Wikipedia:Peer review/Bachitherium/archive1

Bachitherium


I'm listing Bachitherium for a peer review because it is a particularly long article, and I'm not sure how easy or difficult it is for laymen to read, and unfortunately, Paleogene mammal specialists are pretty rare in this day and age including in Wikipedia. I wrote this article in part because of my interest in fossil mammals but also because I think that the concept of faunal turnovers are interesting in understanding the evolution of environments. I'm hoping that eventually I can get this article to good article (GA) status at least, so a peer review would definitely help.

Thanks, PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Since this is a peer review, I'm going to do a line-by-line of the lede only and a more cursory check of the rest of this article. At first glance, though, the lede is a mess- you're tracking to pack a ton of information into four paragraphs and achieving confusion instead.
 * Comments by SilverTiger:
 * First off, bold the instances of Bachitherium in the cladograms.
 * I am extremely uncertain about the inclusion of the various collapsed charts showing very technical measurements. While informative, I don't think they fit the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. The cranial and dental lengths tables are the worst violators of this; I cannot see what they add to the article.
 * The Palaeoecology section is... very well-written, but very much wandering down a massive tangent. I'd suggest merging most of it into other articles and using See Also and Main Article links.
 * I'm not sure you need to use collapsible lists for the synonyms in the taxobox since there's not many synonyms.

Anyway, back to the lede...
 * Etymology: normally, I see the etymology of a name given in parentheses when it translates directly to a phrase, and given later in the lede as a separate sentence when it doesn't. For example, "Brontosaurus (lit. "thunder lizard")..." as opposed to Mimodactylus. Here, I would suggest moving the etymology to a separate sentence; something like Note that there are templates for putting Greek letters into text.
 * First sentence: I don't think you need to go into that it lived first in eastern then in western Europe right away; would be fine.
 * - Here is where the confusion begins for me. Later in the article, it looks like they were always considered a different genus? My tentative suggestion is you change the sentence to something along the lines of The points to hit here are: when was the first species described (and as what), and then when was the genus described and for which species.

Honestly, this whole article is very dense and very wordy. I can understand what it is trying convey most of the time, but only after reading each paragraph at least twice. I suggest you go through and copy-edit it with an eye for concision, summary style, and a focus on the family/genus/species. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright, I made quick revisions based on suggested changes to the lead section, and I'll copy-edit the article soon, although I would prefer eventual suggestions for improving the description section since I'm not yet used to revising information like anatomy-based texts to be easier for audiences to read. I'll prioritize revising the palaeoecology section, more to come soon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Continuing, starting from the lede again. I still have reservations about the length and density of this article, so I will try to be more thorough. Starting with the lede: I'll go through the history next. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the sentence on the etymology, although I did add the templates used for Greek wording.
 * First paragraph:
 * This is a run-on sentence.
 * This is confusing.
 * I am going to suggest rewriting much of the first paragraph:
 * Now the hard part: rewrite the rest of the lede. In 2-3 paragraphs, you need to tell me and everyone else the approximate size and shape of Bachitherium a brief and extremely simplified explanation of what makes it different from other ruminants, a bit about what it ate, the habitat it lived in, and how much and, also very simplified, what material Bachitherium is known from. What you do not need to cover is the climate changes, geographical changes, migrations, etc.

Beginning Taxonomy/Early history section:
 * I recommend starting in chronological order: if any species were described before the genus, start with them. E.g., start with saying that in 1877, French palaeontologist Henry Filhol described and named two new species of fossil artiodactyls, Gelocus curtus and G. insignis, based on fossils [if possible, what sort of fossils?] from [place]. [...] [Etymology of species names]. However, in 1882 he re-assigned "Gelocus" insignis to the new genus Bachitherium along with the newly-described B. medium and B. minus. [sentence about Bachitherium being assigned to what family. Repeat full genus etymology and then state etymology for species.]" Or "But in 1882, based on differences in the [dentition/dental formula/etc], he moved both species to a new genus Bachitherium along with the newly-described B. medium and B. minus." Add in more details as needed. (I am very much guessing at what exactly happened).
 * What genera? Please name them here.
 * Why is this in the taxonomy section? This is description.
 * Repeat the whole genus etymology here, note the type species, and then follow it with a sentence about the species' etymologies.
 * First, move that last sentence up to right after the first:
 * This contains twice as much technical details as necessary.
 * Last paragraph: clarify that P1 is the first upper premolar and that I1 is the first upper incisor.
 * This contains twice as much technical details as necessary.
 * Last paragraph: clarify that P1 is the first upper premolar and that I1 is the first upper incisor.
 * This contains twice as much technical details as necessary.
 * Last paragraph: clarify that P1 is the first upper premolar and that I1 is the first upper incisor.