Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ferugliotheriidae/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:05, 23 August 2011.

Ferugliotheriidae

 * Nominator(s): Ucucha 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

When the dinosaurs were around, mammals weren't just little insect-eating critters in the shadow of the big guys. Sudamericids already evolved the high-crowned teeth characteristic of herbivores, and the subject of this article is a poorly known group that has been key to figuring out the affinities of the sudamericids. I have written GAs about all the members of this group and about several of the sudamericids as part of an effort to document this early and interesting group of mammals. Thanks to Visionholder for conducting the GA review on this article and thanks in advance to anyone reviewing at FAC. Ucucha 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are there two Literature entries for Gurovich 2008 and Rougier et al 2009?
 * Removed the duplicates. Ucucha 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't include number of pages in Literature cited entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? Ucucha 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No particular reason, it just seems unnecessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think common practice in biology is to include them. Ucucha 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Image Review - ha ha ha, just kidding. In all seriousness though, are there any artist conceptions around, something to allow for readers to wrap their heads around this thing?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, for two reasons: there just isn't enough interest in these guys to make artists' conceptions likely to appear; and twenty teeth and a tiny piece of jaw just aren't enough to get a good idea of what the animals actually looked like. Most likely, ferugliotheriids were just little mouselike animals, but for all we know they could have been gliders. Ucucha 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Support, with nitpicks and the caveat that I know nothing about the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "or as a group of uncertain affinities" - does this refer to Gondwanatheres or Multituberculata?
 * The former; clarified. Ucucha 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some overlinking - for example, Late Cretaceous twice in lead
 * Removed that one and a couple of others. Ucucha 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Most are referred to Ferugliotherium" - as written "most" seems to refer to "ferugliotheriids", but I think you mean the teeth?
 * Yes, clarified. Ucucha 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is "procument"? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That should have been procumbent, i.e., pointing forward. Not sure whether that's an uncommon enough word to need explanation. Thanks for the review and support. Ucucha 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - One minor niggle. What are "transverse crests" and "transverse furrows"? Also, why is cusp linked in the article, but not in the lead? The article does a great job of making technical terms more accessible, in addition to being well-written and as far as I can discern, comprehensive.  ceran  thor 22:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. I've linked cusp. Transverse means from side to side; the cusps on the sides of the tooth are linked by these crests, and furrows separate the cusps and crests from the cusps and crests before and behind them. What do you think is needed as explanation? I could perhaps add a link to wikt:transverse. Ucucha 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, I meant the crests and furrows, not transverse. Perhaps it could be useful to include an explanation or link in the article, but it's certainly not a deal breaker.  ceran  thor 22:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments - you know the drill. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  They coexisted with mammals such as dryolestoid and a variety of other animals. - dryolestoid looks weird here in adjectival form. Did you mean "dryolestoids"? Also links to redirect to Dryolestoidea rather than directly there
 * Fixed the plural issue; there's nothing wrong with linking to a redirect. Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ".. a variety of other animals - well, er, yeah. I think that can be said of just about any ecosystem anywhere. I understand removing it makes the sentence really stubby but it is nebulous as is. Is there any'' material to further define it?
 * Dinosaurs... I've added a few words to that effect. Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking good otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, and apologies for the long delay in responding; I must have totally forgotten about them. Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Typical high standard; minor quibbles below. Sasata (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The link to multituberculate redirects to Multituberculata, already linked (not sure if this is intentional)
 * Link removed. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * link authority in taxobox?
 * Yes. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * link/gloss for procumbent?
 * Linked. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "… contain a restricted band of enamel" without the context that comes later in the article, the adjective "restricted" is somewhat puzzling to me
 * Reworded. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice that "million years ago" is consistently spelled out rather than used an abbreviation (mya), any reason for this?
 * Abbreviated. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * there are some who claim that the construct "and/or" should be avoided
 * I can't think of a suitable rewording here. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I spot-checked citations from Goin et al. 2004, Vucetich et al. 2010, and several in Krause et al. 1992; no issues with close paraphrasing or other were evident.
 * Thanks for the check, and for the review in general. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.