Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Archive 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Enhydriodon Taxonomy

Hello! As of right now, the Enhydriodon page is far from finished, so I'd just prefer some fact/source-checking and structure/grammar checks of the taxonomy section before I eventually proceed. This is my first time creating an entire section of a page that I had to build up from a stub, so if there's any key missing information standard for the taxonomy section/evolution subsection, let me know. No need to pay too much attention to the short description for now, I'll eventually rehandle that once the Enhydriodon page has more sections readily available to generate a better short description. Thanks! PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess nobody's really willing to review the taxonomy section... anyways, I might resume editing a description section in a few days maybe, so I guess if new sections are made, they most likely aren't available for checking yet. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I can do the structure/grammar check if you'd like. Not too well versed on mammals so cant really provide any critique of the content itself, but at least its a start? TimTheDragonRider (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I could definitely use all the help I can get in having the taxonomy section reviewed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Here are some of the things I found:
1st paragraph
- and isn't a reference to the genus Enhydra, which he said has a similar derivation. maybe remove "he said"
- According to the paleontologist swap paleontologist with Falconer, assuming he's the one being talked about
- which eventually changed the year he fully described the genus you might be able to remove this entirely
2nd paragraph
- As more debated Enhydriodon species such as E. campanii (later sorted into different genera) were introduced and as more prehistoric bunodont otter groups such as Sivaonyx and Vishnuonyx were discovered in the early 20th century, the 19th and 20th centuries created a particularly complicated history for the earliest-discovered prehistoric otter genus. I would put this in an active form, something like "During the 19th and 20th century, more debated Enhydriodon species like E. campanii were introduced and more groups of extinct bunodont otters were described, creating a particularly complicated history for the earliest-discovered prehistoric otter genus."
- He implied that despite the similarity I would make this "He also implied"
- its teeth fossils -> fossil teeth
- described in the continent -> from the continent
3rd paragraph
- had been discovered -> were being discovered
- debated the genera levels would change this to "debated the assignment of species (to genera)"
- For instance, in 1999, Paludolutra (Hürzeler & Engesser, 1976) was originally sorted as a sub-genus of Enhydriodon by Willemsen move "in 1999" to the end of this section (by Willemsen in 1999,)
- upon their respective times of discovery upon -> at
- (E. soriae remains a disputed species) maybe this can be included in the main sentence as ", though E. soriae remains a disputed species."
- (Enhydra was explicitly excluded from the category, and Paludolutra was later reclassified as a sister taxon). I'd add this as a seperate sentence without the brackets
4th paragraph
- its partial skull and femur remains in good as-is, but could potentially be changed to "remains of a partial skull and a femur". Change in -> from
- attributing it to be maybe change into "being"
- 200 kg on -> 200 kg maximum
- in the Lower Omo Valley in Ethiopia in -> from, and remove "in Ethiopia"
- observed that the Enhydriodon -> thought that Enhydriodon
- large-scale sizes -> large sizes
5th paragraph
- and primary source maybe change to something like "and it being a primary source"
I must say your writing is very good! I will add that, reading through everything, it feels like some parts of the text would fit better in the History of Discovery and Description sections. I will provide some notes on what pieces felt like this in just a bit, after I've asked a second opinion. Hope this helps! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
So after discussing with Armin Reindl, we've agreed that most of the text before the evolution header would fit nicer with the other two sections. Here's my proposed overhaul, but feel free to ask for my reasoning!:
  • move the last sentence of taxonomy before evolution down into evolution
  • move the pieces "described it... panther", "Falconer calculated... genera.", "The year... today)." and "It was... estimates" to the description section when you write it
  • move the rest of the section above the "evolution" header into a History of Discovery section
  • remove the "evolution" header and use the text below it as your taxonomy section.
