Talk:Cotton-top tamarin

	Cotton-top tamarin has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 22, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed March 12, 2013 Good article nominee Listed June 21, 2013 Peer review Reviewed October 29, 2016 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Primates Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Colombia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colombia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colombia-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ColombiaWikipedia:WikiProject ColombiaTemplate:WikiProject ColombiaColombia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cotton-top tamarin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zad68 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review... right off the top, looks pretty decent. ihyuan, are you still around to respond to questions/issues?? Zad68 17:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finished first read-through, notes below, still have to go through sources. There are some grammar and clarity items to address. Zad68 19:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ihyuan, are you around to fix the issues identified? If not, this won't be able to pass GA... Zad68 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68, ihyuan was part of a class at Washington University; a couple of dozen bird articles were submitted to GAN as a result, including this one. The university has been on break since before Christmas; according to the university web site, classes begin again on Monday, January 14, so I wouldn't expect to be getting any reply before then. Even then, there's no guarantee that members of the class will be returning to Wikipedia now that their fall class assignment (and Wikipedia editing requirement) is over. At this point, you should probably keep this on hold for the usual week, and if ihyuan hasn't checked in by then—or maybe by the end of the following weekend, if you're feeling generous—you may have to close the review at that point. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this info! I never would have known. I'll do as you suggest. Zad68 15:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zad68. Thanks so much for your review comments. I was in this class last semester with ihyuan, and was main contributor to it from the class. Ihyuan nominated it, and while I'm unsure if she'll be able to work on the article, I would love to take on the review if at all possible. Please let me know if that is alright. While I am a little backed up right now, I will try and get through the items listed below as I can. Thank you so much for your patience, I'm looking forward to improving the page further! Nsavalia23 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear! Yes, let's get this done. I stopped working on the review thinking nobody was around to address the issues, but if you'd like to carry it forward, fine with me, and I'll finish the review. It's my only review going so that's fine. Zad68 19:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I spent a little more time tonight looking at the article and right now I am leaning toward not passing it at this time. The biggest issue I ran into tonight is the use of Neyman 1978, which is a primary study, and it appears the interpretation of this primary source is being done by the Wikipedia article author, which is a pretty serious problem per WP:NOR. Also the paper studied one group of tamarins and Neyman's observations of this group are being use to support fairly central general statements in the article about tamarins, and this is also a WP:NOR problem--the source cited doesn't support the article content. There are some other sourcing problems as well, including using Wikipedia as a source (not allowed) and what looks like an anonymous self-published source. So, I'm getting the suspicion that a good understanding of WP sourcing guidelines was not used during article development. I'd like to hear back before making a final decision but these seem like non-trivial problems that would require a bigger time window to fix than is normally seen in a GA review. Zad68 05:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there hasn't been any activity on the article for over a week, and since you've made the effort to review the article, I will make the changes and fixes you've suggested today. I'll have a look into the OR and referencing issues after that. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Jack. If Nsavalia23 has an objection to you stepping in and taking it over, I guess we'll have to discuss that, but assuming there is no objection from Nsavalia23, I'm OK with it. I was still having reservations about trying to keep this particular GA run going, but in light of your other work in related areas, and especially that gold star near the top of primate, I'm OK with giving it a go! But please if you think this article needs too much work for the normal GA timeframe (usually about a week) let me know and we'll close this GA, looking for a resubmit later. I'd rather you take the time to do a proper job and resubmit a little later instead of feeling time pressure to squeeze all the work needed in to bring it to GA. Zad68 18:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right, I don't think it's ready in its current state. I just want to make sure all your effort doesn't go to waste, comments like yours are always really helpful! Especially when you've done all the hard work and someone just has to make the changes. Cheers, Jack (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here! Thank you Jack for picking up my slack. With my inexperience in Wiki-writing and with the WP:NOR issues, I really appreciate Zad68's comments and think both of your help will get this article to a much better level. I will chime in to move the article along if you don't mind, but please do feel free to lead the way! Nsavalia23 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks... as discussed above, this article does not meet GA standards at this time and isn't reasonably expected to be able to be made to meet the standards in the normal GA timeframe. Zad68 02:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Picked up again as Jack has been willing to address issues, continuing review. Zad68 04:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impressions after first read-through: what a tremendous improvement. Not a lot to pick on with the prose, so it'll be investigating the sourcing and making sure the article content is reflecting the sources accurately. Zad68 04:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack I will be providing more notes but need a few days, appreciate your patience. Zad68

Jack it was pointed out to me that it wasn't proper form to try to continue a failed GA, so we're moving it over to the GA2 page. See you over here... Zad68 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	short paragraph, overuse & misuse of 'however', some long sentences need to be broken up/simplified, a few grammar and clarity items to resolve
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	issues with WP:WTW "claim", "finally"
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	ref to German Wikipedia, animalinfo.org does not appear to be WP:RS, cannot confirm "15 individuals" from source cited, fozblog.com is borderline
	2c. it contains no original research.	WP:PRIMARY Neyman paper used, there are concerns that the author of the Wikipedia article is the one doing the interpretation of Neyman
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article's large section on lanaguage development is in line with the emphasis I see from a quick Google Scholar search
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Really nice image selection! A few of the captions could be more expressive.
	7. Overall assessment.	Does not meet GA standard at this time

• Wikilinks to DAB pages that need to be resolved to article pages: gular, mutualism
  • Done. Jack (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggested technical terms to wikilink/explain/replace with more common terms: multivariate
  • Done, but there are probably a few more that I'll catch in subsequent read-throughs. Jack (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "However" is overused and often used inappropriately, inhibiting clarity. It is often being used in places where "additionally" is actually meant. In many cases, the use of the word simply can be eliminated. Go through the article and review each use of the word, and remove the word in each case where it is not being used to contrast two opposing ideas.
  • Done. Jack (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Y

• In German-speaking areas, the cotton-top tamarin is commonly known as "Lisztaffe" (literally "Liszt monkey") most likely due to the resemblance of its hairstyle with that of Hungarian composer and piano virtuoso Franz Liszt. -- this is sourced to German Wikipedia, Wikis are never WP:RS, either remove the sentence (it's not critical) or cite the underlying sources
  • Removed sentence as I couldn't find a decent source for this. Jack (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider combining first sentence referencing Linnaeus with the following paragraph to avoid having a single-sentence paragraph
  • Done. Jack (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Philip Hershkovitz performed a taxonomic analysis of the species in 1977, classifying the Panamanian tamarin Saguinus geoffroyi as a subspecies of Saguinus oedipus, which lives exclusively in Colombia, based on fur coloration patterns, cranial and mandibular morphology, and ear size.[7] " -- can this long sentence be broken up to make the content more clear?
  • Done. Jack (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "finally" -- remove as time-relative word, what if someone else does an analysis next year?
  • Done. Jack (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "foreword" -- probably "foreward" is meant
  • Done. Jack (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The cotton-top tamarin is a highly social primate that typically lives in groups of 15 individuals. 15 exactly, or is there a range? I checked this against the cited source document and can't confirm 15, what page is it on?
  • Changed, now uses multiple sources. Jack (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• why is "Cooperative Breeding Hypothesis" and wikilinked? Is this a trademarked discipline-standard term? Can it be wikilinked to cooperative breeding?
  • Changed. Jack (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Taken together, researchers believe..." -- 'Taken together' is modifying 'researchers' here instead of the behaviors, consider "Based on this, researchers..."
  • Replaced. Jack (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• They concluded that S. oedipus uses a simple grammar consisting of eight phonetic variations of short, frequency-modulated “chirps” that each represents varying messages and five longer constant frequency “whistles.” -- grammar issues here, consider: "They concluded that S. oedipus uses a simple grammar consisting of eight phonetic variations of short, frequency-modulated “chirps”–each representing varying messages–and five longer, constant-frequency “whistles.”
  • Done. Jack (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• They claim that some of these calls demonstrate -- "claim" is a WP:WTW indicating doutfulness, consider "theorize" or "hypothesize"
  • Done. Jack (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• However, infants will also reduce their prototype chirping in the presence of predators. While it is unclear whether infants are shadowing the calling behavior of adults or they are comprehending danger remains unclear. However researchers argue that these cotton-top toddlers are able to represent semantic information regardless of immature speech production -- is "However" needed here, both times?
  • Done. Jack (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "an aforementioned" -- not needed
  • Done. Jack (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "When an adult produces an aforementioned C-call chirp," -- the C-call has not been discussed by this point
  • Removed aforementioned. Jack (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The whole "<letter>-call" concept needs to be described before it starts getting used in the discussions about language acquisition and usage
  • Add sentence in communication section. Jack (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neyman's paper is primary study data, it's being cited to support general statements like "The cotton-top tamarin is a highly social primate that typically lives in groups of 15 individuals." This is troubling in two ways, 1) It appears the author of the Wikipedia article is the one doing the interpretation of the primary source, and this is not allowed per WP:NOR, and 2) This one specific study is being used inappropriately to make general statements about the tamarins.
  • Add secondary sources to general statements. Jack (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Habitat destruction through forest clearing is the main cause of this collapse, and cotton-tops have lost more than three-quarters of their original habitat to deforestation. -- cited to "fozblog" which appears to be a borderline source, can you find a stronger source?
  • Done. Jack (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Y

