Ruffed lemur 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 March 16, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed July 21, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 17, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that experiments have indicated that ruffed lemurs (pictured) can understand the outcome of simple arithmetic operations?
Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Primates High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Madagascar Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Madagascar (assessed as High-importance).

I am currently in the process of preparing major edits for the current page, as well as the following (related) pages:

• Black-and-white Ruffed Lemur
• Red Ruffed Lemur

The edits will be similar in style to the major edit of Ring-tailed Lemur on 03:27, 20 June 2008. The goal is the same as it was for the Ring-tailed Lemur: to move the pages significantly beyond Start-class. As with the aforementioned major edit, I will make a significant effort to preserve as much of the existing text as possible. However, uncited material will not be represented if I am unable to find a reliable source.

The edits will be written off-line and tested in the sandbox, so the {{inuse}} tag will not be used when the major revision is ready. Sections will be added to either parallel those used on the Ring-tailed Lemur page, or (preferably) follow the proposed WikiProject Primates Article format. Information will be expanded greatly, and citations will be given. Range maps for the taxoboxes have already been provided. If you have any comments, suggestions, or concerns, please reply to this post, or leave a note on my talk page.

- Visionholder (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delays in posting these re-writes. Between new events in my personal life, time reallocated to improving the Ring-tailed Lemur article for an upcoming FA reveiw, and the re-writes taking longer than expected, it may take me a few more weeks before I am finished. At this point, the plan is to roll out the re-write of this page within the coming week, followed in a few weeks by the two species pages, and possibly followed by the creation of subspecies pages. Again, if you have comments or concerns, please leave a note on my talk page. - Visionholder (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A complete re-write of this article was just completed as promised. Although not perfect, it should be a significant step towards either GA or FA status. For starters, I would still like to find better pictures of ruffed lemurs, and the citations may need some work. (Several sources were used extensively, so I'm not sure how to make the Notes section look good.) Also, I'm not familiar with the mark-up, so anyone with the necessary skill is welcome to compact some of the tables by putting long lists into columns (using nested tables). I tried, but the nested tables were not transparent, and just looked bad. Lastly, some sections are a little long, but I tried to avoid creating too many subsections. If level 3 or 4 headers are needed, please discuss it on this talk page first. I have these header names already picked out if the community agrees that they are needed.

Next I will be moving on the species pages, Black-and-white Ruffed Lemur and Red Ruffed Lemur within the very near future. However, I do not know if the re-writes will prove to be short and easy, or long and challenging like this one. Please be patient.

Constructive feedback is strong encouraged. - Visionholder (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reference number 13 doesn't link anywhere.. just a 404 at yale university. if there aren't any other sorces i am suspicious of the truth of this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billiewilliams (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An HTML version of the PDF is available here. Not sure what's happened to the PDF version. MeegsC | Talk 14:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Yale wiped out the entire "Monkeylab" directory, including research articles, program descriptions, and information about the participants. I'll try to find another (non-cached) source. - Visionholder (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Apparently there was some unfortunate timing between the "Did you know" (DYK) posting and a decision at Yale to move the Comparative Cognition Laboratory web site. Anyway, all is well now. - Visionholder (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am reviewing the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good work, may pass FA too.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Humans build elaborate nests for their newborns. 174.124.14.106 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nest" by definition means something made from organic materials like twigs, grass, dirt, etc. Human houses and cribs don't count. Raul654 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, these are historically among the most common materials used by humans to build their nests. Second, many animals (bees and wasps, for example) build nests out of materials that they create themselves. Third, wood is just big twigs and concrete is modified dirt. 174.124.14.106 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does the academic literature call this behavior in humans? According to my sources (cited in the article), ruffed lemurs are the only primates that build nests for their newborns. If you can find a recent, reliable source from the field of anthropology that contradicts that statement, we can make some adjustments. Otherwise, what you're saying consitutes "original research" which Wiki prohibits. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all featured articles were protected for at least the day they were featured. If it's not, why not? Vandals come out at this hour. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^stuff _{more stuff} 21:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MPFAP for prior history on this. Ucucha 21:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad they don't protect them. I can't even make corrections because I constantly have edit conflicts with vandals. The unproductive activity on this page is like nothing I've ever seen. Unfortunately, fixes will have to wait now until I get home on Thursday or Friday night. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just looked at today's changes, and there wasn't too much to fix (although some of the re-phrasings need to be checked). However, the {{fact}} tags need to be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to address the fact tags when I get home from my trip later this week. I didn't bring my personal library with me. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the fact tags were addressed. We should be good now. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is a desire to give a fairly accurate total of the number of strepsirrhine species so that the percentage of lemurs can be demonstrated. However, there are several problems with this. First, is this the article to make this point? I'm working on a major re-write of Lemur, which I hope to finish within a week or two. Wouldn't it be better off there? Second, these totals are changing constantly. Since the last publication from a taxonomic authority (at the end of 2008), there have been 3 new species described. Every time someone describes a new species, some Wiki editor will notice the news article and start updating the totals on a myriad of Wiki articles (not necessarily hitting them all). A report of discovery does not mean the taxonomic authorities will agree with the findings. Furthermore, the number of strepsirrhine species counts throughout Wiki is ridiculous. Most pages are stubs, and the only significant content present is the taxonomy and species counts. Given how frequently this information changes and the difficulty in managing the edits when new species are described, we really need to restrict these specific numbers to reasonable number of appropriate pages, such as Lemur, List of lemur species, Strepsirrhini, Loris, Galago, and the family/genera pages (for family/genera totals only).

If you absolutely must provide a hard number for this statement, please use the following number and references (for now): 125 species, supported by adding the totals from:

• Mittermeier, R.; Ganzhorn, J.; Konstant, W.; Glander, K.; Tattersall, I.; Groves, C.; Rylands, A.; Hapke, A.; Ratsimbazafy, J.; Mayor, M.; Louis, E.; Rumpler, Y.; Schwitzer, C.; Rasoloarison, R. (2008). "Lemur Diversity in Madagascar". International Journal of Primatology. 29 (6): 1607–1656. doi:10.1007/s10764-008-9317-y.

• Groves, C. P. (2005). "Lorisidae". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-801-88221-4. OCLC 62265494.

• Groves, C. P. (2005). "Galagidae". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-801-88221-4. OCLC 62265494.

Thank you. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is about to leave the main page, I will drop the matter. The revert certainly could have been delayed until then. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I'm missing something, but for me, and article isn't an article. We don't add information just because it's TFA. If the information should be there, it should be there. I realize that the lemur articles (and most biology articles in general) are in poor condition and do not provide adequate information, so when guests follow the links in this TFA, they are likely to not find what they are looking for. However, I am working towards fixing this. It may take a few years, but I plan to completely rewrite everything under the Category:Lemurs page, and as a result, everything should be fairly well organized. I'm working on the foundation now, but unfortunately it's the slowest piece to develop. (What I call "foundation articles" are the core articles, such as Lemur (and its 5–7 summary articles), Sifaka, Aye-aye, Mouse lemur, Sportive lemur, etc., etc.) The articles I have planned or in the works will each take at least a month to write. Once they're done, I hope to pump out about 3 GAs and 1 FA a week, assuming I get enough willing reviewers. Please understand that by sprinkling species totals on random lemur pages, it makes keeping things updated a lot more complicated. For example, if the 3rd edition of "Lemurs of Madagascar" (due out in May or June) were to formally acknowledge 2 new species of mouse lemur, I don't want to have to remember to update the numbers on this page in addition to all the relevant pages. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My original aim in adding the number was to correct the misleading (to most people) wording of the previous version, which described extant strepsirrhine species as "few". To my way of thinking, such misleading wording is a more serious flaw in an article than an improperly cited or slightly inexact numerical value. I suppose I could have used a vaguer quantity like "over 100" in place of an exact number, to obviate the necessity for authoritative references and updating. However, I disagree with the notion that an out of date number is worse than no number at all. The purpose of Wikipedia is to edify, and adding a number is useful whenever it improves comprehension. Since people understand that the number of recognized strepsirrhine species changes over time, a number linked to a date and source can still be useful even when slightly out of date.

Limiting species totals numbers to the more important lemur articles seems reasonable, but to my way of thinking, having an article TFA and read by tens of thousands makes it (at least temporarily) important.

As far as the problem of finding and updating species totals in scattered Wikipedia articles goes, there ought to be ways of managing it. For example, have a central location for the history of updates to "the number of recognized extant strepsirrhine species" with the appropriate references and values, say in the talk page for Strepsirrhini or a little article on its own. Link other instances of that number in Wikipedia to the article. Then when the number changes, use the "what links here" function to find the articles needing updates.

Your plans for upgrading lemur-related articles look ambitious. Good luck, WolfmanSF (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Indri#Size..._it_matters. 212.10.95.14 (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The largest members of the lemur family, the ruffed lemur exhibit a lot of cooperation within their lifestyle patterns. In particular, this article refers to two instances of cooperation in a lemur’s life: general female cooperation that results from their bonding and parental breeding cooperation. For each instance, the article does a great job explaining how the cooperative is executed behaviorally, i.e. with alarms calls, shared broods, etc. I would improve this article by grouping any discussion of cooperation in a separate section called Altruism merely for organizational purposes. I would also try to find cooperative behavior in ruffed lemurs in captivity who might face the same environmental factors that makes cooperation so necessary in the wild. Marklxb (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive criticism and feedback. In regards to article organization, it might be possible to break the "Behavior" section down further, but excessive dividing of the sections is discouraged in various guidelines and policies. In fact, if I remember correctly, I was forced to consolidate the headings some during the FAC process. This article was the second article I re-vamped on Wikipedia several years ago, and admittedly it could use a lot of work. I agree with your assessment—organization needs to be reviewed. As for the cooperative behavior in captivity, the only way to include such material in the article is to find it published in reliable sources. I would have to review the literature again, but at the time the article was written, I don't think anything had been published about it.

Although I would love to dedicate the time to cleaning this article up further, the reality is that I'm constrained by other demands. I am in the middle of rewriting the articles Strepsirrhini and Prosimian, plus I need to create an article for "Lemuriformes" (which does not point to Lemur). I have an FAC for an extinct giant lemur under review, and I am determined to finish all the extinct giant lemur articles soon, followed by articles on the various lemur families. Then will come the various lemur genera (including clean-up of this article and Ring-tailed lemur). Then I will focus on each individual species. My goal is to focus on more general knowledge and work down to the specifics, while also giving priority to poorly, high-traffic written articles over articles of moderate to excellent quality. There's only one of me, and although I'm unemployed, the development of these articles (for no pay) takes many days of hardcore research, organization, writing, and review. (The best part is that potential employers sometime hold my Wikipedia contributions against me! Talk about motivational...) I'm sure they've told you this in the Ambassador program, but Wikipedia needs more editors and (especially!) reviewers... specifically for GAN and FAC. – Maky ^« talk » 21:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maky ... just taking a look at some of your earlier work, a couple of queries:

1. The red ruffed lemur, on the other hand, has a very restricted range on the Masoala Peninsula. ... not cited
2. Why are some uppercase and others not? "They are dominant over red-bellied lemurs, while eastern lesser bamboo lemurs avoid encountering them all together... Play has even been observed between infant ruffed lemurs and White-headed Lemurs."
3. Uncited beginning with "Medium-amplitude calls operate over ... "
4. Uncited beginning with "Red ruffed lemurs do not appear to produce a bona fide wail vocalization. ... "
5. Uncited, OR? " ... although it is likely to be considerably less in the wild."

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All should be fixed. Thanks for the catches. – Maky ^« talk » 00:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fast work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ruffed lemur. 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/20110305073438/http://lemur.duke.edu/red-ruffed-lemursocial-behavior/ to http://lemur.duke.edu/red-ruffed-lemursocial-behavior/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yCsTFAut?url=http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-wildmadagascar.html to http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-wildmadagascar.html

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) 17:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruffed lemur. 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/20090324074239/http://www.sfzoo.org/openrosters/ViewOrgPageLink.asp?LinkKey=13503&orgkey=1821 to http://www.sfzoo.org/openrosters/ViewOrgPageLink.asp?LinkKey=13503&orgkey=1821

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) 13:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruffed lemur. 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/20110903024042/http://www.eskeletons.org/taxon/ruffed_lemur/boneviewer/skull/cranium.html to http://www.eskeletons.org/taxon/ruffed_lemur/boneviewer/skull/cranium.html

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) 10:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 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 15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]