Wikipedia:Peer review/Glyptodon/archive1

Glyptodon


I've listed this article for peer review because it is large and in need of critiscism before I nominate it for featured article status. Glyptodon is a frequently visited article and important to paleontology, being one of the first fossil animals from the New World to be described, and is known from several species and hundreds of fossils.

Thanks, AFH (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Funk

 * I'll try to have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At first glance, it has a good deal of WP:duplinks (not counting cladograms), which can be highlighted with this script:
 * Some of the images seem oddly distributed, why isn't the skull and teeth shown in the skull section, for example?

Slate
I'll probably mainly be posting comments here about one section of the article at a time. I'll start in history and work my way downwards, then finish off with the lead if all goes well. To start, here are my comments on the first half of History: This is looks like a very thorough article! Hopefully these comments are helpful; I'll try to continue providing feedback over the next few days or so. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 22:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) That's all I have for History at the moment, I'll try to take a look at Taxonomy tomorrow. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 23:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "as it involved confusion with other genera, dubious species, and lack of detailed data." - I think that this should be something more along the lines of "as it involved confusion with other genera and dubious species, as well as a lack of detailed data."
 * "This was the first recorded discovery of a fossil cingulate or glyptodont" - cingulate should be linked here, perhaps glyptodont as well. I personally would also swap these terms to make it clearer that glyptodont and fossil cingulate aren't synonymous terms, though this is pretty minor.
 * "when portions of a Glyptodon carapace [...] by a Prussian traveler" -> "when portions of a Glyptodon carapace [...] was found by a Prussian traveler"?
 * Optional: "theory" -> "hypothesis"
 * "Another work on the armored Megatherium theory was published in 1833 by Berlin scientist E. D'Alton who described" -> I think that there should be a comma after D'Alton.
 * Pectoral girdle should be linked (also could be substitued with "shoulder girdle" as it's more immediately recognizable to the lay)
 * "but he unwittingly implied that all of the "Megatherium armor" was instead from his armadillo" - is "unwitting" correct here? That seems to imply that D'Alton did not intend to have it appear that he supported such an assignment, which the Huxley paper doesn't seem to imply (though I only took a fairly cursory look at it so may have missed something)
 * Jurassic should be linked
 * "was sent a letter containing an isolated molariform and writing about a discovery" - as in, was sent an actual tooth? If so, it would probably be clearer to phrase along the lines of "was sent an isolated molariform tooth and a letter about the discovery"
 * "from localities in Las Averias and Villanueva, the latter preserved" - comma should be a semicolon
 * "The genus name Glyptodon was first mentioned by Richard Owen (1804-1892)" - Perhaps specify that he named it? The current phrasing sounds somewhat odd to me, though I can't put my finger precisely on why
 * "Within this book, Owen dubbed the fossils found by Parish Glyptodon clavipes, [...], the molariform was designated the lectotype." - I think that this would flow better either as multiple sentences, with a semicolon, or a "with" in front of "the molariform"
 * Also, was the molariform designated as the lectotype? Cuadrelli et al. (2018) don't seem to mention this, and from my understanding if the lectotype was indeed a specimen of a different genus, then that genus would become Glyptodon, rather than a different specimen being reassigned as lectotype.
 * "An issue with the lectotype of G. clavipes is that the material is undiagnostic and indistinguishable from other Glyptodon species" - It should be stated who considered it to be undiagnostic
 * "making it dubious" - should probably be specified here that "it" refers to the species, not the lectotype
 * "Cuadrelli et al (2018) designated the species a species inquirenda due to this issue and more analyses are necessary." -> "Cuadrelli et al. (2018) designated the species a species inquirenda due to this issue and commented that more analyses are necessary." or something similar
 * Three sentences in a row are cited exclusively to Cuadrelli et al. (2018) in the first paragraph of the second subsection of history; this can be simplified by just having one citation at the end of the third sentence.
 * Periods/full stops should not be used in image captions unless it's to distinguish a complete sentence from another sentence/fragment
 * "The fragments were cast by the NHMUK as well and the fossils were dated to the Pleistocene." - It's already stated that this species came from the Pleistocene at the start of the paragraph
 * "Another species now seen as valid was described in 1881 by Argentine paleontologist Florentino Ameghino (1853-1911) called G. munizi on the basis of several osteoderms found in the Ensenadan of Arroyo del Medio, San Nicolás, Argentina." - The flow here feels a bit choppy, perhaps something along the lines of "Another species now seen as valid, G. munizi, was described in 1881 by Argentine paleontologist Florentino Ameghino (1853-1911) on the basis of several osteoderms found in the Ensenadan of Arroyo del Medio, San Nicolás, Argentina."
 * Chapadmalalan should be linked
 * "A novel Glyptodon species was described in 2020" - I personally try to avoid terms like "novel" or "new" as these will become dated in the future
 * Is "sédiments" supposed to have the accent mark?
 * "only found the species:" - The colon not needed here
 * "G. clavipes and G. uquiensis as species inquirendas" - Should probably include something like "were treated as", also should be species inquirendae
 * "Though a 2016 review" - I'm not sure how correct it is to start a sentence with "though", personally I'd err on the side of caution and use "however" instead
 * Optional: "typically on fragmentary osteoderms" -> "typically based on fragmentary osteoderms"


