Talk:Anoplotherium/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: 20 upper (talk · contribs) 06:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments
The article appears fine; we'll discuss the specifics later today. The more you work with me, the quicker the process will be. I will return in about six to eight hours. 20 upper (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I have to go now, but I'll add more summaries later today. 20 upper (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please replace the The fossil mammal genus was the 4th to be described with official taxonomic authority with The genus was the fourth to be described with official taxonomic authority in the lead
 * Please remove the word famous from the lead
 * Please replace Today, it has four known species, although A. pompeckji is similar to A. laurillardi and not as well-defined in distinction. with Today, there are four known species.
 * Change Although the specific causes are uncertain, Anoplotherium was likely unable to adapt to these major changes and succumbed to extinction, bringing the end of a mammal lineage with unique adaptations. to Although the specific causes are uncertain, Anoplotherium was likely unable to adapt to these major changes and succumbed to extinction.
 * Remove Of significance to the naturalist was that from Of significance to the naturalist was that the hemimandible (half a mandible) had three lower incisors instead of four incisors or none which he said characterized other "pachyderms".
 * Fix the sentence Cuvier designated the genus name Anoplotherium the same year, basing the etymology on an apparent lack of "offensive" arms and canines by which characterized it. to make it more readable; the problem arises from the end of the sentence.
 * Change Anoplotherium species were particular large to very large in the late Eocene to Anoplotherium species were particularly large in the late Eocene
 * In the Footprints section, please remove or replace the image with an image of their fossilized footprints. The image is also too similar to the one in Paleobiology
 * There's a lot of undue weight in the description section, please summarize each subsection without going into unnecessary detail.
 * Summarize The Anoplotheriidae is characterized in part by the lack of bony processes (or outgrowths of larger bones) on the skull. The skulls of anoplotheriids are low in proportion and resemble those of camelids, although with shorter muzzles.[56][46] The muzzle is also elongated and aligns well with the top of the cranium, which is a diagnostic feature of Anoplotherium.[43] The orbit of the skull is widely open from behind, resulting in shorter postorbital process projections of the frontal bone.[57][58] The paroccipital processes, or outgrowths within the side of the occipital bone, are large. There is also an apparent lack of lacrimal fossae within the lacrimal bone. to Anoplotheriidae have low-proportioned skulls with elongated muzzles, and a wide-open skull orbit. They lack bony processes, and lacrimal fossae. They have large paroccipital processes and shorter postorbital process projections of the lacrimal bone.
 * Summarize The skull of Anoplotherium is narrow and elongated. The postorbital bone is constricted, suggesting poor development of the frontal lobes of the brain. The dorsal (top) area of the cranium features robust sagittal plus nuchal crests,[b] the former of which emerges from the front of the two low postorbital ridges that are part of the frontal bone and crosses the entire brain-case in the form of a high ridge. The sagittal crest is high while the nuchal crest has complicated changes in elevation as a ridge that eventually becomes less pronounced. In the back of the skull is a nearly circular foramen magnum and large occipital condyles. Finally, the skull's underside reveals an elongated palate with large and flat glenoid (or hollow) surfaces of the squamosal bone and strong post-glenoid processes.[60] to The Anoplotherium skull is narrow and elongated, with a constricted postorbital bone indicating poor brain development. It features sagittal and nuchal crests, with the former emerging from low postorbital ridges. The back has a circular foramen magnum and large occipital condyles. The underside has an elongated palate with glenoid surfaces and strong post-glenoid processes.
 * Summarize The bones of the skull are highly robust, especially the spongy diploë bone with great structural development. The strength of the skull bones point towards massive temporal muscles for a strong body build. The sella turcica, which in anatomy hosts the pituitary gland, is shallow while the clinoid processes (anterior and posterior) are absent. The cranial fossa is pear-shaped and separated from the cerebellum by the cerebellar tentorium. The parietal bones appear to extend through the entire roof of the skull to the point where they overlap the frontal bone. The squamosal bone takes up a large amount of space over the side of the skull, extending from the mastoid part of the temporal bone.[60] The occipital bone is narrow, especially towards the occipital condyles. On the back of the skull (occipital region) are two small occipital buns for muscle attachment. Many cranial traits observed in Anoplotherium are also found in its close relative Diplobune.[61] to The skull's bones are robust, with the spongy diploë bone being the most robust. The skull's strength is attributed to massive temporal muscles. The skull has a shallow sella turcica, a pear-shaped cranial fossa, parietal bones, squamosal bones, narrow occipital bone, and two small occipital buns for muscle attachment. Many cranial traits found in Anaplotherium are also found in Diplobune.


 * Please remove Both were described by Georges Cuvier in 1807. from the image caption in the skeletons subsection.
 * Please change the image caption from Reconstructed skeleton of Cainotherium, a cainothere of the late Oligocene-middle Miocene. Cainotheres were recently determined to be close relatives of anoplotheres. to Reconstructed skeleton of Cainotherium.
 * Remove making them the 3rd and 4th fossil mammal genera with official taxonomic authorities, respectively from the image caption in Classification
 * The article is way too big; the subject does not deserve this much coverage. Consider moving some of the information into other articles. For now, I'm failing it under "focused" until it's fewer than 6,000 words.
 * The article uses a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources, which is not required. Statements should be cited by reliable secondary sources. While using primary sources is acceptable when providing clear facts, it cannot be used extensively, as you did. Instead, I advise substituting them with reliable secondary sources. I'm referring to Cuvier, Georges and related works.
 * You use a lot of sources before 1950, please see WP:AGE MATTERS and replace those sources with more recent and updated ones. You don't have to do this for all of them, at least replace 5 citations.
 * Images seem okay
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector found no copyright infringement, which is good.


 * I've been simplifying the description section slightly and have implemented your other suggestions, what do you think so far? PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears good, however you should improve the section on detention, particularly the first paragraph. 20 upper (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * PS, can you please add something like ✅ after you've implemented my suggestions? Thanks, 20 upper (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've pretty much implemented most of your suggested changes for the article. That said, some of your suggested major changes are I think unfeasible and don't inherently make the article "better."
 * First of all, I don't think I can really simplify the dentition article. "Dentition" in paleontology of mammals is inherently specific in nature and can't truly be simplified without being misrepresentative. I've addressed the main points of taxonomic diagnoses for the incisors, canines, premolars, and molars, pretty standard for most mammals (other than cingulates and cetaceans).
 * Second, we shouldn't set word limits on subjects that we think are "less notable." If a topic has very extensive literature, then the wiki should reflect that to at least a large extent. Anoplotherium very much demonstrates its notability because of its extensive taxonomic history and noted vitality to the history of paleontology, with its overall skeletal anatomy having a noted zero modern analogues amongst other mammals, especially others of the order Artiodactyla/Cetartiodactyla. I also covered the paleoenvironment and extinction sections without going too in detail because the readers require context into how it lived and eventually became extinct. I've simplified the article enough already, I can't do much more drastic changes.
 * Third, I don't think I really have to replace usage of "primary sources" (or in your case, sources prior to 1900). If you're referring to the research history, I have to use those sources because they exactly communicate taxonomic details/paleontological details of their times that are then addressed by later sources that revise the taxonomies of fossil taxa such as Anoplotherium. If you're referring to outside that section, first of all, I don't often use sources prior to 1900, and if I do, it's backed up by other sources already. Second, I don't have much of a choice in using old choices if they cover my topic the most, and it's unlikely that their descriptions of some skull are going to suddenly age horribly. Paleontology articles very often use old sources in their description sections, and this isn't the exception.
 * If these still prove to be issues, let me know, but for reasons relating to paleontology article formats relating to Project: Palaeontology and extensive literature, I can't meet up with these major suggested changes. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I linked some pages above; did you not read them? A Wikipedia article should be the right size—neither too big nor too small. You said, "If a topic has very extensive literature, then the wiki should reflect that to at least a large extent." Well, no, Wikipedia is not a research paper, and it doesn't have to include every detail—just the most crucial ones. You went way too far with the detail; simply follow the rules instead of imposing your own preferences. "If you're referring to the research history, I have to use those sources because they exactly communicate taxonomic details/paleontological details of their times that are then addressed by later sources that revise the taxonomies of fossil taxa like Anoplotherium," you continue. This is against the guidelines, and it appears that I won't pass this article if you don't follow the guidelines. Lastly, you mentioned, "Second, I don't have much of a choice in using old choices if they cover my topic the most." If this is the case, then that level of detail really shouldn't be present; instead, please summarize information from reliable secondary sources. You appear to be unaware of the purpose of the guidelines, and you are now questioning Wikipedia guidelines. 20 upper (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As an interested party:
 * A) Such research papers are, in paleontology, the secondary sources. The primary sources are the fossils themselves and the data which the researchers interpret. And it is standard for Wikipedia' paleontology articles to use old sources in this manner.
 * B) The size of Wikipedia articles has never been a hard rule, nor should it ever be treated as one. Many GAs and FAs are much larger. This is not an issue.
 * And your comment about questioning Wikipedia guidelines in incredibly concerning in light of WP:IAR. Guidelines are not rules. They are not strict requirements. They indicate a direction and form, but they do not define it entirely. And they are by no means immune to or above being questioned. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really, it just makes the article hard to read; I barely understand the article prose. Perhaps I'm getting paleontology and wildlife biology mixed up. Anything more you'd like to say? 20 upper (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Paleontology and wildlife biology are very different fields. And if you can't understand this article at all, why are you reviewing it? You don't need to be a scientist, but competency is required. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant to say the article could use better prose, sorry for the misunderstanding, but please, next time stop insulting people. Why do you think I would review an article I know nothing about? I've been been studying cave lions and other Cromerian mammals for the past 2 years, but not that extensively, probably only 200 hours. 20 upper (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm another interested party, and I hope to rectify some misunderstandings regarding the nature of paleontology as a science and as a subject for GA and FA reviews. To give a few examples as to what SilverTiger12 has been implying, the article for Anoplotherium is around the same size as the FA Dilophosaurus, and much smaller than the FA Tyrannosaurus, while having a more extensive pedigree than both of those, regarding the history of paleontology as a science. The level of detail in the article is not atypical.
 * As for the distinction between primary and secondary sources, those terms were designed in the context of history and experimental sciences, fields which are based on events. Paleontology is mostly an observational science, so the distinction requires a bit more thought to properly apply. To quote the Primary source article, "A primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study". In the context of paleontology, the fossils of this animal are akin to an artifact and fit the definition of a primary source much more closely than the studies which discuss it.
 * As for the age of many of these papers, that's only an issue if older sources are prioritized over newer descriptions. But the fact of the matter is that newer descriptions are hard to come by for some species, and generally these kinds of sources (what we'd call, "redescriptions") are only produced if obvious errors are discovered in the original descriptions (and if funding allows). Newer sources (including occasional contradictions to earlier interpetations) are indeed cited within the page whenever possible. NGPezz (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Per the third opinion of, you are no longer required to implement my major changes. I'm not the biggest fan of the article prose, but it's otherwise fine and readable, so I'm giving this article a pass. Good job! 20 upper (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Review against criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: