of person who tries to finish everything he starts, as well as the type of person who takes on massive projects and responsibilities that most sane people would never take on alone (or even in a small team). It keeps me going... like a juggernaut, unfortunately. That's one of my many flaws as a person. I sincerely hope no one has lost heart during this collaboration. I promise that this will be the last prosimian primate I will suggest for collaboration. On any other topic, I should be more rational.  ;-) As always, your open and honest comments are welcome. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha don't worry, you didn't come across as an overbearing prick :) It's great to have someone with a lot of enthusiasm pushing things forwards! I'm going to go over the article in a second, but first a few things that I'm not so keen on: the heading Distribution and diversity, what does this have to do with diversity?; Why is the distribution talked about before a description of the genus? In my opinion the Distribution section should be below the Behavior and ecology section, or at least below the Description. I was also wondering about Cultural references and the link to YouTube, as I guess that's where people will be looking if they wanted to know more. Right I'll have a look through now. Jack (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Description, second paragraph: Unlike the slender lorises, however, the white stripe that separates the eye rings and broadens both on the tip of the nose and on the forehead while also fading out on the forehead. Doesn't make sense. Jack (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it's unclear, but then again, I wrote it. I included the illustration of the slow and slender loris faces strictly for helping people visualize this. Just look at the white stripe along the nose for the two types of lorises and re-read what I wrote. If there's a better way to word it, please let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense to me, it looks to me as if the and following eye rings is superfluous? Jack (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake. I'm in the process of fixing it now. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Behavior and ecology, second paragraph: first few sentences are unreferenced. Jack (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ref #60 covers all of it. We don't duplicate the citation unless there is some highly contentious content that needs an immediate citation,^[1] which I don't think is the case here.^[1] After all, we don't like too many of the same references used over and over in series,^[1] otherwise it gets excessive.^[1] See what I mean?^[1] But if you feel the citations need to be duplicated, just say so and let's get Sasata's opinion on the matter. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Cultural references, second paragraph: In the Mondulkiri Province of Cambodia, hunters believe that lorises can heal their own broken bones immediately after falling from a branch in order to climb back up the tree Doesn't make sense. Jack (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Cultural references, second paragraph: More recently, researchers have documented the belief that the consumption of loris meat was an aphrodisiac that improves "male power. Unreferenced. Jack (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Same as the point above. This is covered by ref #76, which is used on the following sentence. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Cultural references, third paragraph: In the folklore of northern Thailand, the slow loris is considered venomous. This belief may have originated from the painful anaphylactic reactions that susceptible individuals experience when bitten by the animal. So are slow lorises not venomous? Isn't introducing a toxin via a bite to protect from predators considered venomous? Jack (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a tough one, and I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer definitively. According to thefreedictionary.com, "venom" and "toxin" are related words, but not synonyms. The definition of "venom" ("a poisonous fluid secreted by such animals as certain snakes and scorpions and usually transmitted by a bite or sting") is pretty vague. It goes on to say more specifically, "Venoms are highly concentrated fluids that typically consist of dozens or hundreds of powerful enzymes, peptides, and smaller organic compounds. These compounds target and disable specific chemicals in the victim, damaging cellular and organ system function." Given that the toxin does not "target" anything in the victim, I'm inclined to say that they are not venomous, but have a toxic bite. (I was going to point to the komodo dragon here as an example, but it appears that they may actually have venom glads in their mouth rather than just a particularly nasty concoction of oral flora.) However, I could easily be persuaded to think otherwise. Anyone else want to chime in on this? Otherwise I'll ask Dr. Nekaris her opinion the next time we talk. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slow loris/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this page for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Lead, "used in personal, social grooming, and feeding." Perhaps "personal and social grooming and feeding"? As it is, "personal" as an independent piece of the sentence doesn't make sense. Same sentence and comment in Description section.

   • Fixed. Sasata (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Description, "The ears are reduced in size," Reduced from what? Also "their tail is greatly reduced" later in the section.

   • Fixed. Sorry, both the sources and I think in terms of related primates so the language tends to be comparative. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Description, "ranges between being perpendicular to pointing slightly backwards." Because you're taking about a range, I think that the "to" in this sentence should be changed to an "and".

   • Changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Behavior and ecology, "Slow lorises can produce" They can produce or they do produce?

   • Reworded. Sasata (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Behavior and ecology, "an African palm civet (Nandinia binotata) averted a sample" I'm not sure what this means?

   • Oops... I think I looked at the text when I was paraphrasing and rather than using the wording I was thinking about, I typed the word I was looking at. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   • I'm still not completely understanding this sentence. Are you saying that a palm civet was offered a sample of this toxin and didn't eat it? The toxin was just in liquid form? Would anything eat a toxin offered in this state? Also, what does the second half of the sentence have to do with the first half, which talks about cat dander? Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   • I went back to the source (which took me a while to remember I viewed on Amazon's "Look inside" feature), and discovered I had mentioned the wrong details. I've added the 3 correct species that were tested, along with more details about the experiment. Just let me know if there are any lingering issues. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Behavior and ecology, "the closely related pottos and slender lorises may share the trait." We don't know? Seems like something that we would be quick to find out, if for nothing more than the health of the scientists that work with them :)

   • As far as I know, few scientists work with them, and when they do, I'm sure the animals are sedated. Even in captivity (for a handful of slender lorises), the goal is to not be bitten. The only sources I have seen say "maybe" and don't give anything definite either way. Keep in mind that lorisiform primates (and prosimian primates in general) are very poorly understood. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Behavior and ecology. One paragraph says "long weaning times (three to six months)" while the next says "wean at five to seven months." Standardize, please.

   • Thanks for catching the conflict. I'm not sure why the sources disagree, but it might be a difference between captivity (the longer time) and wild populations (the shorter time). Anyway, I've removed the older (captive) data. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Diet, "A 1984 study of the Sunda slow loris indicated that its diet consists of 71% fruit and gums and 29% insects and other animal prey.[64][76][78]" Why does this need three references to three different papers?

   • I removed the reference to Rowe, since that just duplicated the information in Bearder. However, the other 2 refs are needed because they address the study in different levels of specificity - Nekaris/Bearder gives the precise percentages, but doesn't explcitly mention the gums. Bearder mentions the gums, but only gives approximate percentages. Rlendog (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Diet, "Slow lorises can eat while hanging upside down from a branch with both hands." They eat with both hands while hanging upside down, or they hang with both hands while eating?

   • The former. I reworded to clarify. Rlendog (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   • I'm a little confused at the layout of the Diet section. In the first paragraph it talks about the composition of their diet. The second paragraph starts off with a description of their eating habits (not the food itself, but how they eat), but then switches back to diet composition, and then back to habits. I think it would make more sense to have all of the composition information together, then all of the habits information together. However, maybe that's just me...

   • I reordered it a bit, moving the 1st 2 sentences of the 2nd paragraph to the end. Now the 1st paragraph introduces the topic and gives the dietary parameters for the larger slow lorises, and the 2nd paragraph concentrates on the dietary parameters of the pygmy slow loris (and the information on exudates, which is primarily a pygmy slow loris issue). The last short paragraph deals with the eating habits. Rlendog (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Diet, "may enhance their ability to feed on exudates: a long narrow tongue to make it easier to reach gum stashed in cracks and crevices; a large cecum to help the animal digest complex carbohydrates; and a short duodenum." For the first two adaptations you give a reason that a specific change is helpful, for the third (the duodenum) you just say it's different and leave it at that. Can we have some reason as to why a short duodenum is a good thing for their particular diet?

   • I checked both refs, but the Nekaris et al. ref only mentions the 3 adaptations (no explanation), while the Swapna et al. ref names and explains 2 of the 3. To be honest, I'm really not sure. Even my book on primate ecology doesn't go into it in detail. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   • I was about to say the same thing... Osman Hill mentions the anatomy of the digestive tract, including the short duodenum, but does not discuss it it further than that. There may be something in Kubota and Iwamoto 1966 (cited in Nekaris 2010) that we may want to try to dig up before the FAC. Sasata (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Ucucha and I are chatting in Gmail, and he looked up Kubota and Iwamoto 1966 and said it only talked about the tongue. Unless we can find a general primate book that discusses such adaptations, I think we're at a dead end. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Wildlife trade, "Traditional medicine made from loris parts are thought to cure many diseases," medicine...are - singular/plural agreement.