 * Got these done, thank you! AFH (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks nice, though I realize that "was found by a Prussian traveler", should actually be "were found by a Prussian traveler", sorry about that. I've listed some comments on taxonomy below. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 22:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Description: I've added some comments on the description section, from its beginning through Vertebrae and pelvis. I'll try to get more in on the section tomorrow. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 23:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Subfamily should be linked
 * "Doedicurus (a large, mace-clubbed glyptodont)" - It feels a bit odd that Doedicurus is glossed here as it has already been mentioned previously
 * Refs 41 and 43 appear to be duplicates
 * "Glyptodontinae is usually considered its own family, but DNA analyses have reduced it to a subfamily with tribes instead of subfamilies." The majority of this sentence explains the situation already explained in the previous paragraph, perhaps it could be reduced a bit, simply stating that the current glyptodont tribes were once considered subfamilies before the group's rank was reduced, or something like that? Alternatively, it could be incorporated into the next sentence)
 * "but split into 2 genera" - "2" -> "two"
 * "Glyptodontini is often recovered as more basal to most other glyptodonts like Doedicurus, Hoplophorus, and Panochthus. Glyptodontini is distinguishable from other groups..." - I think it would improve the flow if this was moved either before or after the information about the ingroup relations of Glyptodontini, rather than in the middle
 * "The sister taxon (closest relative(s) of another taxon) to Glyptodon is the genus Glyptotherium" - This was already implied earlier in the paragraph
 * Perhaps move the information on temporal and spatial distribution of Glyptodon and Glyptotherium to be closer together
 * "Glyptotherium is nearly identical to Glyptodon in many aspects, so much so that the first fossils of Glyptotherium to be described were misidentified as those of Glyptodon." - At least the latter part of this was already covered in history
 * "Fossils of Glyptodon were first believed to be of the giant sloth Megatherium by Georges Cuvier, but Sir Richard Owen pointed out the flaws of this assessment based on the size of the material unearthed by Don Larranega." - Again, this feels more appropriate for the history section
 * "advanced Glyptodonts" -> "advanced glyptodonts"
 * The organization of the taxonomy section is kind of confusing, as it goes from modern outgroup relations of glyptodonts to ingroup relations of glyptodonts to historic classification of glyptodonts. Perhaps the third paragraph could be brought to the front, as it can then serve as background for why the taxonomic changes were made based on molecular studies.
 * I'd strongly suggest splitting up the first paragraph of description, it currently discusses three separate topics, (armor, limb structure, and size) which makes it a bit jarring
 * Probably should have thought of this earlier, but is there a difference between the terms "dorsal carapace" and "carapace" among glyptodonts?
