Talk:Paraceratherium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 03:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This review is now officially going down. I haven't been involved in the mammals wikiproject to any large amount recently, so might as well claim this review before someone else does. I also have learned a large amount about this genus recently, uploaded some images and own a few resources. The overall article is good, although then again, User:FunkMonk, you probably are more an expert than I at layout and text formatting. One first thing, the text is relatively balanced over the species, but the images are all about P. transouralicum (yes, I do know that one image is of the type species), or are not species-specific. The case might indeed be that no restorations have yet been made of P. bugtiense, and P. orgosensis is an uncertain blacement, but illustrations can be modified, and some free images probably exist. No biggie, but just a preliminary point. Great article, IJReid (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! GA reviews are always a good way to learn more about unfamiliar topics. As for images, there simply aren't any free images available of the other species (apart from the one I already added of a P. bugtiense jaw, and maybe some other isolated elements that aren't so interesting). They are mainly known from very scrappy remains, so they have rarely been reconstructed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead and taxon box

First paragraph:

1. No form of pronunciation or etymology can be found in the lead. This should exist somewhere.

I'll add the etymology, but the sources say nothing of pronunciation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The country Yugoslavia should be linked. China does not need to be as most people should known where it is.

Many links were removed by the copy editor. These often have much experience with which links that should be used, so I'm not sure. But since Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, I guess some people would need a link. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph:

1. Based on the skeleton in the taxon box, it is not very incomplete.

I believe that is actually a cast of the most complete specimen, and even then the skull does not belong to it... So gives a good impression of how little we actually know about this animal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Many elusive or uncommon terms should be linked or (less preferably) defined.

Which ones, for example? FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Prehensile, incisor, and columnar. IJReid (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph:

1. The many species that are synonymous in the taxon box, are not mentioned, nor are any related genera.

They are kind of glossed over in the source, so there's little more to say about them than what is already stated in the taxobox. But I'll try to see if I can add a bit more about the most notable ones. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Taxon box:

1. It does not state that Thaumastotherium was preoccupied.

Will add, though this is done inconsistently across taxoboxes. But you gave me an idea, it should not be listed as a synonym under genera, because it is actually a valid genus of something else. So only the binomial version should be mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The authority for Baluchitherium osborni should be in brackets.

Why? I think brackets are only used when a binomial name is the result of a reassignment. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, essentially, the species was reclassified, from the preoccupied genus to a new one. IJReid (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but by the same author and the same year! So there would be no difference in information. Not sure how this is done for similar cases... Added anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The type or both species of Dzungariotherium should have a question mark preceeding it, as well as P. ordosensis in the synonyms list.

Well, there is no doubt that they are synonyms of Dzungariotherium/P. ordosensis, which is all the species synonymy list suggests? FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy

1. Should be divided into sections containing info on specific species (redundant?)

Already is in a way, the three recognised species have a paragraph each on their discovery and locations. Not much more to say, because they are so similar that no differences in biology have been proposed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Smaller reference numbers should always be in front of larger numbers.

Where for example? FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph:

1. The second to ninth paragraphs should be in a subsection titled "Species and synonyms".

Hmmm, I'm not sure that is necessary, the term taxonomy already accounts for this. You may be thinking of dinosaur articles, but they usually don't have titles called taxonomy for some reason, but instead have a history of discoveries. Species and synonym sections are not used in all dinosaur articles even, much less in FAs, if you look. But hey, added a section anyway, since the part was so long. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph:

1. "He did not assign a species name I. asiaticum until 1923, but by 1922 Maria Pavlova had already named it I. transouralicum by 1922" redundant, grammar errors.

What part is redundant? I think the structure may have been changed during copy editing. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the second "by 1922". "He did not assign a species name I. asiaticum until 1923" is also wrong and should probably be changed to "He did not assign a species until 1923, when he named I. asiaticum. IJReid (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, may be a copy edit error. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

1. What related forms?

The various genera that are not recognised today, for example. Already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sixth paragraph:

1. What other species, otherwise this won't be a full review of the taxonomy.

Well, they're all mentioned in the taxobox, all and every synonyms do not have to be explained in the article, that is rarely done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Eighth paragraph:

1. Why does this paragraph state that a highly revered study found P. prohorovi valid, while the taxon box contradict this?

Because a newer examination found it to be. I'll see if it has become less clear during copy edit. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Twelfth paragraph:

1. Are any newer cladograms available?

Some Chinese ones that are not accepted by western scientists, as they include invalid taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you list them for me, as they might be useful for Forstercooperia? IJReid (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Good idea to work on that, the indricothere articles are sorely neglected, I'll send you something on your talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Description

First paragraph:

1. "The weight of Paraceratherium was approached by some extinct proboscideans; the largest complete skeleton known belonging to the steppe mammoth Mammuthus trogontherii" suspect that this was tampered with by the copy editor, but should should probably have an extra "but" or "with".

Added with, seems to have been changed~during copy edit. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph:

1. Trochanters is incorrectly spelled.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Could remove the comma immediately after "reduced"

Which one? I'm fairly sure the way here is correct. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sixth paragraph:

1. It should be mentioned that much of the skull is partially reconstructed (the cast material is easy to spot).

You mean in the image caption? No complete skull exists. The one in the photo is actually the most complete one, apparently. FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Great pic! IJReid (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Eighth paragraph:

1. "The teeth of P. orgosensis are 25 percent bigger than those of P. transouralicum, making it the largest known indricothere" how does that make sense?

Because it is mainly known from teeth, so there is not much else to compare with. FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Then that should probably be mentioned. IJReid (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The source doesn't say this specifically, it says one plays that it is mainly known from teeth, and in another it says the stuff about size. If I relate the two, it is a kind of original synthesis, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not do "The teeth of P. ordosensis, which include almost all the material of the species, are ..." This would almost certainly not be original research, and mentioned that almost only teeth are known. IJReid (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That it is mainly known from teeth is already mentioned under taxonomy, wouldn't it be redundant to mention it again? Added, anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Which species is the dental formula of?

I will come back to this soon, original source is in Russian. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've asked a user who added this to the German Wikipedia, not sure when she will respond. If it's a problem for passing GA, I can remove it until she responds. I'd like to nominate this for FA as soon as possible. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A completed review of the article will come later. IJReid (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

After these last querries are completed, I do believe that this article meets the GA standards. Nice work! Also, an old reconstruction that is not outdated, Hurray! IJReid (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, mammal restorations age pretty well, because there are close living relatives they could be based on back then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, I hate citation template stuff, which one would you suggest I use for ref 29? FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably the cite journal, which also doubles for magazines, which are generally more reliable than websites, which use cite web. IJReid (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, but it is a website? A blog? FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that cite web would indeed be more suitable. IJReid (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Final point

1. The cladogram should be referenced

Readded, must be some copy edit stuff again... FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is now passed!! :) IJReid (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)