Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Archive 8

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

Sivapardus

Last time I came here, I was inexperienced with actually writing articles and chose one a bit too big for my meager abilities. But now I'm back, with the recently-expanded Sivapardus: a fossil cat so obscure it's been mentioned maybe once since its original description in 1969. My biggest concern is the Description section, as making technical details of a partial mandible understandable for the layperson is hard. While this article is too short for GAN, I hope it can at least be good enough for B-class. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Jens

  • I don't think that length is a concern for GAN as long as the article is comprehensive. However, the fact that this genus is only mentioned in the first description (which is a very old one) but was not discussed in later works could be seen as a concern. So for this reason, it might be prudent to not submit for GAN.
    • There still seems to be a preference for GAs to be longer than my poor Sivapardus, but having only one major source is definitely the sticking point.
  • To improve accessibility, always use the same term for the same thing. You use both "type specimen" and "holotype"; just stick with one term (because if you use a different term, the reader will assume you mean a different thing).
    • Changed use of holotype to type specimen and linked.
  • dental alveolus – could replace that with "tooth socket".
    • Done.
  • The diastemata behind the canine tooth was short. – "diastema"?
    • Whoops! There's a Dinofelis named D. diastemata for its diastema; for some reason I always get the words mixed up.
  • While the structure of the third premolar is unknown – What do you mean with "structure"?
    • Changed to "shape".
      • Now the sentence makes no sense though: While the shape of the third premolar is unknown, the shape is typical of cats.
        • Drat. I'm not sure how to say this, then. Would "form" work better?
          • I am not sure what you want to say in the first place, can you explain? "Form" and "Shape" are almost synonymous I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
            • So, as I understood it, only the root of the tooth, the part situated within the jaw, was still present on the fossil. So the outline of the base is known but not any of the structure above the jaw.
              • OK. You already stated in the text that of the third premolar, only the root is known. So write here "The root of the third premolar is typical of cats"? I wonder, though, if the root of the third premolar in particular is really so diagnostic for cats? Is this what the source says? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
                • The source doesn't say that it's diagnostic, just that the structure is unknown, while the shape of the roots "suggest a tooth narrow in front and broad behind like most of the cats". Anyway, I just changed the sentence to The shape of the third premolar, based on the roots, is typical of cats. in lieu of more finagling.
  • The fourth premolar and the first molar were described more thoroughly. – not sure if this is relevant.
    • Removed, it was an artifact of when the first two paragraphs were only one paragraph and it was part of a larger sentence.
  • The fourth premolar – I don't think this should be linked. It makes no sense to have an article on "fourth premolar".
    • Removed.
  • consecutive cusps – what does "consecutive" mean here precisely?
    • In a row. Changed.
  • add an explanation for cingulum (in brackets)
    • Added.
  • Bakr described it – what does "it" refer to?
    • The species; changed.
  • add explanation for "massetic fossa"
    • It was supposed to be masseteric fossa, and added.
  • Other fauna known from the three Pabbi Hills localities – you only list herbivorous mammals here (and so does the source, it seems); so is this really a comprehensive list of the "fauna" in general as you claim?
    • There are, in fact, no other carnivorans known from the localities that I know of. But also qualified it as "..are primarily herbivores and include.." rather than claiming it to be comprehensive.
  • The lead could be longer, it is supposed to be a summary of the entire article.
    • Expanded a tad; ledes are hard for me.
  • based on fossils from the Upper Siwaliks – as I understood, it is only one fossil, not "fossils"?
    • Changed.
  • If it is easy to get a map of Pakistan showing where the Sar-Dhok locality is, this would be a great addition. Do you have coordinates?
    • I can try.
      • Done!
  • Or maybe even a labelled sketch of the fossil itself; that would make it much easier to understand the description section. But this is purely optional of course and depends on how much work you want to put into this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The Sar-Dhok locality is estimated to be of Late Pliocene to late Early Pleistocene age – But in the taxonbox, you only list Pleistocene; why? Also, this information should definitely appear in the lead, too.
  • Redirect of Sivapardus punjabiensis to this article still needs to be created. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Jens Lallensack: I've answered and acted on all of the above comments, and am (hopefully) in the process of acquiring an drawing or diagram of the type specimen. Do you have any other concerns? Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
No, looks good to me! I think we can elevate it to "B-class" (which is just one level below GA). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless anyone else has comments, this can probably be archived now. Although I do have a question about how often I can put an article up for peer review here? Because I have a laundry list of over obscure cats that I intend to work on and would like to put through some kind of review eventually, and most just don't have the sourcing and/or supporting materials to make it through GAN. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Archival will be automatic after some time of inactivity, so don't worry about that! We don't have any limitations regarding the number of articles one can post here, so please feel free to post more. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Felis wenzensis