 * "a blunt tube that was composed of 2 fused tubes" - It would be helpful to clarify precisely what this means; for instance does this mean concentric tubes, parallel tubes, one tube ends and another begins? Also "2" should be spelled out
 * "Glyptodon was very graviportal and had short limbs that are very similar to those in other glyptodonts, the limb anatomy of Glyptodon is indistinguishable from that of Glyptotherium." - This should either use a semicolon or be two sentences. I think providing a brief explanation of what graviportal is would be helpful for unspecialized readers as well
 * "During the Pleistocene, the diversity of glyptodonts diminished but increased in size" - This phrasing is a bit confusing, perhaps something like "glyptodont diversity diminished but body size increased" would help reinforce that "size" refers to the actual animals' size, not amount of diversity
 * "G. reticulatus at a mere 401 kilograms (884 lb) to 862 kilograms (1,900 lb),[55] and G. munizi weighed 1,150 kilograms (2,540 lb)." - based on the initial phrasing, I think that removing "at" and "weighed" here would be needed to match the sentence's initial format
 * "This size difference could be due to G. clavipes being a Pampean species that lived in open, lowland habitats [...]" - This information feels more like something that would belong in the biology or ecology section
 * "G. munizi and G. reticulatus measuring 2.2 metres" - should be "measured"
 * Perhaps add a carapace length for G. clavipes, if available, to better facilitate comparison?
 * "Glyptodont dentition has all hypsodont (high crowned teeth adapted for grazing) molariforms, cheek teeth, which are some of the most hypsodont known from terrestrial mammals." - I'm not sure what this sentence is saying with regards to cheek teeth, do glyptodonts only have teeth in their cheeks? Also, phrasing more along the lines of "Glyptodont dentition contains entirely hypsodont molariforms" might improve the flow a bit, too
 * Can brachycephaly apply to a braincase? Its article seems to indicate it refers to the whole skull, though it is heavily human-focused so this may not apply here
 * "Only one complete skull is known from Glyptotherium texanum, while relatives like Glyptodon and Neosclerocalyptus are known from many skulls, giving a limited perspective on its anatomy." - Not sure if this much detail is needed on another genus
 * The proboscis hypothesis is introduced twice in rapid succession, the information could probably all be combined into a single sentence
 * "Teeth resembled those of an armadillo, [...]" - This information should be placed with the other information on teeth
 * Optional: Two sentences in a row start with "In Glyptodon", changing one up a bit could make the prose a bit more engaging
 * "but Glyptotherium's mandible is smaller by about 10%" - Relative to what (or just absolute size)?
 * "Glyptodon preserves 7 cervical vertebrae" - Is that the total count or are there presumed additional unpreserved vertebrae?
 * Optional: "that were used to hold ribs" -> "that held ribs"
 * "All of the other 13 vertebrae in the spinal column" - does this refer to dorsals/thoracics & lumbars? If so, "back vertebrae" might be a better descriptor, as I think the spinal column would include the sacrals and caudals too
 * "Glyptodon's caudal vertebrae were the most flexible in the skeleton, likely to be used for protection against threats." - This feels more like it would belong in paleobiology than description


