Talk:Duerotherium

Duerotherium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 21, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 15:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the classification section, I am worried about GA criterion 3b: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. – I don't think it stays focused on the topic, as almost the entire classification section is not really about Duerotherium itself. It reads like a section that should belong in the Anoplotheriidae article. I understand that there is not much to say about Duerotherium itself (apparently it has never been included in a phylogenetic analysis?), but then, the other information is just context/background and should be much (much) more concise (see WP:Summary style). I suggest to move that text into Anoplotheriidae and only leave a brief summary here – except for the information that is actually specific for this genus.
Such a huge cladogram that does not even have Duerotherium included? It is fine to have it to illustrate broader relationships, but I really think it should be much, much more simplified, with only the major groups (and perhaps some species as outgroups) shown, and the rest collapsed.
his academic thesis – Should say "Phd thesis"
Note that much of paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 of "Classification" is redundant. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not yet planning on working on the Anoplotheriidae article, so that's for future me to deal with. For now, I decided to cut down the classication subsection a bit as requested. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph on Weppe could be written much more concisely with the same information. In addition, there is some information that I don't think is really relevant here (such as Anoplotherioidea, which have not been mentioned before. Also, if he did a cladogram including Duerotherium, why isn't that included in the article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anoplotheriids have selenodont or bunoselenodont premolars and molars made for folivorous/browsing – Too technical, needs to be more accessible.
consistent with environment trends in the late Eocene of Europe. – too unspecific; which environmental trends?
The canines of the Anoplotheriidae are premolariform in shape, meaning that the canines are overall undifferentiated from other teeth like incisors. – I don't really understand it, please check.
bunoselenodont in form while the lower molars have selenodont labial cuspids and bunodont lingual cuspids. – again, too technical.
Anoplotheriinae differs from the Dacrytheriinae by the lower molars lacking a third cusp between the metaconid and entoconid as well as molariform premolars with crescent-shaped paraconules. – That would mean that the lower molars lack molariform premolars.
The P3 – I already pointed out this problem in the last review (again, most readers won't follow if you use unexplained notation).
is elongated plus triangular in shape, – "and", not "plus"; the latter is not appropriate encyclopedic wording, and it implies an addition where there is none.
distolingually positioned protocone cusp plus a noticeable posterolingual talon. – again, jargon.
has only has externally-positioned cusp – check --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
be consistent with capitalisation (e.g., middle Eocene / Middle Eocene).
That's all now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented all the suggestions. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack Pinging in case you didn’t see this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please review those comments once more, since not all of them seem to be addressed. For example, did you address my comment on the Weppe paragraph? As for the description, there are still unexplained and unlinked technical terms, such as protocone and mesiodistal (all these terms of direction could be linked to Anatomical terms of location). Also, early/Early Eocene is still inconsistent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed all the above now, but if I missed anything still, let me know. The reason for not (yet) including Weppe's phylogenetic tree is because I'm unsure about if those from PhD theses can be included for Wikipedia articles in relation to reliability guidelines. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to promote, but then, the statement "The P3 (third upper premolar) is in a mesiodistal position" caught my attention, as it does not make any sense to me. I checked with the source, and indeed, they instead say "mesiodistally elongated", which refers to the shape of the tooth (elongated in the direction of the tooth row), not the position. Furthermore, I don't think that they treat size as a diagnostic character; that's only in the introduction sentence for the diagnosis that provides the context for the diagnositc features that follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed phrase. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is misleading when you don't specify in which direction it is elongated; the reader would wrongly assume it means that the tooth is high. Also, what about the other issue on size? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Readjusted the size statement issue by transferring the small size mention to the last paragraph. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.