A short, but hopefully comprehensive, article about a fossil cat species from Poland. It's original description has the distinction of being freely available online, which just makes it stranger that it's hardly been mentioned since it was described. As before, I am most concerned about the Description and Paleoecology sections. Thanks for any help, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Węże 1 – Specify where in Poland this is?
  • The holotype and only specimen is a partial left ramus – you need "mandibular ramus", since some other bones also have rami.
  • The holotype and only specimen is a partial left ramus: the front part of the ramus – Why not simply "The holotype and only specimen is the front part of a left mandibular ramus"?
  • fellow prehistoric feline – do you mean "contemporary"?
  • five other carnivorans are known from Węże 1 – would help to also state the groups to which they belong.
  • The lead could be longer, it is supposed to summarize the entire article.
  • Again, this is all I found for now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    I believe I have made all of the requested changes. Thank you! SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sivasmilus

Another smaller article about an obscure Siwalik genus, but this time it's a barbourofelid rather than a felid- or is it? As before, I'm hoping that it is good enough for B-class even if it can't go to GAN. Additional note: the major sources are freely available online, so I'd appreciate someone checking my Description section against what the papers say- I'm still shaky on making it readable yet comprehensive. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  • machaerodont – link/explain at first mention?
    • Done.
  • Sivasmilus is a fossil genus of barbourofelid – does it make sense to add ("false saber-toothed cat") here for readers who do not know what a barbourofelid is, and just want to know what the article is about?
    • I dislike the name, but it's probably useful to casual readers. Done.
  • "mental crest", "foramina", parastyle: link at first mention
    • Done.
  • In 2018 a study noted that the mandible fragment seemed to fit the holotype of Sivaelurus (a near-complete right maxilla, or upper jaw bone) quite well – A mysterious statement which is open to speculation. But what can we do if the authors are not more clear.
    • Yeah, that was basically all they said.
  • situated above the cheek teeth, – What does that mean, "above"? And why cheek teeth if you already used "premolar"?
    • Changed to situated above the level of the premolars to reflect what the source said.
  • a very distinct series of very fine serrations. – In most cases, "very" does not really add anything and can usually be removed.
    • Done.
  • a strong metastyle behind the principal cusp, and room for a parastyle in front of it – In front of what?
    • In front of the principal cusp. Clarified.
  • I can't see any further issues. Nicely done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Vishnufelis

Another in a series of obscure Siwalik cats, I suspect this article has a few more issues than the prior ones I've brought here. There is no supporting material for this one, although I had some time ago requested an image over at WP:PALEOART. That makes it a bit sad-looking, alas. Thanks in advance, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Vishnufelis is an early fossil genus of feline – The "early" is slightly confusing here and a bit much for the first sentence. Consider moving it where you discuss it's age. Also, I would add "cat" behind "feline", to increase accessibility of the first sentence.
    • Done
  • based on the first felid cranial material found in Asia – write "of a fossil cat"? The "fossil" seems necessary.
    • Done
  • two large fragments of a skull along with several smaller pieces – Sounds quite vague. I wonder what we loose if we just write "a fragmentary skull"?
    • Done
  • by one K. Aiyengar – what is the "one" doing?
    • Removed. Too much time spent reading older works can skew my writing style.
  • Additionally, he drew the fossils and a reconstruction of the skull on Plate IX, figures 1, 1a, and 1b in the same paper. – This is excessive detail; we never give figure plates for a paper (we don't even refer to our own images in our Wikipedia articles).
    • This was an in-article note about which figures in the plate were of Vishnufelis. I hoped to get an image and then remove it, but that didn't happen. Commented out (not removed completely for my future sanity).
  • Siwaliks, holotype – link
    • Done
  • present on the fossil – "preserved in the fossil"?
    • Done
  • very primitive member – do you mean "basal"?
    • "Very primitive" is what Pilgrim called it. I didn't want to assume it automatically meant basal.
  • History and naming – Call this "History of discovery"? "History" alone can mean anything (evolutionary history, life history, etc). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok, looks good to me! But I would write "Vishnufelis is a fossil genus of feline cat" (not putting "cat" in brackets) because "cat" can refer to Felidae in general, so "feline cat" makes sense? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Andrewsarchus

A couple of months ago I completely overhauled the Andrewsarchus page, as for a (fairly) well-known taxon it felt a bit lacking. Since I'm on another editing kick at the moment, I figured now was as good a time as any to put it up for peer review. Feedback on style, prose, etc, would be appreciated if possible. Cheers in advance. Borophagus (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Known from a largely complete skull, most of a lower jaw and isolated teeth, – As described later there is more than that, such as a second mandible, so it is not just known from one skull?
    • Poor wording on my part. I more so meant that it was known from the holotype skull (minus the jaw), isolated teeth, and the "Paratriisodon" mandible.
  • it is notable for being historically reputed as the largest terrestrial, carnivorous mammal. – for the lead, it would be good to add the modern interpretation here. Is not no longer considered carnivorous? Or have larger species been discovered? (It seems that its size has been overestimated; just mention that in the lead, too!)
    • Done. Will admit I'm not entirely sure why I put what I originally did. Hopefully the edit is an improvement.
  • though it is not clear whether the same is true of the lower jaw. – Not sure, I would write something like "whether the same applies to the lower jaw".
    • Done.
  • You use both "lower jaw" and "mandible", why not just mandible? Using different terms just confuses readers.
    • Done.
  • masseteric fossa and polytomy – both need wikilink and/or explanation.
    • Done.
  • link "worn" to tooth wear, link "family", link "mya".
    • Done.
  • You can make the article more accessible by replacing "et al." with "and colleagues" (it's a difficult technical term that is easy to avoid).
    • Done, where it seemed relevant (and per what PrimalMustelid said it doesn't seem to be a *huge* issue, so I've retained it in the taxonomy section.
No, that's not a big issue, but inconsistency within the article is. You should better decide which form to use and stick with it for this article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah, apologies. Was a bit scatterbrained in the morning. I've edited it to remove et al entirely. Borophagus (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Below is a simplified cladogram based on the results of Spaulding et al. (2009) and Yu et al. (2023).[7][15] – What does the cladogram show, Spaulding or Yu? We should avoid merging distinct cladograms.
    • If memory serves the cladogram better reflects Yu. I'll have to check when I have time and make any necessary changes, but I did amend it last night for the time being.
  • Very well-written overall. It can probably be expanded quite a bit, but I really like that the text so far is concise without going into excessiv detail, which makes it pleasant to read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated. I do hope to expand on it more if possible, especially since (provided enough information can be gleaned, which per FunkMonk and PrimalMustelid's comments seems plausible). Borophagus (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I had this on my to do list for a while, and I think it could be perhaps be easy to get to GA/FA with some major expansion. What would you think about that prospect? FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to give an expansion a go. There does seem to be a lot of possible inclusions I didn't account for, so it feels a lot more feasible now than it did when I put the review request up. Borophagus (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Since there aren't so many images available anyway, could be nice to show this photo of a cast from a different angle than the one in the taxobox:[1] Perhaps with a closer crop. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Done. I did consider putting another image there yesterday, as it felt repetitive, but couldn't decide which one to go for. Borophagus (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I meant more in addition to the current image, I do think the profile view of the skull looks best for the taxobox! FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies! I'll change it back. Borophagus (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