 * Thank you so much Slate! I will make some improvements beforehand AFH (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; changes look good so far! As for the rest of the description section:

I also have a few additional, broader remarks on the section: Hopefully these comments are helpful; I'll take a look at Paleobiology tomorrow. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 00:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "The anatomy of different Glyptodon species varies greatly, mostly in the species G. jatunkhirkhi which is more similar to Glyptotherium in certain aspects." - Unless this is specifically refering to the carapace this should be probably be moved up in the Description section
 * "The carapace was regularly convex in most species of Glyptodon" - While I understand that this is presenting somewhat different information, the very similar wording two sentences earlier makes it feel repetitive
 * "In Glyptodon, the top-bottom height of the carapace represents 60% of its total length, whereas in Glyptotherium it is taller at ca. 70%." - Perhaps relocate to be closer to the information about relative elongation of the carapace
 * What does "ca." mean? It would be helpful to spell it out (or substitute an equivalent word)
 * "that differ only in several areas" - This is contradictory, "only" implies few while "several" implies many
 * "while others lack them completely" - should be specified that "others" refer to other Glyptodon specimens, rather than other genera
 * Conversion templates would be helpful for the measurments in millimeters
 * "Before the Pleistocene, Glyptodon’s osteoderms were attached by syntoses" - "syntoses" should be glossed
 * Additionally, the second paragraph is prefaced with before the Pleistocene, an explanation of how this changed during the Pleistocene would be helpful
 * "In the caudal (tail) anatomy, Glyptodon had very primitive anatomy for a glyptodont in that it had mobile eight or nine caudal rings of fused large, conical, osteoderms." - The flow here is kind of rough, perhaps a change of wording like "Glyptodon had very primitive tail anatomy for a glyptodont, possessing eight or nine mobile caudal rings of fused, large, conical osteoderms"
 * Currently, the first paragraph of Description discusses the carapace in some detail. While I think an early mention of the carapace would be helpful, it probably could be cut down to one sentence with most of the rest of the information moved down to the relevant section.
 * On a similar note, I've noticed a fair amount of redundant information that could be trimmed down (most examples are mentioned above), this would enhance flow and readability
 * There is a lot of information about Glyptotherium. While I don't think having such information is necessarily unreasonable, it does seem somewhat excessive in its current form, with the level of detail seeming more appropriate for the article of that genus.


