Talk:Plesiorycteropus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's begin - Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing!


 *  is a recently extinct eutherian mammal -if it is a pair of species may be better described as a genus or pair of species.
 * Now "eutherian mammalian genus". Sounds a little awkward, but I think it's good to put both the precise "eutherian" and the more common-knowledge "mammalian" in.
 * Agree, again precision trumps simplicity I think here as meaning is blurred otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 *  it was classified with the aardvark - "with the aardvarks" or "as an aardvark" - sounds funny as a group noun. oops, forgot there was only one species of aardvark. Still, I think that sentence and the next needs rewording. I will have a think about it.


 * Lead needs to have some basic size figures in it as well as when it became extinct.
 * Added something.
 * Ross MacPhee found little support for the tubulidentate affinities of Plesiorycteropus (in their data) - bracketed bit redundant as it is clear McPhee is looking into the data of the 1994 study.
 * Actually, he found little support in the data from Patterson's and Thewissen's papers—he writes that Patterson in particular was (to put it bluntly) interpreting the data tendentiously in support of tubulidentate affinities. Ucucha 06:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also "affinities" used in three sentences in a row.
 * Changed two.


 *  the identification of which is partly problematic, - could be stated more simply, begs the question why "problematic" - just becuase they are very generic looking bones?
 * One that Lamberton attributed to P. is from a large lemur according to MacPhee; and for the distal phalanges MacPhee says explicitly that their identification was problematic, but he identifies them as P. because they don't look like phalanges from nesomyines, euplerids, or tenrecs. I have gotten rid of the phrase, because it seems to be more problematic than enlightening.


 *  2150 Before Present - "years ago" simpler
 * But wrong; "Before Present" means before 1950. Ucucha 06:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I did not know that. okay nevermind. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and a question for you: you changed "multiple species" to "more species". I like "multiple" better there, because it more clearly means "more than one". Ucucha 06:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * good point. revert then :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice there are no images (not surprising given the subject matter, but I feel it could be a little more visually appealing. Maybe a map of madagascar with the locations of where remains have been recovered? Or a crude anatomical diagram with the bones which have been recovered (this would be hard I realise...) Any other ideas welcomed. I can help make a map if I have an image to work from. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, nearly there pending query above on images. I trust all sources have been scoured... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Visionholder has kindly offered to make a map; I'll send him the locality list from MacPhee '94. By the way, there was a reconstruction in an earlier version of this article, but I threw it out because it was reconstructed as an aardvark-like mammal and sources like Walker (1999) explicitly say we shouldn't do that. Ucucha 13:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I knew it was going to be tricky if possible at all, so disregard. Map or lack thereof not a deal-breaker really so......Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 June 2010 (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?: (none currently but some will help)
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - prose probably could do with some more massaging but enough for GA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)