Cheers, TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@PrimalMustelid (dont know if youve seen this) TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about not responding. I was inactive for a bit, but I have been implementing your suggestions already, just continuing to work on the description section (main section describing estimated size/weight) to import certain sentences regarding size/weight into the section at your recommendation. Otherwise, everything regarding history of discovery-taxonomy piece transfers and grammar fixes have been made. I'll let you know when I've implemented your last recommendation regarding transferring size/weight information into the description main subsection. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Update: I finished the description section of Enhydriodon and had already implemented most of your suggestions. The only thing I didn't do was transfer the information that Falconer described regarding its teeth because information from sources of more recent decades more accurately describe it and I'd prefer to restrict sources of the description section to recent decades. I do understand that not every species will be equally represented in the article, but that's kind of the result of fewer publicly accessible sources for certain individual species. If you're available, are you able to recheck the article to point out grammar mistakes, redundancy, or section misplacements (minus the short description, which again I'll eventually redo once I complete more sections)? After that, I'll work on the paleobiology/distribution and paleoecology sections then rework the short description to match up with other "good" paleontological taxon pages that are sourceless in their short descriptions. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Actually, looking back, I did use information earlier than the late 1900s, but it was only 2 sentences to describe proposed sizes for some Enhydriodon species which still holds true today from modern research. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@TimTheDragonRider in case you didn't see my messages. Paleobiology section will be finished soon but it's not ready quite yet ready if you plan on reviewing the Enhydriodon article shortly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I could review it again if you want to! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, the article other than the short description, paleobiology (under construction still) and paleoecology (not started yet) is ready for review! PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@TimTheDragonRider Are you available for article fact-checking currently? The paleobiology section is also available for review in addition to the previous sections making paleoecology the only unavailable section for checking (no subsection since we don't know much about the precise diets of Enhydriodon nor their general locomotion methods which likely vary by species, plus the locomotion and proposed diets tie into each other). PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I can look over the article and give you some pointers on spelling and grammar if you’d like that. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I can work with correcting the spelling and grammar of the article from article-checking. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@TimTheDragonRider It's been over a month at this point, are you still currently available for fact-checking? I'm fully available for next week and likely expand paleoecology by then, the other sections as mentioned earlier are already finished. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for not providing feedback sooner, past few weeks have been a little hectic on my end. Though it might also be a bit hectic I'll see if I can get you the feedback within the next week. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
@TimTheDragonRider It's been another month, and no 2nd review. I understand that you've successfully gotten a recent article to Good Article status already, so I'm not sure what's causing this current holdup. I would really like to address issues within the article I will resume writing shortly while I'm currently available, so if you can let me know your current status, that'd be really appreciated. Thanks. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Just skimming this, should Paludolutra have its own article? May be a good idea to at least link it in the Enhydriodon article, otherwise it's hard to figure out whether it's supposed to be a synonym or distinct.FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that Paludolutra should have its own article, as it’s considered a distinct bunodont otter genus that isn’t even classified under the Enhydriodontini tribe (according to one clade, it’s related more to Enhydritherium). Back then, before the Paludolutra genus was created, the species fossils were thought to have belonged to Enhydriodon, first brought up by Pilgrim in 1932 then Repenning in 1976. I’ll research more about its taxonomic history once I finish the Enhydriontini tribe genera articles (Sivaonyx and Vishnuonyx also need their own pages which I can work on in the near future), but long story short, Paludolutra is now considered its own genus, unrelated to Enhydriodon. I can link Paludolutra in the Enhydriodon page, although I’d prefer a stub page to be created for it in the process. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good, also seems we have a photo of it.[1] Speaking of images, I wonder if more public domain images of Enhydriodon can be found in the old sources? FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The original description from 1868 is now public domain so you can upload all the photos to the Commons and use them Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • As for the prose of the article, you kinda just drop "bunodont otter" and role with it as if it's a common phrase; maybe you should just give the taxonomic name of the bunodont group (I assume Enhydriodontini?) and use that since "enhydriodont" is more easily identified as a proper noun Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
    Looking back, I have definitely thrown the term bunodont otter a lot casually, so I could replace it with a more identifiable term for a majority of the page. I do worry, however, that the latter term is basically used frequently by all fossil otter researchers of recent decades in my sources as opposed to any other potential term plus "enhydriodontines" (coined by Martin Pickford in 2007; only the researchers of Siamogale I'm aware used that term later) when used only describes the 3 genera belonging to the Enhydriodontini tribe (Enhydriodon, Sivaonyx, and Vishnuonyx; a majority of bunodont otter genera currently don't belong to any known tribe). Is it fine for me to use your suggested "enhydriodonts" as an alternate name to "bunodont otters" then? I just want to make sure before I proceed in modifying the article to your suggestion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
are bunodont otters not united in a single clade? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Not all bunodont otter genera are sorted under any clade yet, but while all bunodont otters belong to the Lutrinae subfamily, they aren't united under a single clade. In the 2017 50% majority consensus tree (in the article) and according to the authors who described Siamogale melilutra and created the cladogram, Paralutra jaegeri and Siamogale both belong to a separate clade of "badger-like eastern Asian fossil [bunodont] otters." They explained that the bunodont dentition of otters, or "the acquisition of a bunodont dentition," "occurred at least three times in the evolution of otters: in the Sivaonyx-Enhydriodon-Enhydra, in Paludolutra-Enhydritherium, and in the eastern Asian otter Siamogale." I've failed to mention that in the classification section and should thereby correct that shortly. The answer is therefore no (the 2017 researchers of Siamogale very explicitly defined them as separate clades). PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
You very explicitly say the bunodont otters are a single clade "It is classified as a member of the bunodont otters group" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I made sure to correct that since that term is more generally categorical than taxonomic, recent edit reflects this correction in the short description and classification sections. It’s a general term used by researchers to mention these otters that acquired bunodont dentition during the Miocene-Pleistocene since they don’t necessarily form one clade. I wrote that sentence months ago as a basic description of ‘’Enhydriodon’’ before I finished researching the otters’ taxonomic relations. I’m making a better short description of ‘’Enhydriodon’’ once I finish writing at least the paleobiology section (then update it once I finish paleoecology). PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, PrimalMustelid, do you still only want a review of the taxonomy section, or is the article ready for an entire read-through? FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
The entire article is ready for a read-through! It should be noted that I'm still planning on expanding the paleoecology section to include more subsections for different regions of Africa that host different species of Enhydriodon, but the Indian Subcontinent and Ethiopia sections are basically finished. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I'll start from the beginning when I'm done with some Featured Article reviews. For now, I see a bunch of WP:duplinks which can be highlighted with this tool[2], though it is fine to keep links that duplicate those on cladograms. Other than that, the intro sections seems overly long, have a look at WP:lead length. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I wasn't aware of an ideal lead length for an article, but in hindsight, that can be an issue so I should simplify it to ~300-400 words. I'll handle it later on once I have enough time. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I simplified the lead length of the article from 682 words to 477 (I don't think I can simplify any more points in the lead length without removing important points of the article) and removed most duplicate links in the article! PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Funk

I could look into that later, sure, although I'm not sure where the image would fit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems there's plenty of room under for example Palaeobiology. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "is not a reference to the genus Enhydra" Explain that this is the genus of the sea otter.
Specified that it is the genus of the sea otter. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "previously sorted under the name Amyxodon in 1835." What is this genus, and what happened to it?
I specified the origins of the name Amyxodon more, in which it was the genus name of a carnivoran considered previously to be of an unknown affinity (or at least not adequately described outside of being a new genus) that was renamed Enhydriodon likely in reference to the genus meaning "otter tooth." I'm not sure whether I should call it a nomen nudum or not since the term is thrown around but never has a 100% consistent meaning outside of "invalid taxon." PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Has this particular name been called a nomen nudum in the literature? Then it should be fine to say here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "Falconer calculated the dental formulas of Lutra and Enhydra as 3.1.53.1.5 and 3.1.42.1.5, respectively (the molar and premolar teeth were presumably calculated together). Using this information and the available cranium specimens, he calculated the upper dental formula of E. sivalensis as 3:1:4, matching up more with the Enhydra genus. He described the upper carnassial of E. sivalensis as the most unique feature of its upper jaw, being nearly square and its coronal lobes being developed from conical mamelons unlike the two extant otter genera.[1]" If this is still accurate, it seems to make more sense under description.
Including 19th up to mid-20th century sources is pretty shaky since such information tends to be outdated the more the taxon is revised. Unfortunately, this is noticeable in most fossil mammalian genera outside the type genus basic description. I chose not to include it outside the taxonomy section because we haven't had recent sources indicating its dental formula. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I wonder why the "Research history" section isn't called "taxonomy", as in most other mammal articles, extant or extinct, since this is pretty much wha it's about? "Research history" is an extremely wide term.
In a past fact check, TimTheDragonRider suggested that I rename the section from "Taxonomy" to "Research History." I changed it back to "Taxonomy" since I do prefer that section name. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, better to be consistent across similar articles, and clearer if that's what the section is actually about. Pinging TimTheDragonRider just to notify. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "During the 19th and 20th centuries, more debated species of Enhydriodon such as E. campanii were introduced" I doubt these were "debated" by the moment they were named, instead you should later in the text explain why they were debated and when.
Rephrased the sentence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "that's presumed to" Contractions are discouraged, look throughout for these.
Removed the contraction. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "by Dr. Hugh Falconer" No need for title, as you don't give it to other people mentioned.
Removed the title. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "described E. africanus of the late Pliocene" Link Pliocene and other geological ages, and state them for the other species too.
Linked "Pliocene" and specified the ages of some other species of Africa. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "into a new genus named Paludolutra" Very wordy, when you can just say "into the new genus Paludolutra".
Fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "(Hürzeler & Engesser, 1976)" To be consistent with how you mention the other naming of new taxa, use full names of authors outside parenthesis at first mention.
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "in a collected memoir" Is this info needed?
Deleted. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "debated the assignment of species (to genera)." Why parenthesis?
Revised the sentence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "was originally reclassiied" Missing letter.
Fixed the misspelling. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "The taxonomies of individual otter species and genera continued to evolve" Is this referring to prehistoric species? If so, specify already here at the start of the sentence.
Okay, the sentence was awkwardly phrased, reworded it a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "by Willemsen in 1999" Full name at first mention.
