Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ferugliotherium/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 GrahamColm 14:29, 10 March 2012.

Ferugliotherium

 * Nominator(s): Ucucha (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last nominated an article at FAC, but I figured that we need some more fossil mammal teeth here, so I'm bringing you this article. Ferugliotherium lived in Argentina just before the big dinosaurs went extinct, and it's part of an unusual group of extinct mammals—the gondwanatheres—that I'm producing a series of articles on. I'm looking forward to seeing your reviews. Ucucha (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support and comments from Jim Why are my teeth itching? Usual highly competent stuff, some minor comments  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we link countries now (Argentina)
 * "honors" twice in taxonomy para 1, perhaps change one to "commemorates" or similar
 * Incertae sedis is italicised, I think correctly, in its own article
 * "wear facet" &mdash; I can't see the point of red-linking this unless its meaning isn't what it appears to be, in which case there should be a gloss
 * "Dentary" I think is technical enough to need a link or gloss
 * Bonaparte (1986) is presumably in Spanish, which should be indicated
 * Bonaparte (1986) &mdash; what's the point of the url when there's no text at the end of it, just a confirmation that the book exists
 * Thanks; I've corrected most of these. As for the last one, it does lead to a snippet view of the text in America. Ucucha (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments: I've started reading the article, haven't finished yet. Not the sexiest topic, but it seems very well written thus far though.
 * "an enigmatic tooth from the Paleogene of Santa Rosa, Peru" Could you link to the specific Santa Rosa? There are a few Santa Rosas in Peru.
 * "the lower-crowned Ferugliotherium was more likely an insectivore or omnivore, like similar multituberculates such as Mesodma," Would it be possible to avoid the "likely... like" here? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've changed "likely" to "probably". The Santa Rosa meant here is not any of those listed on the dab page; it's in Atalaya Province. I linked it to Santa Rosa local fauna in the article on LACM 149371 and will try to make time to write an article about the (very interesting) fossil site. Ucucha (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. No offense intended about the un-sexiness of the topic, I'm sure it reflects more on my admittedly short attention span than anything else.
 * No problem; I didn't even mean to refer to your comment about sexiness. Ucucha (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the last paragraph of Taxonomy you start three sentences in a row with "In [year]...", maybe try to vary that a bit? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Ucucha (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The identity of a few additional isolated premolars assigned to Ferugliotherium, some also resembling multituberculates, is also uncertain." Is there a good way to avoid the "also... also" here?
 * Removed the first one. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ferugliotherium is known from isolated teeth, the assignment of some of which is controversial." Is there a good way to avoid the "of some of which" here?
 * I can't think of one right now, but don't think the current wording is very bad either. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your duplicate linking script is highlighting the first couple links of the Upper molariforms section and four of the first five links in the Range and ecology section.
 * All of those are linked previously in the taxonomy section, separated by a lot of dental anatomy. I think it's reasonable to link them again down in the lower part of the article, particularly because some of the things that are linked multiple times (e.g., the formations) are discussed in the most detail there, and it makes sense to enable readers to click through to the articles on the formations in that section. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem, I just thought I'd bring it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The three incisor fragments are identified as Ferugliotherium because of their size and provenance" I can never remember the rule about when to use "because of" vs "due to" and "owing to", do you know if it is being used correctly here? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Because of" sounds best to me here, but I'm happy to change it if that's thought necessary. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've examined the article's prose as best I can and any real issues that I could find have been dealt with so I'm ready to Support on prose/presentation/MOS. (I know very little about the subject matter so I'm not qualified to judge in that respect.) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't think total pages for Gurovich is needed
 * What does n.s. stand for? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * New series. I've unabbreviated it. As for Gurovich, I don't see why not, since I also give total page numbers for books. Thanks for the review. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support on prose and comprehensiveness - I reviewed this for GA and found little to complain about then. The article straddles the line between accessibility and exact meaning using technical words well as anything that can be described in plain English is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Consider all items below stricken; article meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Comments  by Sasata (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the lead could be made a bit more newbie-friendly. Some suggestions:
 * link taxa, crown
 * The first sentence should state explicitly (rather than the second sentence by implication) that Ferugliotherium is a genus.
 * there's no easy indication about what kind of mammal this was. Perhaps if (a group of rodent-like mammals) was glossed after Multituberculata, it would help.
 * "were assigned to indeterminate multituberculates instead." is there a more accessible way to say this?
 * formations -> geological formations
 * I've done most of these, but I think for this animal it's actually good that we give little indication about the kind of mammal it was, because we have little idea about that. But I've glossed multituberculates. Ucucha (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * two very close occurrences of the phrase "after the discovery of" is repetitious
 * link Bonaparte in taxobox
 * It's linked on the first occurrence in the taxobox; I don't think it's necessary to link all of the three occurrences. Ucucha (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "a now-extinct group of mammals" why specify now-extinct? were they not extinct when Bonaparte created the family?
 * link morphological, procumbent
 * "because they are less laterally compressed, more curved, and elliptical in cross section, and have a less acute angle at the tip." delete the second last "and"?
 * No, then the ellipsis would not make sense. But I've rearranged the sentence. Ucucha (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "With a width of at about 55 μm" extra word in there
 * "The crown is about rectangular" suggest "about" -> roughly
 * loph? anteroposteriorly?
 * "The middle row is oriented oblique with respect to ..." oblique->obliquely?
 * doi for Goin 2006 is broken; the article is viewable (by me at least) on Google Books here
 * This is just a stylistic preference, but reading through the article I get the impression that semicolons are overused.
 * have you tried contacting any of the paper's authors for use of an image? I noticed, for example, that a tooth image was used in this book; perhaps Kielan-Jaworowska and Bonaparte might release a similar low-res version that we could use?
 * Thanks for the comments, which are detailed and useful as always. I've fixed all the issues I didn't respond to separately. As for images, I've contacted Gurovich and received no response, but haven't tried either Kielan-Jaworowska or Bonaparte (though both are old enough that I doubt they would use email). Ucucha (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


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