User talk:Meganjoyce/sandbox
-Everything looks great Megan! -I didn’t comment on the word links at all because I don’t think you’ve done it yet!
-I like how you did the “…, or a Primate social system,” it makes it seems very professional and Wikipedia-esque! -For “Sociality is used to describe the complex behaviours of adult males and adult females of a particular species of primate” Maybe say “…to describe some of the complex..” just the way that it is written makes it seems like all of their behaviours if someone knew nothing about it! -You forgot to put a period at the end of this sentence: “It is believed that these systems may have originated as strategic responses to better locating food sources or as more effective anti-predation responses, with increased vigilance[1][2]” -I can see that you are still writing this part: “social systems are diverse, and there is intra-species variation that exists, social systems are not unique within a species, there is variation - example: tamarins and marmosets? pair-bonding but also OMUs” but I am not sure if it links to the sentence above? It would be good to say the intra-species variation part! -For this sentence “Group living (sociality) is likely to occur when it is advantageous: for instance, when it food/predator detection is increased, intergroup competition (e.g. over mates or food) does not exceed these benefits” I like that you put “(sociality)” in the brackets to clarify. It made me think though, that maybe for the earlier sentence, this one ““Sociality is used to describe the complex behaviours of adult males and adult females of a particular species of primate” You could put “group living in there to help what I mentioned ealier? -I think for the ‘Benefits’ part, it you benefit you (hehe) to have a subtitle there! Also for ‘limitations/negatives’, it might break it up better! -For the Benefits part, I am not sure if you are finished writing it. If so, I feel like it is kind of a run on sentence. I would maybe try to rework that whole paragraph to smooth it out a bit! -For the Limitations/negatives part, maybe just use limitations or negatives, I don’t know if you need a slash. Or maybe just ‘drawbacks’ would sum it up? Also for the part, I feel that saying “abundance of resources” is a little confusing, maybe just clarify that immediately instead of saying that. It makes it seem like having a lot of resources is a limitation. -The correlates/limiting factors section is a little repetitive of the previous section. I don’t think you need both!
-I like how you started out the ‘Primate social organisation’ section, very concise and clear! -For that first sentence under ‘Primate social organization’, you could maybe add brackets beside ‘cohesion’, like you did for ‘size’ and ‘composition’ to better explain it in term of primates. That would maybe also help with ‘Synchronicity’? -Is there a way to link the examples to the pictures? Like under the examples you could say figure 1, etc? -I think you can also make ‘Solitary primate systems’, ‘Pair-bonded systems’… subtitles underneath the heading! -When you don’t cite certain sentences, I’m assuming that the citation later is where you got the info (for example in the ‘Pair-bonded systems’ paragraph with citation number 5)? -I think you should cite all the examples? Like each example should have an associated paper or reference number beside it incase people want to look into it more! (ex. titi monkeys [8], owl monkeys [9]…) -Once the words are linked, it will also help define such things as polyandrous. It will help clarify for sure! -If you link ‘infanticide’ you may not need the brackets? -It might be nice to have a citation after the statement: “Multilevel societies, sometimes referred to as hierarchical or modular societies, are the largest and most complex form of primate social organisation” -Your explanations are great! I really like how you differentiate between multilevel societies and fission fusion societies! -It is “ Fission Fusion” or “Fission-fusion” or does it maybe not matter as long as you’re consistent.
-For “Similar to genetic traits, researchers hypothesise that environmental pressures, in combination with the process of natural selection, have brought allowed for a whole array of inter-individual relationships, promoting an inclusive group fitness.[1]” In the ‘Primate Social Structures’ part maybe take out brought? -Maybe explain the term “inter-individual” before jumping into it.
-So I did notice that that are other Wikipedia pages for some of these already. For instance these is a 'fission-fusion' Wikipedia page. I am not sure how you should link or handle this? -There is a whole wiki page on 'social grooming' that it might make more sense to just link to then write about it on your page? Then again, I am not sure. -There is also a detailed wiki page on 'mating systems' that looks like yours!
-I checked all your citations, are they are all working.
-It is really really good Megan! So concise and clear, very well done! Hopefully some of my comments can help a little!
____________________
Megan Response to Brogan:
Thank you for the great feedback and ideas, Brogan!
I added in a number of links to some of the words. Good reminder, thank you.
The first section was incomplete when you read it, so that’s why some of the sentences were incomplete and missing grammar.
I like the idea about separating the benefits/limiting factors. I ended up putting it into a small section with information on how social/group living is thought to have developed. Do you think it fits well here?
I’ve added in a bracketed explanation for cohesion too. Thank you! For the synchronicity, it is meant to contrast/further explain the sentence before. So their completing activities independently so the lack of synchronised behaviour is this individual engagement in foraging or infant care. I tried re-wording it a little to make it clearer, maybe you can see if it is more logical now?
The examples of species for each system is taken from a review paper summary for the most part, it is cited in each section, I can add them in to the examples line as well. Though I was wondering if I should link the species to the other wiki pages? I wasn’t sure if it would be too many links.
I wanted to give definitions for primate-specific use of terms, but I did add in links to the other pages for things like grooming and multilevel societies or fission fusion societies and a few other key terms. I didn’t want to leave it blank, so I could make sure the primate definition was complete, but I didn’t want to include the other use for sure like you suggested.
Thank you for all your help and feedback, it was really helpful
___________________________
Cassandra edits:
Really awesome job Megan! I think your wiki article is really easy to read for the general public, provides a lot of really great information, and you do a really good job of stating all your information in a neutral tone.
Brogan had some really good suggestions so I will see what I can add. I do agree with her in regards to keeping things consistent because there is so much information even with something so small like fission fusion or fission-fusion because I know I have read articles in the past that write mulitmale- multifemale systems differently so I would get confused. But that is so minor and maybe doesn't make a difference, but just for your own article I would keep it the same.
I especially liked how you divided your sections into social organisation, social structures, and social mating systems. I know even I get confused sometimes about the differences and tend to forget that social structures is separate than mating systems even though one can predict another like pair-bonded and monogamous, I think you did a really good job of separating them yet linking them together. I also really liked the definitions you provided to separate the 3, especially social structure and organization because when you first think of them it’s easy to think how they could be clumped together. Very concise and easy to understand!
I do have one question but it’s probably because I’ve been stuck in chimpanzee mode and need to update myself on social systems within other primate societies. So you have Polygyny as the most common primate system. Are most primates polygynous? I know that chimpanzees are polygamous/polygynandrous because it’s not only the males interacting with multiple female partners but females are also mating with many different males. I think macaques are too since in my own research I learned that females often mate with multiple males to create paternity uncertainty as a strategy against infanticide? You could also add Polygynandry with polygamous (like link it in the definition).
I also agree with Brogan in terms of the benefits and limitations sections. I’m not sure if you are still working on it but I think maybe a different way of organizing it because it does sound like a run on sentence. Like halfway between a sentence and point form? But you have a lot of really good examples in each and they balance out nicely. Also with the sentence “social systems are diverse, and there is intra-species variation that exists, social systems are not unique within a species, there is variation - example: tamarins and marmosets? pair-bonding but also OMUs” I wasn’t sure if that is suppose to be part of something else but maybe you are still working on it?
I also checked the citations and they are all working! Overall really good and I think you provided a lot of great primate examples including a variety of species. You covered a ton which is really impressive because primates are so complex and social structure, organization, and mating systems can really vary within sub-orders and species.Regarding small grammar changes I did not catch anything other than the sentence I commented on which does not have a capital, but that is why I think maybe it does not belong there or you are still working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casscurteanu (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
____________________
Megan Response to Cassandra:
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my article, Cassandra. I really appreciate it!
Good catch on the dash between fission-fusion, I totally agree, consistency is key. It is confusing for someone in the field so I can imagine it would be even more confusing for someone outside of it. Thank you!
I can’t take credit for the definitions/separating, that’s all the Kappeler and van Schaik article’s definition, but I wanted the wiki to reflect it, because I think it’s a really strong one and make so much sense. I think it’s one of the big defining articles (or that I’m aware of anyways).
I tried making the definitions for the mating system a little more precise. Maybe take a look and let me know if it makes more sense? It could be that chimps have more than one mating system? I don’t think they have to be exclusive; I think like the social organisation you can have multiple kinds within species. Skewing paternity is definitely there, I’ve read that too. But maybe some units within the multilevel societies of chimps use one mating system and other groups use others? I think the citations I was using had polygamy to mean polygynandry, but I can add that in as well perhaps?
Did you think the way I reorganised the benefits/costs was okay? Into the section with how group living emerged? You were right, I wasn’t done this section, I still just had notes in it when you guys read it. Let me know what you think of the restructuring though if you have time.
Thank you so much for your help and great feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganjoyce (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)