Full name addressed, also fixed "1999" to "1992" since 1992 was the year of his source, my bad. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Link and spell out Martin Pickford at first mention, now you do it at second mention.
Linked the first mention of his full name. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "morphology of the Paludolutra genus" You only need "of Paludolutra", as we already know it's a genus.
Deleted "genus." PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "no longer be sorted under Enhydriodon by technicality)" What is meant by "technicality"?
Deleted "technicality" and rephrased the sentence to address Paludolutra's current status better. Also expanded a bit on the taxonomic history of Paludolutra. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "Eventually, Paludolutra was considered a separate genus again" By who and when?
Deleted that sentence since the 2007 research paper by Pickford and Morales already establishes that it is a distinct genus. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "with the latter 3 being sorted around their respective times of classification." I don't know what this means.
Revamped the information by expanding the taxonomic history of E. africanus, E. ekecaman, and E. hendeyi. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "with some researchers citing neutrality due to" Citing or claiming?
Replaced "citing" with "claiming." PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "In 2022, the four species were eventually reclassified into the Enhydriodon genus." By who and why?
Added "by Camille Grohé et. al." PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "sorted unto the Sivaonyx genus but was eventually assigned to the Enhydriodon genus" Again, no need to use the word genus after every generic name.
Removed more repeated usage of "genus." PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "and Paludolutra was later reclassified" Generally state when instead of words like "later", "recently", etc.
Added "In 2017" in the beginning of the sentence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "In 2007, Pickford corrected the supposed species E. aethiopicus (previously described in 2004) by transferring it to Pseudocivetta ingens" What does "corrected" mean? That's a very subjective statement (all such assignments are just hypotheses anyway), just say he transferred it. Also, if I read it correctly, it seems like he synonymised it, not just transferred it.
Made the sentence more objective-sounding and replaced "transferred" with "synonymized." PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "In 2011, a team of researchers" You can mention the first author and "colleagues".
Referenced the first author and other researchers. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "whose remains were also described to be from Ethiopia" Odd wording, either it was from Ethiopia or not, so just say they were also from Ethiopia.
Rephrased to "until another species also from Ethiopia." PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd make the classification section a subsection of a renamed taxonomy (formerly "research history") section.
Again, this was the result of a previous review by TimTheDragonRider in which I agreed with him to make it a section, but I'll make it a subsection again. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • If possible, I think the meaning of species names should be mentioned as you cover their scientific naming.
Addressed the etymologies of most Enhydriodon species described from the 21st century. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • The taxonomy text is a bit dense, and I'm a bit unsure after reading if there is controversy today with different camps having different views on species assignments, or if the taxobox reflects a current consensus?
The taxobox should currently reflect its current consensus, with E. latipes and E. soriae being considered species of questionable affinities. Unfortunately, it is unknown whether Martin Pickford and Jorge Morales explicitly disagree with the reclassification of Sivaonyx species to Enhydriodon since in the same month that the paper on E. omoensis was published, a conference paper by Valenciano, Morales, and Pickford refers to the species "Sivaonyx hendeyi" and "Sivaonyx africana", and we cannot say that the conference paper's referrals intentionally contradict the other source as a result of them being released within the same month. So as a result, we won't know until a possible research article on fossil African Lutrinae by them gets released. [3] The main reason I didn't list the conference paper is because I'm not sure whether conference papers are worth citing since they're not final. This is unfortunately common in paleomammology where the taxonomy of species remain constantly in dispute especially for incomplete fossils and their statuses as a result are always uncertain unless they're the type species and/or have complete/near-complete specimens. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I've included conference abstracts in even featured articles (such as Kosmoceratops), there are some criteria for when they can be used, and even some specific citation templates, so I think it's ok here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Added the conference paper in the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk If the taxonomy section is still difficult to understand, let me know and I'll continue to revise it. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

PrimalMustelid, sorry for the wait, seems the above was mostly dealt with, so I'll continue piece by piece below, with some comments added above. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "thought that the Enhydriodon" No need for "the" in front of generic names, as they are already definite article.
  • Link morphology.
  • "The following cladogram defines some of the following extant and extinct otter" Name the authors and when it was published in-text.
  • "based on a 50% majority consensus" I don't think this means anything to most readers.
    • Probably not, but I'm reluctant to remove it since it provides context to the type of tree that the readers are viewing, that the tree is based on, well, a 50% majority view of the phylogenies of the species but is not completely stable. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • "The researchers explained that the acquisition of bunodont dentition occurred at least three times in the evolution of otters" Could link convergent evolution somewhere here.
  • "(the bunodont otter genera are bolded)" Since some of them are red links, it's kind of hard me to see which are bolded or not. Wonder if there's another way to show this. What does the paper do?
    • The paper uses stratigraphic black bars to both indicate the bunodont otter genera and to highlight their stratigraphical ranges, which Wikipedia unfortunately cannot replicate. I mentioned in the sentence before the tree that the bunodont otters start from Paralutra jaegeri. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • "Nonbunodont otters" probably clearer with a hyphen after "non".
  • " likely branched out separate from" Separately?
  • "making the term a categorical one of otters" A bit clunky, maybe something simpler like "and the term therefore includes/covers otters"?
  • "Bunodont otters are defined as large to very large otters of North America, Eurasia, and Africa that had robust dentition" Given how much the term bunodont is used in the article, I wonder if a more specific definition as it relates to otters could be given, at least in a footnote?
  • "Dr. Hush Falconer's 1868" Typo, but only last name is needed here anyway, as he was already presented under taxonomy.
  • "as a lutrine animal the size of a panther" Don't think "animal" is needed.
  • PrimalMustelid, do you prefer I review all the rest of the article, which may be overwhelming for you if it ends up a long list, or that I continue piece by piece when you've fixed the above? FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
    I think I prefer a piece-by-piece review (one entire section at a time) once I address the above issues, I've been busy researching a Paleogene ruminant lately, but once I finish its taxonomy section shortly, I'll return to the Enhydriodon peer review. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk Think I addressed about everything so far except for a possible image restoration, which I may request for later. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk Do you want to continue the review? I think I've already addressed most suggestions. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I just finished a couple of FAC reviews I've had on the backlog for a while, so I'll continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Added a good chunk more below, PrimalMustelid. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I'll gradually address these issues over time and will let you know when I finish, some of these issues may take awhile to correct. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oddly, the name Guy Pilgrim is only spelled out under description, while he is mentioned by lastname earlier. All names should be spelled out fully at first mention, and later only last name given. Martin Pickford's name is also given in full under description (also randomly as Dr. Pickford, but I believe titles are discouraged), perhaps it is the case for others, check throughout.
  • "could've possibly been" Contractions are discouraged, check throughout.
  • " (then Sivaonyx hendeyi prior to 2022)" Not sure the exact date is needed here.
  • "such a size that E. africanus and E. ekecaman are estimated to be about" A bit convoluted wording.
  • "E. dikikae of Ethiopia is estimated to weigh 100 kg" Should be past tense, seems to be mixing tenses throughout, could be checked.
  • "It is also said to potentially be "lion-sized," making it the largest mustelid species to ever exist." By who? Extraordinary claims like these could need in-text attribution.
  • Nothing to say about the structure of the postcranial skeleton under description?
  • The section about the skull usually comes before that about the teeth, I can see the teeth are extra important in this genus, but I wonder if it still wouldn't make more logical sense for the skull to be described first? The teeth sit in the skull, after all.
  • "The proposed genera differences" I think "generic differences" would be the right way to put it.
  • "In comparison for most otters where the upper incisor is known" In comparison with?
  • Canine is linked at second instead of first mention.
  • If the main diagnostic features are in the dentition, I wonder if it would be better to show an image with the skull and teeth in the taxobox?
    • Perhaps, although the issue is that I have a very limited pool of dental images to choose from, especially since E. dikikae's skull is not under any CC permission. The closest thing is the 2 crania from Falconer's memoir, but those are old drawings that I'd rather save for the Taxonomy section, and I can't find any actual pictures of them.
  • "one of E. sivalensis of the Siwalik Hills and the other of E. dikikae of the Awash Valley" Not sure these locations need to be linked again down here.
  • "It is currently unknown whether the skulls' features of either species are well-representative of other species of Enhydriodon, but the known E. dikikae and E. sivalensis skulls" Since you've already presented the two skulls and what they belong to twice, I don't think "known E. dikikae and E. sivalensis" is needed. Could just be "the two skulls".
  • "Although the evolution of bunodont otters like Enhydriodon are unclear" Evolution singular, "is unclear".
  • Link and perhaps explain "derived".
  • Not a huge deal, but it is generally preferred that subjects of images should face towards the text, so the Dinocrocuta image could perhaps be right aligned.
    • Aligned image to right side.
  • "were both specialized in their diets that they commonly ate shellfish" A bit oddly worded, "specialized for commonly eating shellfish"?
  • "This claim is likely made from analogies of the diet of Enhydra" What is meant by "likely made"? Don't we know why and by who this was claimed? And who has refuted the claim?
  • "and ‘’Aonyx’’" Why is this in quotation marks? Also, you haven't explained what this is the generic name of.
    • Oh, that was when I edited on mobile, and the apostrophes are weirdly different, so they don't translate into italics, fixed.
  • Per the above point, I think it's a bit confusing that you use scientific names of extant species in discussions related to the extinct ones, because it's quite hard to keep track of what is what, especially since you seem to randomly use either scientific or common name for extant species. I'd recommend sticking to common names for extant species (unless this can't be avoided), only stating their binomials in parenthesis after first mention of each.
