Talk:East Gondwana/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 09:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to take the review. Unfortunately, I see multiple issues with this article, most importantly regarding the lemma and scope.


 * This article comes across as an article on Eastern Gondwana after its separation from western Gondwana and before its breakup into Australia and Antarctica, if I interpret the scope correctly. This is a geological topic (as you can see if you enter "Eastern Gondwana" in Google Scholar), but the article mostly deals with paleontology. You either need to adjust the content or the lemma, but see below. I understand that an article limiting its scope to Eastern Gondwana may lay its focus on the paleontological consequences of the separation from the other landmasses (as the basic geology would remain the same and could be covered in the more general article about Gondwana). However, it is far from settled if Eastern Gondwana really was isolated (it might have had a land connection to South America, in fact). You decided to follow one hypothesis by completely ignoring the other hypothesis (at least it seems so, this is not really discussed anywhere in the article). So I wonder, what is the rationale of excluding western Antarctica and the earlier part of the Mesozoic? Rather, I would suggest to limit the article lemma to the paleontology, but to include the complete southern polar region.

Disregarding scope and lemma, the article has multiple problems. The structure needs to be redone (grouping the vegetation under "landscape" rather than under "ecology" makes little sense to me, for instance). Background is lacking, and any discussion on paleogeography. The sedimentary basis in general should be pointed out before addressing individual formations. A common thread to the information is missing, especially the geology section seems to be a conglomerate of certain details without context. Invertebrates are far underrepresented.

Some specific examples from the lead:
 * ranging from perhaps 4–8 °C – this is certainly not true in every part of the continent.
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Major fossil-bearing geological formations that record this area are – you completely miss out, e.g., the important Winton Formation.
 * Was that under 60°S? I saw this map shows it as over, though it's discussed in the paragraph about sauropods  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The South Polar region housed many endemic species – somehow misleading: Did it house more endemic species than western Antarctica?
 * the most diverse were the small hypsilophodont-like dinosaurs – I doubt this in light of the newer finds from the Winton (furthermore, Hypsilophodontidae is now considered paraphyletic).
 * It's "hypsilophodont-like" instead of just "hypsilophodont" because they're paraphyletic but maybe I should just say "paraphyletic hypsilophodonts"? From Winton, all I'm aware of are the sauropods  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * that some of these dinosaurs survived after the end of the Cretaceous because of their adaptations to cope with long periods of darkness and the cold. – This was a mere side note, a very speculative idea, as there is no evidence. It should not appear in the lead.
 * good point, removed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As the article is not close to GA by any means, I probably need to fail it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think what happened was most of the geology and continental drift got explained in the Ecology section and it got kinda haphazard. East Gondwana is just the name for Australia/Antarctica before they split up, but since it's just the south polar region, most of Australia got cut off (so we ended up cutting east East Gondwana). Pinging, can you sort out the geology mishap?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You restrict it to the area south of 60°S? That is not stated anywhere, and seems quite arbitrary. Are there studies on the area that set the same borders? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is, after all, the polar region  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Its only one definition, though, and you need to state that including a source which applies it to the Cretaceous. In the lead you say "The South Polar region of the Cretaceous comprised the continent of East Gondwana", which means you cover all of East Gondwana, which got me confused. Now I understand – if you are able to clearly define what the article is covering, lemma and scope is all good. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, whats the problem?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) ok heres what I found. https://australianmuseum.net.au/image/map-of-world-early-cretaceous. --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I mean fix the Geology section according to the problems Jens Lallensack brings up  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You still in this?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

sorry man just in a bit of a wonky state. I will get back. So climatic development is fine. I think thanks to not research done on its climate its a bit spotty--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed that you lack a section on the climatic development. This is a central aspect of this topic also. Given the number of issues, I think I am supposed to archive for now, as we need a new review from the start after the points have been fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * well it’s a bit too late for that, the article already failed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)