Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plesiorycteropus/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 Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010.

Plesiorycteropus

 * Nominator(s): Ucucha 04:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Forget about lemurs and tenrecs, this is Madagascar's most special mammal. Exactly what it is, is not quite clear, but it is no longer around and apparently was some kind of digging insect-eater. Not much is known about this animal, but I believe this article comprehensively covers what there is. I thank Casliber for the GA review and Visionholder for creating the map. Ucucha 04:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - no dabs; one external link issue (the link for the second cited work, Asher, R.J., Novacek, M.J. and Geisler, J.H. 2003, redirects to "/"). PL290 (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But it still leads to the correct page; as far as I can see, there is no problem. Ucucha 08:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The link-checker flags it in red, so it would be preferable to correct it. Also, our readers can see that the link is to a PDF. That is likely to mislead them, and some may prefer not to download a PDF for the purpose of glancing at information about a cited source. The actual page redirected to is much more useful: while itself containing a link to the PDF, it also provides an abstract, and a preview. All in all, it would be an improvement to correct the link, and there appears to be no reason not to. PL290 (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That the link-checker flags it has no intrinsic relevance; that is only a (quite helpful) tool, which can sometimes be wrong. The advantage of the current link is that readers who have a subscription to SpringerLink can go directly to the full source. But I changed the link anyway; as you say, the abstract linked to also contains a link to the PDF and the .pdf link may mislead readers. Ucucha 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments:  Despite my bias towards lemurs, I'll take a shot at helping with this one. ;-) –   VisionHolder  « talk »  16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Otherwise, this article looks great.  I checked all of my Madagascar literature, and none of seems to cover anything not already mentioned in the article.  The only questionable things might be the following statement: "...no dentary or maxillary has been found to date, and it is unknown if this genus was truly an edentate (without teeth)."  If you feel that this doesn't change anything, don't worry about it.  However, if you feel that you might need to add another sentence to clarify all views on the matter, I can provide the citation.  (It's from "The Natural History of Madagascar.") –   VisionHolder  « talk »  16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "who in 1946 could use a larger sample to review the genus" – This doesn't sound right to me. Should it be "could have used a larger sample"?  And as it's worded, it sounds like the opinion of the article's writer, not something from a source.  (Admittedly the source was from 1994, and was probably assessing Lamberton's work in hindsight.)  Alternatively, was "could use" supposed to be "used"?
 * He did use the larger sample. I don't really see the opinion, but have reworded the sentence anyway.
 * You link "innominate bones", but could you also include "pelvic bones" in parentheses? Though not an expert in anatomy, I know quite a bit, yet still had to follow the link to determine the exact definition.  Since this one is so simple to explain, it might be worth doing.
 * Done. Perhaps overkill to have it both in the figure caption and the text?
 * Maybe... but to me, it's fine. I don't think we should assume that someone will read an image caption before the text or vice versa.  That's why I often "over-link" by leaving links in image captions, despite their presence in the text body. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  17:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misreading something, Majoria, Myoryctes, and Hypogeomys boulei sound like synonyms, but are not listed in the taxobox.
 * They are. I didn't add synonyms because it is awkward when treating both a genus and a species, but I think I've found a sensible way to do it.
 * You're right... very challenging situation. I think you handled it well.  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  17:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Palaeorycteropus and Leptomanis are red-linked, which is no fault of yours.  But where have they been found?  Mainland Africa, I presume?  As a reader, I would find that information helpful.  Likewise, Myorycteropus came from no-where, and following the links to the other groups of extinct South American mammals, a quick search did not find mention of it.  With which group does it belong?
 * Actually, both of them are from the Eocene or Oligocene of France. (One is based on a humerus, the other on a piece of skull—not very useful.) Myorycteropus is a tubulidentate; put in a little clarification on that.
 * "(though those are missing the face)" – Reading it, I felt like I hit a little speed bump. Maybe "(although the facial parts are missing from all of them)"... or something like that.
 * Rewrote this.
 * "femur (upper leg bone)" is present in both Relationships and Description.
 * Removed the second occurrence. Ucucha 16:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "On the basis of the area of a femur cross-section" – I'm assuming you're talking about "long-bone circumference measurements"... something I see mentioned in subfossil lemur literature? If it's truly the area (and not circumference), maybe word it as follows: "Based on the area of a femur cross-section"... As worded now, "basis of the area of" sounds awkward.
