From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Darwinius was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 7, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 20, 2009.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Darwinius is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Primates (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discovery and acquisition[edit]

This section doens't explain how the two plates were put together (supposedly in 2007). Was Plate B bought, donated or what? And who was the first to notice its similarities with Plate A? Thanks to whoever may add this info. Capmo (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No longer considered a human ancestor or even closely related[edit]

See ‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all. Seregain (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tend to avoid the sweeping statements of the media (who believed all this stuff in the first place). For those with access, a more sober reflection is in a recent issue of Nature magazine, which I've linked to in the article itself - Fossil primate challenges Ida's place Nature 461, 1040 (2009). I think the 'Concerns over cladistic analysis' section is a reasonable reflection of the views at the moment. Average Earthman (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I added content and references relating to the news story Seregain linked to above two days ago. It's an important analysis, but certainly doesn't end the discussion. Fences&Windows 15:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't end the discussion at all, but half of the early references on this article (I believe several of which are still up) come from those same sources that were removed with the addition that I had written. Both the original story and the followups that were posted were quickly posted and circulated on those sites... I don't see why the links I posted should have been removed as they are sources just as valid as many used for the original story. Burleigh2 (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
My point is that we don't write articles by making additions to the lead. Your addition was also too chatty and non-specific; it gave little real information on what has been found by Seiffert et al. The content you added is already in the body of the article and is represented in the lead generally by reference to dissent from the classification: "Others have disagreed with this", with a reference to a news story in Nature about this latest study. If you want to expand the mention of the latest study in the lead, add it to that paragraph, not as a new paragraph at the end of the lead. Fences&Windows 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, done. I added the link to the appropriate paragraph as you mentioned and I didn't add any more "chatty" or "non-specific" information to the article. Thanks for the clarification! Burleigh2 (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Some comments to start with:

  • Is the etymology of the name really important enough for the first paragraph of the lead?
  • "The creature appeared superficially similar to a modern lemur"—vague. Did it look like an aye-aye, Hadropithecus, Babakotia, or gray mouse lemur?
  • Do you need all those details about exactly where Messel is in the lead?
  • The lead has very little about its actual distinctive characters. What characterizes the genus?

Ucucha 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if UtherSRG was planning to shepherd his noms through GAC or if he was just tossing them on the list with the hope that they'd be promoted. My time is limited, and at this point I don't plan on doing much with this article, though I will try to push this one through. (In other words, don't review this like a FAC nom—I'm not planning to take it there.) I will try to fix what I can this morning. Adding a description of its characteristics will be a much more lengthy process since the Franzen article provides extensive detail. I'll hit the highlights when I get back from work tonight. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like UtherSRG has been doing some work. Anyway, a description section is needed, and I still plan to work on that. The lead also needs fixing up. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That may be difficult, since this may well come to a point where the article passes the GA criteria, but where I'm not comfortable saying it is "good". At this moment, I have the following three main problems with the article:
  • It says preciously little about Darwinius itself—the features of the animal. The "Description" section you're going to write will help there.
  • The organization is not ideal. I would organize it (not necessarily in that order) into (i) description of the fossil itself, (ii) history of its discovery and publication, (iii) interpretations about its ecology and the way Ida died, and (iv) the relationships of Darwinius (and, by extension, adapiforms). At the moment (ii) is divided into three sections and makes up about half of the article—more than can be justified, I think.
  • The sourcing is bad for a scientific article. Most of the references are to news media, which are hardly if at all reliable sources on scientific matters. It only cites one scientific article (Franzen et al., 2009), even though several others have been published (Google Scholar gives 47 hits for Darwinius, but several of those are lay summaries and popular comments), including this one in the Journal of Human Evolution and a more thorough phylogenetic study at doi:10.1038/nature08429.
Some of those may go beyond the GA criteria, but I think they are the areas that need to be worked on before this can really cover Darwinius well. Ucucha 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, I haven't looked thoroughly at the article, but I was under the same general impression. That's why was thinking it would take too much time and effort for me to clean it up for a FAC run. Anyway, per the GAC criteria and your comments, the article technically fails 2b (verifiability for a scientific article) and 3a (covers the main aspects of the topic). It may even have some problems with 1b (layout and style). Just like at FAC, articles should be judged according to the standards set for their type (i.e. scientific articles, etc.). You're the reviewer, and you are welcome to fail it. Personally, I was only hopping on to add some details, but if you're right (and I plan to read the article in a moment before adding the details), then it may be too far in the hole for me to justify saving its GAC nom at this time. If that's the case, I may withdraw and add this article to the bottom of my long to-do list. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've changed my mind. This article needs a lot of work, and I don't have time to mess with it. Maybe UtherSRG will be interested in cleaning it up. If it gets down to just needing a description section, someone let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
GA failed. I might work on it myself some day. Ucucha 05:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

New Switek journal article[edit]

Just fyi, Brian Switek has published an article with a retrospective overview of the controversy surrounding the initial publication and media publicity of Darwinius. Could add to or supplement the existing sources and provide a more scholarly source than the blog links.[1] MMartyniuk (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


The following is an excellent source that talks about the media campaign surrounding this fossil and the issue of science in the media. It's a much better source than most of the news articles presently cited. I don't have time to add the information myself, but someone should.

– Maky « talk » 19:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)