PrimalMustelid here. Hi. It depends on whether or not you eventually plan on taking this article to GA at least. I think the article seems to be fine enough. However, I do think that certain sections are fairly lacking and that some subsections should be split or made into different sections. Contrary to Jens here, I'm on the opinion that it needs to be expanded a considerable amount if you want to take this to GA. Some broad-level comments below:

  • I recommend converting the "history of discovery" section into a taxonomy section, merging the phylogeny section into there as its own subsection per standard formats of Cenozoic fossil taxa. Accordingly, as a monotypic family, the taxonomic history of the Andrewsarchidae should be touched upon in the main taxonomy section. Refer to the Mixtotherium article (the sole genus of the Mixtotheriidae) to see how that works. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • It might be worth describing the first impressions that the original author (Henry Osborn) had upon describing the fossil as indicated by the first pages of the paper that he wrote in 1924. Note that he compares the skull to those of entelodonts, which adds some really important historical contexts to this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • For cynodonts with advanced heterodonty (so most of them including Andrewsarchus), cranial and dental diagnoses are both given equally heavy weight in their validities. There should be enough information about dentition to split it off into its own subsection. It is important to define diagnoses in terms of what separates Andrewsarchus from other artiodactyls (and mesonychians), especially the entelodonts. This is important especially for monotypic families such as this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The paleobiology section is lacking. If there is not enough information about proposed hypotheses about its behavior and such, I'd recommend merging the information into the description section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The palaeoenvironment section meanwhile should be made into its own section. Discuss more about the climatic and environmental trends that Andrewsarchus and contemporary animals lived under. I'd also recommend giving mention to the animal families that it coexisted with. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Made a start by elevating it to a section (plus moving the diet section).. Borophagus (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Something you can do is just reuse the first paragraph of the paleoecology section of the Mixtotherium article, which provides a good basic overview of Eocene climatic and faunal trends (at least the early and middle). I’ve reused the first two paragraphs for other artiodactyl articles, although the second will be less relevant to Andrewsarchus because it’s not a European mammal. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all for now. Andrewsarchus is lacking in research in general, so there isn't as much to write about as in say Anthracotherium or Coryphodon. However, you should aim to squeeze more out of what little sources there are. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, by the way, you don't need to italicize "et al." If you want, you can link it so that the audience can understand what it means. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I largely do that out of habit, admittedly, but it's good to know that it's not necessary. I won't fret too much about removing it outright, though if it does affect readability I might change it further down the line. Borophagus (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
MOS:MISCSHORT suggests that we use et al. only in the reference citation templates, not in the main text. It's really not a big deal, but at WP:FAC people will pick this up and suggest to change to "and colleagues" (same goes for all other technical terms that can be easily replaced with plain language). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I've seen certain articles such as Mosasaurus get away with "et al." and still be FAC, so I don't think it really matters that much. At least, I doubt that reviewers would oppose to that alone at all and can be negotiated with accordingly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Borophagus: – If you like to nominate this at WP:GAN, I would be happy to review it there if you wish; it would involve solving a number of issues, but nothing major as far as I can see. Two immediate things for now: 1) The "See also" section could be removed (it just lists taxa, that's not really the purpose of such a section); 2) the cladogram is very large and overwhelming and could be simplified (I would remove anything more basal than "Artiodactyla", since this is the clade you introduce in the lead, and collapse the content of Entelodontidae). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    Works for me. Not sure how well modifying the cladogram would go (I generally resort to cladogram requests as I've not figured out how to make anything more complex than the original, small one, but I can definitely do the other one). I'll see what I can do, then nominate it. Thanks! Borophagus (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    Cladogram went more smoothly than expected. I've made the necessary changes and nominated it (hopefully). Borophagus (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    Cool. Will review soon, once I got time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Peer_review/Archive_8&oldid=1253424966"