 * I have included this information comparing Glyptodon and Glyptotherium on both pages, but I will trim it down for Glyptodon 's. AFH (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've left some comments on the first half of paleobiology below, I'll add some stuff on the second half tomorrow. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 00:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC) That's all I have on paleobiology at the moment. Changes look good so far, though I think that some of the information from eyesight (specifically the armor making up for poor vision) probably should still be included in the article, perhaps under combat or behavior. I'll post some comments on the next section tomorrow. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 22:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The subsections seem to be placed in alphabetical order; however, I think a more subject-based organization would be ideal here (so digging, for instance, would be placed near posture, while feeding and combat would go near behavior, etc.)
 * "while for the smaller, older Pseudoplohophorus it was only 101 cubic centimeters (3.4 U.S. fl oz)." - Not sure if this much detail is needed on a completely different genus
 * "The information is lower than most modern armadillos (0.44–1.06 cubic centimeters (0.015–0.036 U.S. fl oz)) and corresponds to those of pampatheres." - Not sure what "The information" refers to here, clarification would be helpful
 * Is the olfactory piston the same thing as the olfactory bulb? If so, I'd suggest substituting in the latter term, which appears to be much more common (in fact, this article is one of the top hits when doing an internet search for "olfactory piston")
 * "smaller relatively to the braincase's" -> "smaller relative to the braincase's" Personally I'd also swap the positions of total volume with cerebellum in that sentence but that might just be personal taste
 * "Deviating from the armadillos with their wide olfactory bulb, glyptodonts and pampatheres have elongated and triangular olfactory systems." - This should be placed with the other information on the olfactory bulb/piston
 * sulcus praesylvianus should be glossed
 * "This reduction thus supported the weight loss in the skull," - Not sure if supported is the best term here, as it could be interpreted as physically supporting some structure, perhaps "supported the" could be interchanged with something like "resulted in"?
 * Might be nice to mention the functions of the different parts of the brain, if covered by the sources
 * The phrasing in "Eyesight" is extremely similar to that in the cited source; this needs to be changed up more. I'm also not sure how much of this is directly relevant to glyptodonts (i.e., burrows, rainforests)
 * "Glyptodon had an "elaboration of the osteodentine ridges in their jaw that provided an effective grinding mill, causing the food particles to be pushed and sheared through the constant motion of the mandible, allowing Glyptodon to consume their dietary needs."" - This long a quote should have an in-prose attribution, alternatively it could just be paraphrased
 * "digestive processes in the mouth" - Couldn't be simplified to something like "processing" or "chewing"?
 * "Like most other xenarthrans, glyptodonts had lower energy requirements than most other mammals. They could survive with lower intake rates and less nutrition than other herbivores with similar mass." - These two sentences say nearly the same thing
 * "with the proposed idea of aquatic grazing may have caused" - "of" should be "that"
 * "the highly herbivorous isotopes" - This sounds kind of odd, perhaps phrasing more like "isotopes strongly associated with herbivory" would work better?
 * "Neosclerocalyptus was more of an open grazer" - Does this mean it favored more open environments? Might be clearer just to state that
 * "bimodal distribution" - Why is this in quotes? (Could also be linked)
 * "implying a difference between populations, genders, or species in diet." - "sexes" is probably more appropriate than "genders" here
 * "The C4 plants include groups like [...]" - This should be placed immediately after C4 & C3 plants are introduced
 * "meaning that Glyptodon likely ate flowering plants in addition to C3 grasses." - Are C3 grasses not also flowering plants?
 * Intraspecific combat seems to have had a formatting error with its header
 * "causing a study too calculate the amount of force required to break the carapace of Glyptodon. The calculation showed that Glyptodon tails would be able to break the carapace," - This could probably be phrased more concisely, perhaps along the lines of "A study based on this specimen calculated that Glyptodon tails would have been able to generate enough force to break the carapace of another Glyptodon."
 * Optional: "suggesting that they likely fought each other to settle territorial or mating disputes, much like male-to-male fighting among deer using their antlers, through the use of their tails." -> "suggesting that they likely fought each other to settle territorial or mating disputes through the use of their tails, much like male-to-male fighting among deer using their antlers."
 * "Several interpretations of glyptodont posture have been made,[92] initially by Richard Owen in 1841 using comparative anatomy." - Something like "starting with those" might work better than "initially" here
 * "No direct evidence of glyptodont behavior has been described," - What about the damaged carapace, or tooth wear?

