Talk:Ocepeia/GA1

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. Took a while before you nominated it since the peer review? FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, I'd personally use skeletal elements in the taxobox for prehistoric animals since life restorations are always way more speculative, and less reliable. But it's up to you. I'm going to stick with the current infobox image. I see your perspective, but in this case I disagree.
 * The border around the map should probably be cropped, borders are discouraged.
 * "Additionally, new lower jaw fragments with larger teeth led to the description of O. grandis" This was also in 2014? The adjacent text is a bit unclear on this. I think it's clear enough, at least to year.
 * Footnotes need citations too.
 * All captions should state which of the two species is shown. Like the one under Distinguishing anatomical features.
 * "and highly derived traits" If possible, explain the meaning of derived. I can't do this without dumbing down or needlessly muddling the prose.
 * Link ungulates, enamel, vestigial, convergent, bonebed. Perhaps explain some of them.
 * "The cranium (upper part of the skull)" This is a bit ambiguous. Some readers may think it only means the top of the skull or some such...
 * "The cranium of Ocepeia daouiensis" You are inconsistent in whether you abbreviate binomials or not.
 * "and early paenunuglate-like ancestors" What is meant by "ancestors"? Ancestors of paenunuglates? Clarified.
 * "CT scans in of the skull" The skull also shown in the image above? Also, seems there's a stray "in"?
 * You should name the (main) taxon authors in-text.
 * "believed to be an adult male" To belong to? The jaw is probably not an adult male...
 * There seems to be little to no description of the lower jaws? There's not much to say without getting overly jargony, so I don't think it's relevant: "Symphysis short and partially fused; condyle significantly higher than the tooth row; corpus high and transversely inflated." I'm similarly omiting detailed discussion and photographs of the inner ear, as largely extraneous and crushingly pedantic.
 * Personally (and this seems to be the general opinion), I think taxon diagnosis is far too technical to include in Wikipedia articles, unless in very summarised form. I'd cut it down, and simply make it part of the cranium and dentition descriptions. Especially since some of the info there simply seems to be elaborations on info already mentioned earlier in the article. If you want precedents for this, see for example the FAs of fossil tooth/jaw taxa written by, such as Ferugliotherium, Bharattherium, Dermotherium, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC) I agree, and have removed it, per WP:NOTJOURNAL: articles shouldn't resemble diagnoses in primary literature, and in this case there is more material than simply a few teeth, somewhat obviating belabored descriptions.
 * Nothing there that could be salvaged and incorporated into the description section? As you can see on those featured articles, the descriptions are quite detailed. Didn't keep them from reaching FA. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Ocepeia has occupied various positions" Maybe say "has been placed in", to show it is a highly subjective matter.
 * "On describing the most complete material to-date" Recentism, better say "until that point" or some such, as you never know whether more complete material will be found in the future. Clarified
 * "monotypic family (Ocepeiidae)" Why parenthesis? Changed to dashes
 * "the best-known of any Paleocene mammal in Africa." Only stated as such in the intro, which should not have unique info.
 * Any reason why the article under further reading isn't used as a source? If I recall it didn't offer new content, but provides an accessible overview of paenunuglates for interested readers.
 * You there, ? FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm here, just dropped the ball. I think I have addressed the issues, my replies are in green above. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added one last question above, but otherwise looks good. Hope you'll keep writing and nominating articles, its getting a bit lonely in the fossil department! FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ? FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is very close to passing, but I'd like to see if anything can be salvaged from the cut parts. You there? FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure where the nominator went, but this is certainly good enough for GA as is, so I will now pass. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)