Talk:Toothcomb

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Toothcomb article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Toothcomb is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 27, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 10, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
March 24, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 19, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that lemurs, lorises, and galagos have a special dental structure called a toothcomb (example pictured), which they use to comb their fur during grooming?

Current status: Featured article

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animal anatomy Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Toothcomb = close search?

Googling shows plenty uses of "toothcomb" to mean a close search or a nit comb. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be true, but perhaps we can find a way of including that information without turning it into a disambiguation page, which your styling has done. What links here shows there are no apparent uses of your definition in Wikipedia, while the other usages is the purpose for creating the aritcle in the first place. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try Google search http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=toothcomb&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the article to show a link to nit comb. If your definition of toothcomb is actually a nit comb then it shouldn't need a dab page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the other use of "toothcomb" is just a misunderstanding of the expression "a fine-tooth comb"? 194.75.244.138 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture orientation

Is it possible to rotate the second picture (ruffed lemur) 90 degrees so that it has the same orientation as the ring-tailed lemur picture? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No longer an issue. The photo has been replaced. Sorry for the delay. – Maky ^« talk » 11:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jackhynes (talk · contribs) 13:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking through the article now for copyedit issues. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few (hopefully) uncontroversial changes to the article, and I've presented these issues below which you are free to disagree with :) Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The toothcomb is kept clean by either the tongue or, in the case of lemuriforms, a sublingua, or specialized "under-tongue"." If it's the tongue, should it be the sublingua? Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The sublingua extends below the tip of the tongue and is tipped with keratinized" Repeating tip/tipped? Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"All six teeth are longer, straighter, and also form a more continous apical ridge." Remove the also? Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead of individual incisors and canine teeth being finely spaced to act as the teeth of a comb" Act like the teeth of a comb? Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"but only two of its lower three pairs of lower incisors" Lower used twice? Or are there lower pairs of lower incisors? Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph of the grooming section there is mention of doubt that was cast on the function of the toothcomb. Is this necessary to mention? From the reference, one paper refutes its use as a grooming apparatus with little evidence, contrary to most if not all papers before and after. Jack (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to, but my most recent secondary source (Cuozzo & Yamashita 2006) explicitly states that neither side has definitive evidence to win the debate. I personally disagree, but given that I try to weigh my secondary sources over my primary sources, I feel I'm left with little choice based on my understanding of WP:NPOV. Your thoughts? – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple sources mention this then it seems correct to mention. Jack (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Among non-primates, the extinct Chriacus exhibits.." What was Chriacus and why is it being compared to a colugo? Jack (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chriacus was a type of arctocyonid from the Eocene, red-linked above. I was trying to squeeze in this one tiny detail about their dental arrangement while comparing them with the colugo dentition. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"..including Djebelemur and Anchomomys, have been found in Africa and date to 50 to 48 mya.." Date from? Jack (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

contemporaneous Amazing word that I've never heard before :) Jack (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source uses it, but no synonyms came to mind. (At the time I wrote it, my brain was nearly shot.) The word is used to refers things that coexist as the same time. If you want, I can reword it. But once you start dealing with the fossil record and phylogenetics, that beautiful work gets put to a lot of use. :-) – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done for copy-editing and wording, and I've had a quick look through the references too for formatting (there is one dead link). After you've responded to my points I'm happy to pass this. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the speedy review and copyedit! If there is more I need to fix, just let me know. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole process is made so much easier when the quality of your work is so high, so thanks for that! I'm passing the article now, in continuing to FA status I would recommend honing the prose in the Evolution section, specifically the Original function of the lemuriform toothcomb subsection, which didn't read as smoothly as it could. Otherwise, excellent work! Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the suggestion. FAC is indeed the next stop. – Maky ^« talk » 03:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: UtherSRG (talk · contribs) 13:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few edits as well, although I didn't think to save them for here. And sorry about the edit conflicts, Jack. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reviews and copyedits, guys. That was fast! I will try to address the points above when I get home this afternoon. – Maky ^« talk » 17:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toothcomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308211417/http://www.carnegiemnh.org/assets/science/vp/Late%20middle%20Eocene%20epoch%20of%20Libya%20yields%20earliest%20known%20radiation%20of%20African%20anthropoids.pdf to http://www.carnegiemnh.org/assets/science/vp/Late%20middle%20Eocene%20epoch%20of%20Libya%20yields%20earliest%20known%20radiation%20of%20African%20anthropoids.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toothcomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210230357/http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-stevens/documents/Stevens%20et%20al%202009%20Rukwalorax.pdf to http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-stevens/documents/Stevens%20et%20al%202009%20Rukwalorax.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]