   • Fixed. Good catch. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • It appears that there has been some disruption in the edit history recently between a new user and several editors who have reverted him. However, there were no posts to the new editor's page attempting to explain what was wrong with his edits. He appears to be adding a paragraph that, although POV and unsourced, was well worded and obviously not straight-up vandalism. Has anyone attempted to contact him to explain what was wrong with his contributions and perhaps see if he has anything positive to contribute to the article?

   • As far as I know, the "Society for the Protection Of Slow Lorises" does not exist, or if it does, it's not noteworthy. The way the insertion reads, it sounds like a smart-ass comment left by a viewer from YouTube. The Wiki articles have been mentioned and quoted a lot on the YouTube video comments, and some of the right-wing viewers are getting very upset with what they see as P.E.T.A. trolling. The other possibility is that this is a far-left nut that took some of the exaggerations he saw on YouTube and got a little over-excited. I didn't do the reverts, but if you want, I can go back and explain on his talk page. (It appears he only created the account to make those 3 edits and hasn't been back since.) But basically, the info is bogus and they were right to revert it. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

   • Fair enough. Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks for the review Dana. I've fixed some easy ones, and will leave the rest of the comments to VisionHolder, who either has the specific sources, or the primate knowledge to deal with them. Wasn't aware of the new user's additions, I'll leave him a note. Sasata (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've finished going through the rest of the article now, and made a few more comments above. I'm now placing the article on hold to allow the rest of the comments above to be addressed. It's a great article! Also, just as a note, I reviewed the Sunda slow loris article a few days ago and placed it on hold. No-one has yet replied to any of the comments, so I'm hoping that someone watching this page might be interested in popping over there as well? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think someone else wrote most of the Diet section, so I will drop him a note and ask him to look those over. Unfortunately, I don't have access to some of those refs. Otherwise, I've fixed everything I can at the moment. As for Sunda slow loris, sorry for not replying. Jack mostly wrote it, so I left it for him. We didn't realize he was out of the country until yesterday, but it looks like Ucucha just got most of it taken care of. I just spoke to Jack and he said he'd visit to finish off the rest of the concerns. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 00:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for the review, Dana boomer, and thanks for jumping on this quickly, Sasata. My comments and fixes are noted above. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There is still one issue above that I would like to see resolved, but since it is very minor, I am passing the article to GA status as it currently stands. Very nice work on this, guys (and gals, if any of you are!), and I hope I will see it at FAC at some point in the future! Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving on: FAC

I have just nominated this article for FAC. I listed co-nominators as myself, Sasata, and Rlendog based on content creation. If a member of the collaboration feels they merit a mention, just reply here. If you do not want to me listed on the nomination, also let me know. I apologize that the collaboration got so badly spread out that not everyone got a fair piece of the pie. Fortunately, some collaborators deserve a lion-share of the credit for some of the other articles I hope we take to FAC soon, such as Sunda slow loris (mostly Jack's work). In fact, I encourage Jack to nominate that article once he checks with Sasata about its comprehensiveness. Otherwise, great job, everyone! We picked this topic at just the right time, and I can tell you that there is a lot of appreciation out there from the experts in the various conservation organizations. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Chromosome count

Is 2n=50. I have a feeling this should go in somewhere (description?), but don't really want to leave it as an isolated sentence. Ideas?

Also, a line from the soon-appearing pygmy slow loris rewrite that may be suitable for inclusion here: "Although the banding patterns on the chromosomes of all slow lorises are similar, N. pygmaeus may be distinguished from N. intermedius and N. coucang by distinct differences in karyotype." Sasata (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I usually put chromosome counts in the "Evolutionary history" section, since it often assists with evaluating phylogeny. We might be able to sneak it in after the following sentence: "Species differentiation was based largely on differences in morphology, such as size, fur color, and head markings." – VisionHolder « talk » 19:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)