Talk:Sexual dimorphism in non-human primates

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

Primates Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Sexual dimorphism in non-human primates appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 35 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the canine teeth of male baboons—which can be up to four times as long as those of females—are an example of a sexual dimorphism? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/June.

The contents of the Sexual dimorphism in primates page were merged into Sexual dimorphism in non-human primates. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trevorthed, Jlienhart.

Above undated message substituted from

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Esmeraldaboror. Peer reviewers: Lenisa Castaneda, Alyssaaguilera.

Above undated message substituted from

I'm not particularly bright regarding scientific topics yet can find very little in this article that's difficult to understand. In fact compared to the weight of 99% of the mathematics based articles on Wiki it's almost helium. So I'm a bit confused as to the overly technical tag. VonBlade (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I also find the maths articles go straight over my head and wrote this in as simpler way as possible. It's important that everyone should be able to access and understand all Wikipedia articles without previous knowledge. I'll remove the tag. Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well-chosen photos or diagrams would help to drive home the features discussed here.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we re-title the article minus the "non-human" qualifier, and then have a reference to humans (members of the Primate order) in the starting paragraph, along with a section that links to more contextualized articles about human behavioural ecology and sexuality? 2607:FEA8:4CE0:1DA1:A0D7:4E43:1D61:27CF (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]