Talk:Kirtlandian/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 08:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I propose to take on this review. I know little of paleontology or the Cretaceous period so besides assessing whether it meets the GA criteria, I will be considering whether the article is accessible to non-experts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First reading

 * I wonder why this article was nominated in GAN under "Biology and Medicine" rather than "Geology"?
 * Changed


 * I will come back to the lead later when I have studied the rest of the article.
 * OK


 * "These formation originate in Alberta and Montana, Utah, ..." - Is "originate" the right word here?
 * Fixed


 * Explain or link at first use: stratigraphy, formation, fauna, taxon, lithology,
 * Linked


 * "... until their place of discovery was found to be from the Kirtland Formation." - needs some explanation.
 * Explaned


 * In the thickness section, it states that the two formations have certain thicknesses, then it restates this information using a different source.
 * Modified sentences


 * "... the Kirtland includes one of the five rocks being coal." - I don't think this is very clear.
 * Fixed


 * "Another commons rock is sandstone, found through the Kirtland Formation. The other three rock found in the Kirtland Formation are siltstone, mudstone and shale." - You presumably mean "common". These two sentences could be combined.
 * Combined, reworded


 * "The Kirtlandian faunal age was named by Lucas and Sullivan and was found to date from 74.9 to 72 million years ago." - In what year did they make this estimation?
 * Added


 * "The other two ashes were found to date the same as found by Sullivan in 2006." - This could be better expressed.
 * Changed


 * This paragraph overuses the phrases "found that the age/date was different", can you express some of these in a different way?
 * Changed


 * How is the presently accepted date established?
 * Added


 * "Many fauna are from the Kirtlandian, ..." - Perhaps "The Kirtlandian has a distinctive fauna, ..."
 * Changed


 * "As the Kirtlandian consists of the Fruitland and Kirtland formations, all fauna from the formations come from the Kirtlandian." - This seems a self-evident statement.
 * Removed, reworded


 * "... and a turtle assigned to Kinosternoid indet." - What does "indet" mean?
 * reworded
 * More later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking up the review! IJReid (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Those alterations look good. Continuing through the article, - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Fauna from the Kirtlandian have come from the Williams Fork Formation." - What about starting this paragraph "Kirtlandian fauna are also present in the Williams Fork Formation." or somesuch.
 * Changed


 * Looking at your use of "cf.", it does not seem to agree with the article cf. which suggests it should be "placed between the genus and species name to describe a species whose designation is uncertain".
 * But if the genus designation is uncertain, it goes before the genus instead.


 * "The only taxon are known from the formation is ..." - "Taxon" is singular.
 * Done.


 * "Barely any fauna are known from the Ringbone Formation. The only taxon are known from the formation is ..." - How about "Few fossils have been found in the Ringbone Formation, the only significant one being ..."?
 * Changed.


 * "... is because it is from the same age as the correlating Fort Crittenden Formation" - Perhaps " is because the rocks are the same age as the Fort Crittenden Formation".
 * Changed.


 * "... Tyrannosauridae indet., and Ornithomimidae indet." - rephrase to get rid of the "indet"s.
 * Done.


 * "... is now largely incorrect." - How about using "superceded"?
 * Done.


 * "Three unnamed faunal ages were also identified, between the Paluxian and Aquilan, the Aquilan and Judithian, and the Judithian and Edmontonian. The Kirtlandian was characterized as the later gap." - How about "Three previously unnamed faunal ages were given names and term "Kirtlandian" was chosen for the gap between the Judithian and Edmontonian."
 * Done.


 * The last sentence in the Associations section is awkward. How about starting it "Another association, the "Pachyrhinosaurus - Edmontosaurus association", ..."?
 * Done, Sorry for being slow, but I forgot to put this on my watchlist. IJReid (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to stop now. Will come back and look at the lead when you have dealt with those points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Second set of eyes

 * Just glancing over the article, I notice the opening sentence uses the past tense. This gives the impression that Kirtlandian is no longer a used/accepted Faunal stage.
 * Fixed


 * 1975 has been linked to 1975 in Paleontology, however there is no distinct information relevant to Kirtlandian, and no other dates are linked. Seems odd.
 * Removed link. Some day, a note might be added that a new faunal age was named in that year, but right now most "in Paleontology" pages are lists.


 * Are the Hunter Wash local fauna and Willow Wash local faunas distinct enough from there respective formations to have articles separate from them? If not linking to the appropriate formation pages?
 * Currently, I don't think enough studies have been published to warrant them their own page, and it would take lots of research to distinguish which local fauna taxa are from. IJReid (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

-- Kev min  § 17:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
 * The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
 * The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
 * The article is neutral.
 * The article is stable. It was created in February 2014 by the nominator and has hardly been edited by anyone else since.
 * The images are relevant, have suitable captions and are properly licensed.


 * Final assessment - I believe this article meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)