Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking on this review. The article looks good at a glance, but I'll have specific comments shortly. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As I said, it looks good. Just a few minor details:

Taxonomy

• "...and suggested that the teeth that Vucetichia was described on..." Personally, "was described on" sounds awkward and made me re-read the sentence. Maybe "from" instead of "on"?
  • Changed "described" to "based". Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a rough cladogram for some of this? I guess I'm having a hard time following some of this since you're telling the story of how they thought everything was related, and inevitably it changes. Where you say "Bonaparte considered the gondwanatheres to be probably most closely related to the xenarthrans...", you may need to indicate that this was an early idea that has since changed. Otherwise, it seems to get stuck in my head, but then you talk about multituberculates, which from my understanding are possibly somewhere between Theria and Monotremata (and not closely related to xenarthrans), and I start to get confused. Sorry if I'm making this difficult.
  • I've started a timeline of classifications at User:Ucucha/Gondwanathere timeline. It's true that the frequent changes in classification are confusing. There have basically been three major hypotheses: that they are xenarthrans or something close to them (proposed for sudamericids when Sudamerica was discovered in 1984, argued against in 1990, disproven by 1993; no one believes this any more); that they are multituberculates or something close to them (proposed for Ferugliotherium when it was discovered in 1986; first proposed for all gondwanatheres in 1990; canonical by 1993; controversial in 1999; revitalized in 2009; now probably the leading contender); and that we have no idea what on Earth they are (canonical since 1999). Within those three strands, there are of course minor differences, such as exactly what multis they are related to, and there have been some alternative proposals that gained little traction.
  • I've added some clarification on multituberculates and xenarthrans. Multituberculates I think are either sister to therians or to monotremes plus therians (we're not sure which of the two it is). Xenarthrans, of course, are placentals, although the discovery of sudamericids led some to resurrect the "Paratheria" hypothesis which makes them a third major group in addition to marsupials and placentals. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...described a single enigmatic tooth..." – Can you explain briefly what was enigmatic about it, or would that complicate things too much?
  • I prefer to keep description out of "Taxonomy". It's described in a single sentence there, though; perhaps I should add more (the article on the tooth itself has more discussion) but I'm also hesitant to write too much about this very tenuous record of a ferugliotheriid. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ultimately, this and the point above it are complicated because you almost need a general "evolution" article for all the groups involved. (Personally, I'm finding such specialty topic articles to be helpful for bringing information about multiple species together into a single article on a common thread.) I'm not saying that you have to do this. As more information is discovered and published, maybe someday such an article will be merited. For now, I'll let this pass and see what other reviewers think when you take this to FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Description

• "A diastema (gap) is present between the premolar and the incisor that would have been located in front of it." – The "it" at the end of the sentence is ambiguous. It carries over from the previous sentence (the fourth premolar), right?
  • It's between the incisor and premolar, so in front of the premolar. In re-reading the sentence, I don't think it's ambiguous, but I suppose we could substitute "the premolar" for "it". Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A second read through and I think you're right. I'm just used to looking for the target of the pronouns within the same sentence, particularly when dealing with prepositions and (in)direct objects. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is just an opinion, but the red-linked "wear" should probably be spelled out in the text as "tooth wear" rather than just linked to it. It's a real shame that it's a red-link... I may need it soon when I write about sifakas.
  • "has undergone much more tooth wear" just sounds odd to me; in this context you'd always just say "wear". Yes, we need an article on the subject. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "a broad loph" – What's a "loph"?
  • Bigger version of a ridge; substituted that word. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Range, ecology, and evolution

• "All three are approximately equally old..." – Maybe "All three are approximately the same age..."? It sounded a little funny, but not a big deal.
  • Done. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "estuary, tidal flat, or coastal plain" should probably be linked.
  • Done. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe it's just me, but sudamericids seem to get a lot of mention in this article, which felt a little off because they're not in the family. I don't know... given their close/uncertain relations, maybe it's appropriate. I just thought I'd share my concern in case someone else brings it up. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of it is placing them in context, since sudamericids are (probably) feruglios' closest relatives and therefore comparisons between the two are significant. Moreover, the history of sudamericids and ferugliotheriids has been intertwined so much that it's hard to cover the one comprehensively without also discussing the other. However, perhaps there are specific places where I have gone overboard with sudamericid material. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same as what I said above about an evolution article. Again, I'm not saying we need such an article right now, and nor will I hold this article back. Maybe other reviewers at FAC will have some informative thoughts on the matter. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it looks really good. The article meets GAN requirements, as far as I can see, but since you may take this on to FAC, I'll hold off promoting until we've worked out the details above. Great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 22:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly will go to FAC. Thanks for the review. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Great article. I'm happy to pass it as a GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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: