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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing this one, comments in a couple of days. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I hope you like the primordial vole of Madagascar (that's what the teeth remind me of, at least). Ucucha 17:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• rather than being friendly and inviting, the lead is filled with jargon and complexity. Already I don't know what the 4th word means; "Lavinify is a member of the family Sudamericidae and most closely related to the Indian Bharattherium" this sentence, relying on two redlinked terms, has no meaning whatsoever for me
  • I wrote a short article on sudamericids. I don't think redlinked taxon articles really impede the understanding, though.
• "The teeth were collected in 1995–1996 and described as a new genus in 1997." A genus of teeth? Don't you mean the animals from whom they were collected are the genus?
  • We don't know those animals, though, and Krause et al. (1997) only described the teeth. But regardless, I changed it.
• dentine island - a what?
  • Clarified.
• After reading the lead, I have no idea what kind of animal this is. If the scientists don't know either, that should be made explicit in the lead.
  • Added some inferences about diet.
• "Lavanify, means "long tooth"" in what language?
  • Malagasy, added.
• "Gondwanatheres are a small group of mammals of uncertain affinities…" please spell out what uncertain affinities means
  • That we don't know what they are related to? Not sure what the problem is here.

• I'm just thinking if I had read this a few years ago, I might not have understood that "phylogenetic" or "evolutionary" affinity was implied, and the meaning might have been lost. Sasata (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The low-crowned family" Link or define crown?
  • Linked on first occurrence.
• Shouldn't the article give dates for these geological eras on first usage? I certainly don't know what they are by memory, and think most readers wouldn't either.
  • Done.
• "considerable intraspecific variation" a little jargon-heavy
  • Clarified.
• "continuous bands of IPM" This acronym has not been defined
  • I removed that yesterday because I thought I didn't actually use the abbreviated form in the article. Mea culpa, readded now. Ucucha 06:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that if early in the article there was a sentence something like this, it would help set the background: "Gondwanatheres were first identified from isolated molars that are so different from those of contemporaneous mammals that their broader attribution was (and is) uncertain." Sasata (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point; I added a little. Ucucha 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I think the changes and additions make to article easier to read. I'm passing it now. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]