• Y section exists and uses WP:MOS-compliant style

• German Wikipedia is not a WP:RS, Wikis are never WP:RS, remove sentence or cite underlying source
  • Removed. Jack (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• animalinfo.org appears to be an anonymous WP:SPS, what indicates it's relaible?
  • Removed. Jack (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Some duplicate wikilinks: foraging, altruism, predation, alarm calls
  • Done. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• But treat the wikilinks in the lead separately from the body. For example sagittal crest should be WL'd in the lead like it is in the body
  • Done. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Placement of footnotes should be made consistent. Sometimes they are inside the punctuation: and Coimbra-Filho in 1981[7], and, the Pinché tamarin[5], is; sometimes outside such as Thorington (1976),[7] posit, described by Linnaeus in 1758.[3]. I like refs after punctuation.
  • Done. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Make in-line reference styles consistent, sometimes they have ampersand (&), sometimes they have 'and' spelled out: Hernandez-Camacho & Cooper (1976), and later Mittermeier and Coimbra-Filho in 1981
  • Done. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Make use of quotes and apostrophes consistent... different styles are used
  • Done. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "pecking order" is casual and idiomatic, consider just "order" or "hierarchy"
  • Done. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "over and above" is redundant
  • Done. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "variously aged" unnecessary, consider removing
  • Done. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Behavior -- Is there an explanation how only the dominant pair ends up breeding? What prevenets the non-dominant members from breeding?
  • Explained. Jack (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 'and ranks among the "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates."'--consider explaining whose list this is and why it's notable to be on this list
  • Done. Jack (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A few sentences without obvious references: Cotton-tops also have forelimbs that are shorter than their hind limbs. Males of the species are only slightly larger than females. Like other members of the Callithrix family, the species has claws on most fingers and toes. However, only the big toe has flat nails that most other primates have., It is considered one of the few bare-faced tamarins because of the lack of facial hair. Its lower canine teeth are longer than its incisors, creating the appearance of tusks. ... but the referencing that is there meets the relatively low GA requirements
  • Done. Jack (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• including curiosity, fear, dismay, playfulness, warnings, joy, and calls to young. -- unnecessary and inconsistent wikilinking in here
  • Removed. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "CLC’s involve the" -- apostrophe not needed and make it look possessive
  • Done. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• References -- some duplicates, like Neyman 1978, combine them
  • Done. Jack (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cotton-top tamarin/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zad68 (talk · contribs) 04:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the failed GA1 was determined to be questionable, maybe bordering on problematic, so we're going to move to working here on the GA2 area.

---

Impressions after first read-through: what a tremendous improvement. Not a lot to pick on with the prose, so it'll be investigating the sourcing and making sure the article content is reflecting the sources accurately. Zad68 03:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing review complete, see notes below. Zad68 04:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I'm leaning a little harder on you than might be done for other reviews because I'm sure you've got your eye on FA for this article, and I'm sure you can respond to the requests/suggestions. Zad68 19:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All items addressed, happy to pass it for GA! Congratulations, nice work. Zad68 17:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some items to clear up, mostly in Behavior Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A little editorializing to fix Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A few sentences not sourced but OK for GA Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	One item (Washabaugh et al., 2002) to fix, source doesn't support article content citing it Y
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Really nice image selection! A few of the captions could be more expressive. Y
	7. Overall assessment.	Very nice article!

• Y

• Y

• Y but no reason it couldn't be a bit longer and provide more detail, in my opinion

• Y

• Y

• Y

• Y

• Y

• Oddly, total care - "Oddly" sounds like editorializing, consider removing

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Still, evidence indicates - "Still" sounds like editorializing, consider changing

  This is actually what it says in the paper. It was hypothesised but evidence actually indicates it doesn't have an effect. Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• it is unclear whether the cotton-top tamarin acts solely using judgements on reinforcement history. - it would be nice if a source were provided

 Done Jack (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This cost-benefit evaluation better equips cotton-top tamarins to form cohesive living units with kin and with foreign tamarins. - it would be nice if a source were provided

Removed possible WP:OR. Jack (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of these forced evictions from the group may also involve spite. Specifically, in evicting subordinate females, a dominant female may be releasing her daughters from the group and putting them in high-risk of predation, while simultaneously losing the cooperative breeding benefit those females would offer when in the group. - it would be nice if a source were provided

Removed possible WP:OR. Jack (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• in high-risk of predation - consider "at high risk of predation"

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Though aggression can occur within groups... - the paragraph starting with this is in the Spite section, are we still talking about spite here? It looks like the subject has switched to response to territorial threats -- ADDING: Can this be fixed by simply changing the section name from Spite to Aggression

Renamed to Spite and aggression. Spite is important in the altruism discussion. Jack (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Researchers say its repertoire... - consider "Researchers describe its repertoire of 38 distinct sounds as ususually sophisticated..."

