Jump to content

Talk:Columbian mammoth/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 23:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll go for this review. Overall, this article is close to passing, but I will scrutinize it as much as I can as I assume you are going to nominate this for FA when it passes. IJReid discuss 23:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm still proof reading most of the parts after Palaeobiology, so they may not be completely up to snuff yet... Probably some time tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images could be rearranged, with an image of human interactions being moved down to the extinction section and photo's of fossils being spread out more so they don't overlap.
Yeah, I'd like a horizontal image of Clovis points for extinction (there are some on Commons, but they are from too far North), so if you find any, give me a hint... FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a a horizontal image, but I'm not sure if columbi are known form the site... Which fossil images do you think should be rearranged? I've placed them where there is relevant text, which is reflected in the captions. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason I thought there was a general policy that articles on extinct taxa begin with "[name] is an extinct..." although since mammoths are one of the iconic extinct groups it could get away with "[name] is a species of mammoth...". Correct me if I'm wrong.
That only makes sense when the title is a scientific name (as they are already grammatically "definite" in their names), not with common names, as here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they interbred, their range must have overlapped. I suggest rewording, but am open to how you reword it.
It is stated that their range overlapped in the intro and under distribution. But it is not known to what extent. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can their range have overlapped if M. columbi only lived in US to more southern, with M. prigmigenius in northern Canada. There is quite a spacial distance there.
It is explained in the article that it may have happened when southern areas where colder, but this is not really resolved by scientists yet, and the hybrid findings are very new, so have not been properly explained. I have a source where great surprise is expressed over the findings, perhaps it should be added? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/scin.5591801217/abstract FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added the source. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What disappeared 12ka, the Clovis?
The mammoth, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you're wondering about the choice of restorations, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Columbian_mammoth#Restorations.3F FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The restorations are okay, but maybe the Horsfall should be switched with the Knight, if the former is more accurate for depicting anatomy. IJReid discuss 00:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both are actually based on the same AMNH specimen (note the tusks), they only seem to differ in the distribution of fur, which is unknown... FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • The caption of the holotype should be corrected, space needed and brackets inside brackets can be removed.
It was like that in the paper, but I think you're right. looks more like other specimen numbers from that museum. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence before the evolution section does not make much sense. I would recommend clarifying or rewriting.

The rest of the evolution section reads very nicely, well done. IJReid discuss 00:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've simplified it a bit, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I've read the description, and I think it is GA or ever FA standard. IJReid discuss 01:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, if there's anything you feel should be elaborated on, or if there's something you feel is missing, please mention it. There's a lot of info that could potentially be added. Also note that some info here is identical to text at woolly mammoth, since many of the same things are true for both species. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The dentition has enough, but more info on general description/comparison with other species might be in order. IJReid discuss 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try, it is very hard to find anything specific, because most of what is known is identical to woolly mammoths, and much of what is known about woolly mammoth anatomy comes from frozen carcasses, which are not known for Columbians... FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Modern elephants form large herds, sometimes formed by multiple family groups, sometimes including thousands of animals migrating together" kind of has a weird structure, seems to end too soon. Could be fixed. IJReid discuss 13:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better? FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two above should be fixed. I've proof read the rest of the articles, so you're free to go at the entire thing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "masticated".
Changed to "chewed". FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are more periods instead of commas below the natural traps section.
Oh, I switched everything to periods. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co occurred should be hyphenated, I believe.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article is greatly written. IJReid discuss 15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, feel free to nitpick more, I'm waiting for a copyedit anyway, and you know how long that cna take... I still want to add more description info, if I can find it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notify me when you've finished adding, and I will read through it once more. IJReid discuss 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more anatomy added, don't think more of significance will be found. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Final querry before passing, in the Relationships with humans and Extinction sections ages in thousands have periods instead of commas. IJReid discuss 22:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it periods throughout the rest of the article? FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how that happened. In my opinion, eg. 12.000 looks like 12 point 0 instead of 12 thousand. Do you think this should be fixed? IJReid discuss 23:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, now I'm actually in doubt about what's right. I'm not much of a numbers guy... Maybe there's a manual of style recommendation somewhere? FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I think I fixed most of them now... FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will pass it now. Just a suggestion for later on, might want to make sizes and weights using the convert template, this should prevent unforseen OR. Also, synonyms reclassified, such as all those later placed in Parelephas, their authorities should be in brackets, makes it less confusing. IJReid discuss 04:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pass! Actually, it appears brackets are only used when the original author is credited after a mention of a later recombination by someone else. For example it would be: Archidiskodon imperator (Falconer, 1857) Leidy, 1858, or something like that. Or Mammuthus columbi (Falconer, 1857), as in the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, the last four synonyms need authorities. IJReid discuss 13:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately I have no idea, as Fossilworks didn't list their authors: http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=47873 Worst case, I can just give them all (Falconer, 1857), as it is technically true. I think some of the recombinations are form the 70s and 80s, but I don't know the specific authors. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Columbian_mammoth/GA1&oldid=660591430"