  • Likewise, you should state the common names of extant species in parenthesis in the cladogram. Otherwise it's very hard to discern what is extinct and what is extant.
  • "molluscivorous than cancrivorous" Can these terms be linked to anything?
  • "including extant genera" Add "the" for clarity.
  • "prey for African species of Enhydriodon" Likewise.
  • "in addition to large animals likely not catching having the ability to catch fast prey" Seems "catching" should be removed.
  • "Other armored prey, such as juvenile crocodiles, turtles, and ostrich eggs, are also suggested prey of E. dikikae" This almost sounds like the giant otter, have comparisons been made?
  • And speaking of the giant otter, should it be stated somewhere that it's the largest living otter species, considering this article is about the largest otter species ever?
  • "meaning that it could've" Contraction.
  • "could possibly hint at a semiaquatic plus terrestrial lifestyle" A bit informal, how about "as well as"?
  • Maybe a bit of a large task, but I'm missing that the various claims and counterclaims under paleobiology and elsewhere are given in-text author attribution and dates, so it will be easier to follow the chronology and context of the "conversation" which it basically is.
  • "pointed out to a" I don't think "out" is needed.
  • "(E. species from West Turkana" You do this genus abbreviation a bunch of places, but I think it's unnecessary, as the reader knows the genus from the context, and I don't think I've ever seen any source abbreviate a generic name as a letter if it wasn't part of a binomial.
  • "whose niche was a terrestrial predator" A bit odd to say it's niche is a predator. Had a niche as a terrestrial predator? What does the source say?
  • "which future research would have to cover" Not sure what is meant by this.
  • "found in sites in association with permanent bodies of wate" Could just say "sites associated with" to avoid being so wordy.
  • ", putting a question to the extent of the possibly terrestrial lifestyle of " Also very wordy
  • "Sivaonyx beyi of Chad, speculated to weigh 56.4 kg (124 lb) to 60.1 kg (132 lb), was thought to be a generalist locomotor whose niche was a terrestrial predator with poor aquatic adaptations based on its generalist limb proportions, implying that at least some large bunodont otters were possibly semi-aquatic or even terrestrial in lifestyle" This is an extremely long sentence.
  • The footnote needs a citation.
  • "Since both the African clawless otter and Asian small-clawed otter are typically associated as less linked to water bodies" Associated is oddly placed here. "Are typically less associated with water bodies" or "less linked to", instead of both.
  • Link fossorial, and perhaps define it.
  • "measured the stable carbon and oxygen isotope ratios" A lot here to link.
  • Carnivorans is duplinked.
  • "deviations of the sea otter (Enhydra lutris)" You only need to give the binomial at first mention (not counting the cladogram).
  • "The results of the study as a result" No need for double result.
  • "It was also initially considered that the diet of Enhydriodon" Initally by who and when? Again, this context is needed for a lot of claims and counterclaims under paleobiology.
  • "could've been Etheria elliptica" Contraction. Also mention what kind of animal it is, you only imply later that it's an oyster.
    • Fixed both issues.
  • "durophageous abilities that allow it to feed on carrion" Not sure why you use present tense for a prehistoric animal, check throughout for this.
  • Before I review the Palaeoecology section, I'm concerned that it's too long and hyper-detailed. I think much of it could be moved to the articles about the specific formations and shortened and summarised much more here.
    • Since apparently someone added information about the Hadar Formation faunas into the namesake article a long time ago, so I simplified a paragraph a bit. However, the Indian Subcontinent I feel would be more difficult to simplify for a few reasons: 1) the surprising lack of Indian subcontinent articles in Wikipedia, and I tend to focus on individual mammal genera articles than formation/deposit articles and 2) my concern that illustrating differences in faunas based on faunal turnover events will be less effective if I simplify it, as the Indian subcontinent subsection is built on climatic events and faunal turnovers illustrating differences in environments over the course of the late Miocene-early Pleistocene. What do you think about how I should handle it? PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I think this issue would be brought up again if you took it to FAC. If there are no articles to place this information is, they're probably needed and should be created, even if just stubs, then others can improve them. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Link Enhydriodontini in the intro, and any other terms not yet linked there.
  • "and is a reference to its dentition rather than to the Enhydra genus." State in the intro that this is the sea otter.
  • "the genus Enhydra, which has a similar derivation and is where the sea otter is classified" Convoluted, could just say the genus of the sea otter.

Could state some are estimated to have been bear and lion sized in the intro, which is pretty significant.

  • "Enhydriodon is primarily studied for its dentition" This is an odd way to put it, rather it is mainly known from it, no? Now it reads like it's a choice, when it's seemingly from lack of material.