 * It's really area (it was 62.29 mm^2 in the P. germainepetterae femur and 92.46 mm^2 in the P. madagacariensis one). I made the change in wording.
 * Sorry... this one tied me up too: "for the smallest femur he had (referable to P. germainepetterae) based on". How about "for the smallest femur he had access to (referable...)".  For a second, I wasn't sure if it was "that he had" or "he had based on"
 * Reworded and split sentence.
 * "was rather more thin and fragile" – Suggestion: "was thinner and more fragile"
 * Done.
 * I'm sorry to say it, but the Description section has several red-links without descriptions. (Sigh... we need more anatomists writing articles on Wiki.)
 * Working on it—sometimes the approximate meaning should be clear from context.
 * I'm not going to hold you up on this one. I'm sure someone else will if it's a major issue. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "There is no evidence for the additional articulations between the vertebrae that are characteristic of xenarthrans." Might need to explain articulations, just to be safe (if you can).  If there's an appropriate link, that will be fine, too.
 * Actually, the term is equivalent with "joint", it seems.
 * "Six humeri (upper arm bones) are known;" – Maybe change "are known" to "have been found". As funny as it sounds, the section has been discussing the skeletal structure of an individual animal.  It would be funny if someone interpreted it as suggesting the animal had six humeri.  Saying "have been found", in my opinion, switches the line of thought from anatomy back to paleontological finds.  In this sense, "There are three examples of the radius" is worded very well.  But that's just my opinion.
 * That makes sense, I changed it. Also removed the "upper arm bones" part, as humerus is already defined a couple of paragraphs up.
 * As noted above, "innominate (part of the pelvis)" is needed, but mentioned far too late in the article.
 * Removed it here now it's defined above.
 * "and probably did not forage in termite mounds, as the aardvark does." Why not?  What reasons did the source give?
 * It's too small apparently; added.
 * Excellent! I seriously wanted to know. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm falling out of favor with "Before Present (BP)". I prefer CE and BCE... since most readers are familiar with our calendar system, whereas very few (including myself up until very recently) know that BP counts back from 1950.  Yes, it's linked, but I'm not sure very many people will think they need an explanation, and may just assume they understand.  Does 60 or more years difference in interpretation matter.... maybe not.  Again, it's just my opinion.
 * Added a BCE conversion in the body and just used BCE in the lead.
 * Lastly, I'm beginning to wonder if a list of subfossil sites that it's been found at would be helpful (in table format)? Admittedly, this will mean you and I will have to go back to several existing FAs and add this information in.  The location map is nice for a visualization, but it doesn't tell people the name of the sites.  And since the sites are typically clustered, even when we finish our upcoming list of subfossil sites, that won't help people "guess" the site locations.  Anyway, this is just a thought... and obviously means a bit of work for both of us outside the scope of this FAC.
 * I think that's a good idea, and I'll try to do it.
 * Thanks for the careful review. The article already says that the failure to find teeth referable to Plesiorycteropus suggests it was toothless, but I added in the jaws; MacPhee says something very similar. Ucucha 18:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent work as always. Keep it up! –   VisionHolder  « talk »  19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh... really quickly: I would recommend putting the same citation used on the table for the caption under the range map. That's it! –   VisionHolder  « talk »  19:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Ucucha 19:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 Support Comment  just a few nitpicks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC) No further issues, supporting now  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Charles Lamberton was unable to provide a definitive allocation, confused by the various similarities he saw with aardvarks... &mdash; To me this reads as if there's a verb missing
 * I don't see it. Perhaps "confused as he was"?
 * I don't see it either. The sentence looks fine to me.  Just my $0.02. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  12:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * remain missing &mdash; although the meaning is obvious the two words have an odd feel since they emanate opposite ideas. Perhaps are still unknown?
 * Changed.
 * placed against the substrate &mdash; any reason to suppose that the substrate isn't soil?
 * MacPhee explicitly talks about the "soil or other substrate". I guess aardvarks also do it when they dig into termite mounds. Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 06:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Comprehensive article (given how little is known about the animal), clearly written, and meets all the technical requirements of a Featured Article. It relies pretty heavily on one source, MacPhee 1994, but that may be inevitable, given the subject matter. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.