Talk:Ferugliotherium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll knock this one over - ok, notes below:


 * I am wondering whether it is worth adding "Mesozoic'' to these mammals of that era to the first sentence - it immediately flags them to the reader as very old...or whether it is tautological when the Cretaceous bits are mentioned. I am also not sure whether Mesozoic is as instantly recognisable to younger readers as it was to us dino enthusiasts as children in the 70s.
 * Thanks for reviewing. I'm also not sure whether Cretaceous or Mesozoic would be more widely recognized. I'll add an absolute age (~70 Ma) when I can find an explicit reference. Ucucha 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * , it was recognized as related to the hypsodont (high-crowned) Sudamericidae, with which it forms the Gondwanatheria, after the discovery of additional material in the early 1990s. - ungainly. I think I'd reword as ", it was recognized as related to the hypsodont (high-crowned) Sudamericidae after the discovery of additional material in the early 1990s. The two taxa form the order Gondwanatheria" or something similar.
 * Yes, that sentence was bad. I've moved the "Gondwanatheria" piece of the next sentence. Ucucha 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * but the assignment of many of these is controversial or has been superseded.  - "controversial" carries the connotation of controversy and argument, maybe "but the assignment of many of these has been queried and some reassigned to other taxa/elsewhere. (?)"
 * "Controversial" seems quite appropriate—there are conflicting opinions among scientists. Ucucha 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 *  Ferugliotherium is known from isolated teeth, the assignment of some of which is controversial - "uncertain" sufficient? "unclear", "in question"....?
 * Those words may also be appropriate, but I don't see anything wrong with "controversial". Ucucha 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it's not a deal-breaker or anything, I think we are blessed with a variety of adjectives in English to give an accurate picture of status - to me, controversy carries a connotation of acrimony or at least extensive discussion and a few folks really sticking to their guns over stances, while if it is merely two opinions then a word indicating uncertainty or questionable status I feel is a better fit...but it might be your reading of the discussion that there has been some ample discussion on the matter (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, words like "uncertain" or "unclear" seem more appropriate when we're dealing with cases where people are unwilling to take a strong stance, as in the case of the identity of things like LACM 149371, and "controversial" is better when there are conflicting, definite opinions (Gurovich saying that the piece of jaw definitely is Ferugliotherium, and Kielan-Jaworowska maintaining that it is not). However, I've swapped out a few uses of "controversial". Ucucha 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Might be worth popping this discussion up at FAC (if this is going there at some point) and see what a few different reviewers have to say. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * link or explain "labial" - I think it means something different to waht some readers might think...
 * It's explained on first occurrence (in the piece on MACN Pv-RN 975).
 * d'oh! my bad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * link or explain "deciduous"
 * It's already linked on first occurrence ("the smaller incisors were deciduous precursors of the larger permanent tooth"), and in that context I think the meaning should be clear. Ucucha 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * d'oh! my bad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Any information at all that can be added to Range and ecology to give any idea about the paleo-environment would be a big plus.
 * I'll see what I can find. Ucucha 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added something about the associated fauna. Dinosaurs, I'm afraid. Ucucha 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise looking pretty good...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: - no images

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: