Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Archive 8

Sivapardus
Last time I came here, I was inexperienced with actually writing articles and chose one a bit too big for my meager abilities. But now I'm back, with the recently-expanded Sivapardus: a fossil cat so obscure it's been mentioned maybe once since its original description in 1969. My biggest concern is the Description section, as making technical details of a partial mandible understandable for the layperson is hard. While this article is too short for GAN, I hope it can at least be good enough for B-class. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Jens
 * I don't think that length is a concern for GAN as long as the article is comprehensive. However, the fact that this genus is only mentioned in the first description (which is a very old one) but was not discussed in later works could be seen as a concern. So for this reason, it might be prudent to not submit for GAN.
 * There still seems to be a preference for GAs to be longer than my poor Sivapardus, but having only one major source is definitely the sticking point.
 * To improve accessibility, always use the same term for the same thing. You use both "type specimen" and "holotype"; just stick with one term (because if you use a different term, the reader will assume you mean a different thing).
 * Changed use of holotype to type specimen and linked.
 * dental alveolus – could replace that with "tooth socket".
 * Done.
 * The diastemata behind the canine tooth was short. – "diastema"?
 * Whoops! There's a Dinofelis named D. diastemata for its diastema; for some reason I always get the words mixed up.
 * While the structure of the third premolar is unknown – What do you mean with "structure"?
 * Changed to "shape".
 * Now the sentence makes no sense though: While the shape of the third premolar is unknown, the shape is typical of cats.
 * Drat. I'm not sure how to say this, then. Would "form" work better?
 * I am not sure what you want to say in the first place, can you explain? "Form" and "Shape" are almost synonymous I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So, as I understood it, only the root of the tooth, the part situated within the jaw, was still present on the fossil. So the outline of the base is known but not any of the structure above the jaw.
 * OK. You already stated in the text that of the third premolar, only the root is known. So write here "The root of the third premolar is typical of cats"? I wonder, though, if the root of the third premolar in particular is really so diagnostic for cats? Is this what the source says? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't say that it's diagnostic, just that the structure is unknown, while the shape of the roots "suggest a tooth narrow in front and broad behind like most of the cats". Anyway, I just changed the sentence to in lieu of more finagling.
 * The fourth premolar and the first molar were described more thoroughly. – not sure if this is relevant.
 * Removed, it was an artifact of when the first two paragraphs were only one paragraph and it was part of a larger sentence.
 * The fourth premolar – I don't think this should be linked. It makes no sense to have an article on "fourth premolar".
 * Removed.
 * consecutive cusps – what does "consecutive" mean here precisely?
 * In a row. Changed.
 * add an explanation for cingulum (in brackets)
 * Added.
 * Bakr described it – what does "it" refer to?
 * The species; changed.
 * add explanation for "massetic fossa"
 * It was supposed to be masseteric fossa, and added.
 * Other fauna known from the three Pabbi Hills localities – you only list herbivorous mammals here (and so does the source, it seems); so is this really a comprehensive list of the "fauna" in general as you claim?
 * There are, in fact, no other carnivorans known from the localities that I know of. But also qualified it as "..are primarily herbivores and include.." rather than claiming it to be comprehensive.
 * The lead could be longer, it is supposed to be a summary of the entire article.
 * Expanded a tad; ledes are hard for me.
 * based on fossils from the Upper Siwaliks – as I understood, it is only one fossil, not "fossils"?
 * Changed.
 * If it is easy to get a map of Pakistan showing where the Sar-Dhok locality is, this would be a great addition. Do you have coordinates?
 * I can try.
 * Done!
 * Or maybe even a labelled sketch of the fossil itself; that would make it much easier to understand the description section. But this is purely optional of course and depends on how much work you want to put into this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm actually waiting to see if I can get the plates from the original paper depicting the fossil so I can ask if someone can make a sketch of it as an illustration. --Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Jens, I have acted on and responded to all of the above comments. Thank you. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are welcome; see one response I made above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Sar-Dhok locality is estimated to be of Late Pliocene to late Early Pleistocene age – But in the taxonbox, you only list Pleistocene; why? Also, this information should definitely appear in the lead, too.
 * Redirect of Sivapardus punjabiensis to this article still needs to be created. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've answered and acted on all of the above comments, and am (hopefully) in the process of acquiring an drawing or diagram of the type specimen. Do you have any other concerns? Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, looks good to me! I think we can elevate it to "B-class" (which is just one level below GA). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless anyone else has comments, this can probably be archived now. Although I do have a question about how often I can put an article up for peer review here? Because I have a laundry list of over obscure cats that I intend to work on and would like to put through some kind of review eventually, and most just don't have the sourcing and/or supporting materials to make it through GAN. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Archival will be automatic after some time of inactivity, so don't worry about that! We don't have any limitations regarding the number of articles one can post here, so please feel free to post more. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Felis wenzensis
A short, but hopefully comprehensive, article about a fossil cat species from Poland. It's original description has the distinction of being freely available online, which just makes it stranger that it's hardly been mentioned since it was described. As before, I am most concerned about the Description and Paleoecology sections. Thanks for any help, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Węże 1 – Specify where in Poland this is?
 * The holotype and only specimen is a partial left ramus – you need "mandibular ramus", since some other bones also have rami.
 * The holotype and only specimen is a partial left ramus: the front part of the ramus – Why not simply "The holotype and only specimen is the front part of a left mandibular ramus"?
 * fellow prehistoric feline – do you mean "contemporary"?
 * five other carnivorans are known from Węże 1 – would help to also state the groups to which they belong.
 * The lead could be longer, it is supposed to summarize the entire article.
 * Again, this is all I found for now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe I have made all of the requested changes. Thank you! SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sivasmilus
Another smaller article about an obscure Siwalik genus, but this time it's a barbourofelid rather than a felid- or is it? As before, I'm hoping that it is good enough for B-class even if it can't go to GAN. Additional note: the major sources are freely available online, so I'd appreciate someone checking my Description section against what the papers say- I'm still shaky on making it readable yet comprehensive. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * machaerodont – link/explain at first mention?
 * Done.
 * Sivasmilus is a fossil genus of barbourofelid – does it make sense to add ("false saber-toothed cat") here for readers who do not know what a barbourofelid is, and just want to know what the article is about?
 * I dislike the name, but it's probably useful to casual readers. Done.
 * "mental crest", "foramina", parastyle: link at first mention
 * Done.
 * In 2018 a study noted that the mandible fragment seemed to fit the holotype of Sivaelurus (a near-complete right maxilla, or upper jaw bone) quite well – A mysterious statement which is open to speculation. But what can we do if the authors are not more clear.
 * Yeah, that was basically all they said.
 * situated above the cheek teeth, – What does that mean, "above"? And why cheek teeth if you already used "premolar"?
 * Changed to situated above the level of the premolars to reflect what the source said.
 * a very distinct series of very fine serrations. – In most cases, "very" does not really add anything and can usually be removed.
 * Done.
 * a strong metastyle behind the principal cusp, and room for a parastyle in front of it – In front of what?
 * In front of the principal cusp. Clarified.
 * I can't see any further issues. Nicely done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Responded to some, still working on others. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long wait, I responded to and made the appropriate changes to the last two outstanding points. Thank you, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , by the by. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! I changed to "B"-class, that WikiprojectMammals B-class checklist does again not work, you would need to fix that yourself (I will never understand those B-class checklists it seems). Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Project-Independent Quality Assessment guys disabled use of B-clas checklists in banners, alas. But thank you for the review and reassessment! SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, that simplifies things. And sure, you are welcome! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)