  • "seemingly emphasizing diets that would be consumed by crushing prey" This is kind of awkwardly worded, perhaps say "a diet of prey that would have been consumed by".
  • "As such, it is classified as a member of the bunodont otters group, a categorical term referring to fossil lutrines" This still implies taxonomy by saying "classified", could just say "grouped among the bunodont otters".
  • "a trait unseen" Not seen. Unseen implies hidden.
  • "that Indian species of Enhydriodon are semiaquatic and consumed" Stray present tense.
    • Changed to past tense.
  • "bunodont dentitions would've " Contraction.
  • "in particular could've been" Likewise.
  • "complicated by disputes with similar bunodont lutrine genera" Disputes with the genera? That sounds odd, the classifications are disputed, the genera don't have disputes.
  • "modern day, although Paludolutra is today considered a distinct genus not closely related to Enhydriodon. Today, the Enhydriodontini" A lot of "day/today", try to mix it up with "presently" etc.
  • "which they're closely related" Contraction.
    • Fixed all contractions.
  • "tree proposing that Enhydra is a separate clade (Paralutra jaegeri was proposed as a separate clade as well)" What is meant by separate clade? A genus is already a clade, so it is separate by definition.
    • In the 50% majority consensus tree, one can see that Enhydra lutris is part of the Enhydra-Enhydriodon clade, which is part of the wider clade for which Sivaonyx and Vishnuonyx are also part of. The Bayesian consensus tree has Enhydra be in a clade isolated from Enhydriodon, Sivaonyx, and Vishnuonyx. This is illustrated in the 2nd clade of the 2017 article on Siamogale. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure what the defining diagnostic features of this genus are from reading the article. Just larger incisors?
    • Enhydriodon's diagnosis boils down to extreme bunodont molars and some very, very specific dental differences as mentioned from the first paragraph of the dentition subsection, a majority of which unfortunately proves difficult to evaluate. Pickford et al. referred to Plio-Pleistocene Asian forms of bunodont lutrines only to Enhydriodon and earlier Miocene Asian species plus all African species of Enhydriodontini to Sivaonyx, something that we see Geraads et. al. (2011) and Grohe et. al. (2022) disagree with. I wish there was an easy answer, but unfortunately, there isn't an easy one. Also, most mammal genera diagnoses rely in part on dental cuspid positions, something that can't be simplified for something like Enhydriodon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk Apologies for the long wait, I was occupied with writing and finishing the article Bachitherium and working on Anoplotherium in my 2nd sandbox. Let me know if there are still major issues in the preceding sections of the Enhydriodon article that I still need to address. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a look soon, PrimalMustelid, one question, the points above that you have not commented under, does that mean they have been fixed, or might they need answers too? FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Usually that means that they've already been addressed and I just forgot to mention that. I can add in those points shortly if that works better for you. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
If they're all fixed, that should be fine. But in my experience, some points often slip through and are missed if not checked off one by one. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Now that I've read the rest of the revised Palaeoecology section, PrimalMustelid, I can specify my main concerns with it. I am unsure how the fourth long paragraph under "Pakistan and India" and most of the last paragraph under "Ethiopia" (except the last sentence about the fishes) are relevant to this particular genus. I would suggest this text be moved to formation articles, and while you say these don't exist yet, they probably should, and I think you could make some pretty strong articles just by transferring and copying some info from here, and then others will improve them. There are other bits and pieces I think could be shortened, but these are the main issues, and I think they would also be pointed out by FAC reviewers. But I would also like Jens Lallensack's view on this, as it's not exactly an easy issue. I think the rest of the article looks good now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree. While some context is good to have, the article still feels quite verbose, which a lot of detail that sometimes distract from the key points. I also have a tendency to include all detail that I can find into my articles. But when I am reading/reviewing articles of others, I honestly always wish that the article is as concise as possible while still being comprehensive, and that non-crucial detail is left out. As FunkMonk said, there are many possibilities to apply WP:Summary Style to the Paleobiology section. Another thing I am unsure about are the measurement tables. Maybe not a big issue because they don't get in the way while reading, but we usually do not provide measurement tables in articles at all (probably, readers looking for this amount of detail will go to the published papers directly). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    I can look into summarizing the paleoecological section, especially the Indian Subcontinent subsection. To do that, I would like to ideally collaborate with someone with making the Siwaliks Formation articles (this is no easy feat as there are at least 4), and I think I know who I'd want to work with. For now, however, I want to spend more time into expanding other articles into a subject that I'm increasingly specializing in, so it may take awhile to start Siwalik articles then import information from the Enhydriodon article into the other articles.
    As for the tables, while I can understand the argument that they're already in their original articles, I feel that I can more effectively demonstrate/prove points of larger dental or other anatomical sizes when I offer evidence of that, and I'd rather not be typing them into paragraphs. For instance, the generally larger sizes of the teeth of E. omoensis does prove that it is larger than those of other species, so it's optional for casual readers but there for the expert readers. I've been using tables for multiple articles already, but if the tables become a consistent issue, I can try working around the data.
    Also, nominating it for an eventual FAC article was never something that came into my mind (I was thinking GA at most), but if I can revise the paleoecology section then work well on an eventual GA nomination, I can look into it.
    I will let you two know when I simplify the paleoecology section. Thanks! PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
That sounds fine, as it's our internal peer review, there is no time limit. You could save the cut information in a sandbox so you don't have to make formation articles right away. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
@FunkMonk and @Jens Lallensack Alright, I simplified the paleoecology section for the most part and cut the tables. Eventually, more Indian Subcontinent formation articles would be ideal, but that's for the distant future, saved information in one of my sandboxes. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Looks better to me, PrimalMustelid. One last comment for this and other articles, as I note you've done it the opposite in places; it is preferred that subjects of images (be they human or animal) face towards the text, not away from it. Certainly not a big deal, but it is stated in the manual of style. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Jens

  • Enhydriodon was first described in 1868 by Hugh Falconer when he erected the genus based on several craniums attributed to E. sivalensis in Siwalik Hills, India.
    • "craniums" – shouldn't it be "crania"?
    • "first described" and "he erected" are kind of redundant.
    • "attributed to E. sivalensis" – but in fact, he attributed them himself?
    • Did he really publish (or wrote) the description in Siwalik Hills, India, as this sentence seems to state?
      • It's one of weird cases where the work was published posthumously, but yes, Falconer did write the whole memoir with descriptions of the Siwalik Hills himself, he was pretty much one of the main paleontologists of his time within the field of Siwalik Hills fossils. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Apparently, the species was described earlier. Not a requirement, but keeping the section in chronological order can make it much easier for readers to follow.
  • The whole Taxonomy section is a wall of text, it needs more paragraphs and sub-headings.
  • the Siwalik Hill fossils belonging to E. sivalensis were previously classified under the name Amyxodon – the information seems incomplete; which species, and by whom?
  • Following up from the above; reading on, it mentions "A. sivalensis", indirectly implying that this was the species. In that case, you could write much more concisley with starting "were previously classified as Amyxodon sivalensis".
  • But if that is true, then the authority for the type species given in the taxon box (Falconer, 1868) seems to be wrong? The species sivalensis was named 1835, and the type species is wrong to (should be the original genus and species name).
    • Uhh, I will say this is where things get tricky: in his 1835 description, Hugh Falconer named the genus and species, but he neither attributed any type specimen/holotype to the genus nor did he formally describe it. All he did was list "Amyxodon" as a carnivoran genus that he erected under the list of fossil genera. What he seemingly did was use that as a loophole in his memoir to rename the genus to Enhydriodon and provide formal descriptions and the holotype to it, which is why authors to the modern day consider the year of its erection to be 1868 and not 1835. Amyxodon is simply a dead name that was replaced by the later name Enhydriodon, although he reused the species name. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • In general, you have a lot of text with a lot of detail. I love detail, but we also need to bear in mind that readers are looking for condensed information, and that reading long text is hard. I think there are plenty of possibilities to shorten the text without loosing much (or anything). For example, take these two sentences: Falconer calculated the dental formulas of Lutra and Enhydra as […] respectively (the molar and premolar teeth were presumably calculated together). Using this information and the available cranium specimens, he calculated the upper dental formula of E. sivalensis as 3:1:4, matching up more with the Enhydra genus. Alternatively, you could write it like this: "Falconer estimated that Enhydriodon had four premolars and molars in its upper jaw, one less than in the extant genus Lutra but matching the count of Enhydra". This is also easier to understand as it doesn't require understanding of the dental formulae (you could still add that in a bracket as optional information if you think it is important).
  • in January of 2005, Martin Pickford, Dolores Soria, and Jorge Morales – further below, you use "and colleages" when there are more than two authors, and I think that is more reader-friendly. I also think that "January" is excessive information, since the exact month of publication does not really matter in scientific publishing anyways.
    • I used "January" and "December" to distinguish the two papers that Jorge Morales and Martin Pickford wrote to avoid confusion by the two research papers that cover similar topics. How should I address this exactly? For the other issue, I followed up and used "and colleagues." PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • although it is currently unknown whether this was an oversight on the 2022 paper by Camille Grohé or a disagreement with its reclassifications.[16] – since you are only citing that very conference abstract, where is the source for "it is currently unknown"? If this is your own conclusion, than we need to avoid that due to WP:Synth.
  • Only a few quick points for now, not a comprehensive review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'll be addressing those points shortly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Peer_review/Archive_7&oldid=1194769556"