I've left some comments on the first part of Distribution and Paleoecology below; I'll see if I can finish going through the section tomorrow. So far a lot of it is just minor critiques on list structure. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 21:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC) I've finished going through paleobiology, and added a comment on Extinction as well, concluding my first look through the article body. I realize that I have taken quite a while to go through all this, sorry about that; and thanks for sticking through with this! I'll try to go over the lead, taxobox, and other parts of the article tomorrow. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 20:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph, the organization is somewhat confusing which breaks up the flow; for example, the "However in regions such as the Pampas, [...]" sentence contrasts directly to the "[...] with G. reticulatus representing up to 90% of the glyptodont fossils [...]" sentence but there is another sentence between them
 * Not sure if it's needed to specifically mention that Glyptodon ate both C3 & C4 plants as that was already mentioned above, probably just saying it had a generalized diet would be sufficient
 * "Further evidence of Glyptodon’s adaptability is found in the Pampas" - I think explicitly stating that Glyptodon lived in the Pampas in this sentence and the Bermejo Fm in the next would help make this feel more natural
 * "is found in the Pampas were semihumid and temperate" -> "is found in the Pampas, which were semihumid and temperate"
 * Naming the country for Formosa Province would be helpful
 * "G. reticulatus, G. clavipes, and G. jatunkhirkhi from the late Pleistocene to early Holocene" - Did they all live throughout the entirety of that time span or did one give way to the other? If the former, then "The established species of Glyptodon were segregated by time" should probably be changed to specify that only G. munizi lived at a different time for greater clarity.
 * It's a bit jarring to go back to paleoenvironments after discussing temporal distribution, perhaps move the stuff on temporal distribution to the start of the paragraph?
 * All the sloths seem to be ground sloths, might be good to specify this as the average person will have a very different mental image of sloths
 * Why is Toxodon listed as endemic?
 * Optional: "the perissodactyl equids" -> "the equids" for simplicity
 * Artiodactyl should be linked
 * Might as well replace "cervid" with the more recognizable term "deer", and for consistency with the rest of that sentence
 * Why is saber-toothed in quotes?
 * "bear Arctotherium," -> "the bear Arctotherium,"
 * Is Cerdocyon described as wolf-like by the sources? Its article indicates that it's described as a fox, so I'm not sure how fitting "wolf-like" is as a descriptor for it
 * "Notably, some of the youngest "terror-bird" fossils of the genus Psilopterus." - This is not a complete sentence; also, how come terror bird is hyphenated and in quotes? (could also be linked)
 * "restricting the distribution of Glyptodon to the southern region of Brazil." - This could give the impression that the non-Brazilian occurences are also not Glyptodon, but I'm struggling to think of how to phrase this more clearly
 * "Glyptodon coexisted with a variety of large predators [...] as they all coexisted in areas such as the Pleistocene Pampas." - This is redundant (also Glyptodont shouldn't be capitalized)
 * Optional: "After analyzing the isotopes," -> "Instead," (it's already implied that the isotopes would have been analyzed
 * "The appearance of armor in the dermis" - It should be specified that this is about glyptodonts as the previous sentence talked about a variety of animals
 * "The only other records of human predation from outside the Pampas were" - Should be "are", unless these specimens were lost
 * "which was done so with the use of tools." - This is already mentioned earlier in the paragraph
 * "Hunters may have used the shells of dead animals as shelters in inclement weather." - This is relevant to the article, but it doesn't really seem to fit in Extinction. Perhaps it could be moved up to Predation?

Comments on lead: It doesn't look like File:Glyptodon (Riha2000).jpg has been reviewed, might be good to send it through WP:PALEOART. Otherwise, that's all I have on the article for the moment! This has been an interesting read, and I've learned quite a bit about glyptodonts from it. Hopefully my comments have been helpful, and sorry about how long it took me to do the review. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 23:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think early Holocene is an official term (though I could be wrong about this, as I'm much more Mesozoic-focused) so I don't think "Early" would need to be capitalized
 * "Many species have been named for the genus, though few are considered valid," - This isn't really connected to the second part of the sentence and it feels like it would belong further down in the lead with related information
 * That being said, the amount of detail on taxonomic history in the lead feels somewhat excessive, it could probably be trimmed down
 * "making it one of the largest glyptodonts but not as large as its close relative Glyptodon or Doedicurus" - I assume Glyptodon here should be a different genus?
 * "Glyptodonts evolved first during the Eocene, but greatly diversified in the Miocene and Pliocene, largely in the Santacrucian sites of Argentina. However, their diversity diminished into the Pleistocene, though they peaked in size during this period." - This feels more like general glyptodont information only partially related to Glyptodon, it could probably be heavily trimmed down/excised
 * "Glyptodon was had" -> "Glyptodon had"
 * "The armor could protect" -> I feel like "could have protected" would work better here as Glyptodon is dead (also a period is missing immediately before this)
 * Optional: "of which many coexisted with Glyptodon during its existence" -> "of which many coexisted with Glyptodon"


 * Thank you so much Slate! So after this do I just nominate the article for Featured Article? AFH (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd personally recommend sending it through GAN before FAC, especially if this is your first nomination. This helps weed out more issues prior to the more in-depth review at FAC and seems to standard practice, at least here in PALEO. Also, not sure if still wanted to do a more thorough review here before then? --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 19:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly, like I said during the last FAC, and even experienced nominators usually take articles to GAN before FAC to get everything ironed out. But since this review was so detailed, perhaps it could be sent straight to GAN, then I will try to review it there. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)