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Using this range of vocalizations - needs a comma after

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• emotionality - consider "emotion" or "mood"

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Interestingly, infants are thought to imitate adult speakers - "interestingly" sounds like editorializing, consider removing

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• calling, when in the presence of infants - remove ", when"

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While it is unclear whether infants are shadowing the calling behavior of adults or if they are comprehending danger remains unclear - "unclear" twice and not grammatically correct, please fix, maybe "Whether infants are shadowing the calling behavior of adults or they are comprehending danger remains unclear."

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It also performs seemingly altruistic alarm calls - consider "It is also used for"

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• differences in individual's alarm calls. - do you mean "differences in individuals' alarm calls."?

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite this research indicating that food calls may be informative - can this single-sentence paragraph be combined with the paragraph before it?

   Done Jack (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• and the cotton-top hass - hass -> has

   Done Jack (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• under Appendix I banning - "Appendix I" is a redlink, will it reasonably ever be an article distinct from CITES?

   Done Jack (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Y

• Y section exists and uses WP:MOS-compliant style

• I'm concerned about what appears to be taking a primary study and generalizing the finding. For example, a primary study of say 20 tamarins in captivity and making a general statement about tamarin behavior. In some places in the article this appears to be being handled in a way that I'd expect, like "some studies indicate that cotton-top tamarins have the psychological capacity to participate in reciprocally mediated altruism" sourced to a primary study, I'd like you to review to make sure results of individual primary studies aren't being used to make general statements. I saw that in GA1 and want to make sure it's really fixed. Or, if it should be OK to do that, explain it to me.

  Primary sources are allowed when used carefully, and so long as there is WP:NOR. I've tried to introduce secondary sources to all the really general statements, otherwise in the subsections of Communication and Social systems there are primary sources and I believe the text follows their findings accurately and without interpretation. Jack (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Other comments on problems with the references:

• Savage et al., 1988 and Heistermann et al., 1989 For this one and Heistermann, I can only see the abstracts, and they both talk about scents but I don't see the word pheromones, which the article uses. Is that OK? — pheromones are just chemicals that trigger a behavioural response, i.e. the scents they are talking about are pheromones.

Y

• Washabaugh et al., 2002 I do not see (at least in the abstract) support for article content "and paternal experience with previous infants appears to better prepare infants for social behavior in their first few months of life". — will have a look into this, source isn't exactly saying what text says.

marking with a red X until fixed

 Done It now follows the article more closely. Jack (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y

• Hauser et al., 2009 Source used in support of idea of mutualism, but mutualism doesn't appear to be mentioned in source. — from the paper: First, identifying cooperators requires an ability to recognize the partner's motivations—do they incur a cost in order to cooperate (altruism) or do they only cooperate when they also benefit (mutualism). The paper, which mentions mutualism four times in relation to cotton-top tamarins, shows from previous experiments that cotton-top tamarins are in the latter camp.

Y Thanks, that was exactly what was needed as I don't think I had access to the full paper

• Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1995 Possible WP:SYNTH problem with Clutton-Brock? — this is a secondary source reviewing primary literature.

Y

• Hammerstein, 2003 This document does not mention cotton-top tamarins. — true but I think the article is worded so that it doesn't need to mention them in the source. This reference is backing up the sentence: researchers believe that repeated interactions in a cooperative society ... can heighten the chances that an individual will designate behavioral punishments to others in its group.

Y Current article wording is Further, in captivity these primates are not observed to increase altruistic behavior with fellow primates who are committed fully to cooperation. Based on this, researchers believe that repeated interactions in a cooperative society like that of the cotton-top tamarin can heighten the chances that an individual will designate behavioral punishments to others in its group., trouble is "like that of the cotton-top tamarin", is found in Clutton-Brock but isn't found in Hammerstein. Can this be fixed by simply dropping this phrase? I'm not going to require a change for GA here but it might need to either be changed or defended at WP:FAC, it's up to you.

 Done I've added another sentence to separate the statements. Jack (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Some format and duplicates to fix.

   Done Formatting issues including ISBNs and citation bot errors. Jack (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC

Y super

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)[reply]