Talk:International Primate Day

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The objections were:

• This article reads like a press release or a news article and/or is entirely based on routine coverage. (August 2017)
• This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (August 2017)
• The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. (August 2017)
• Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (August 2017)

These purported deficiencies have been addressed: (a) Style: The article was a stub for others to enhance. (b) Single source: That no longer is the case. Further, additional sources COULD be provided, but at present, enough sources have been included to demonstrate (a) ANNUAL observance in several nations outside the UK AND (b) coverage by mature news media, including both AOL news and YahooNews. Regardless of issues presented concerning their 'reliability' as news sources, these are longstanding news media. (c) At least one 'opposing viewpoint' is included as a reference. (d) Again, the legitimacy of the claim that "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable." is debatable as an objection, considering the variety of currently included references and the difficulty of narrowing down the broad coverage to only a few for an online encyclopedia article. MaynardClark (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe the paragraph about the “Monkey in a Cage” song is relevant to the topic or adds any pertinent information about International Primate day. If it should stay in the article, I would suggest deleting the direct quotation and rephrasing it in a way which highlights its’ relevance. I would also suggest putting it under a header titled “In Pop Culture” which could highlight any mention of International Primate Day in popular culture. Jogruber (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few suggestions to improve this section. Firstly, the sentence “Primates are a very large family of about 200 species“ includes biased (very large) and imprecise language (about 200 species) that should be removed. Additionally, in taxonomy, “primates” are considered an order not a family so this imprecise language is not factual. Secondly, the sentence “Statements on great apes which focus largely or entirely on apes would not include all primates” does not flow with the first sentence and could be confusing to the reader. However, it could be useful to note that Apes are a subset of primates and are divided into great Apes and lesser Apes due to the article's focus on the Declaration on Great Apes. Thirdly, this section is missing citations. Jogruber (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]