Jump to content

Talk:Dichodon (mammal)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dichodon (mammal)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 02:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a lot of duplinks, can be highlighted with the usual script.[1]
Addressed most duplicate links outside of ones in the lede section or cladogram. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of a shame there's no full body restoration? Could perhaps be of another species than the one there's currently a head of.
This is due to the unknown nature of the postcranial anatomy of xiphodonts other than Xiphodon itself, so only the head is constructed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see it's complete in the size diagrams, though, what are those body dimensions based on? The Commons description doesn't make that clear, mentioning various skull material instead. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the old figures may look even more interesting for the infobox than the current image there.
I'd rather avoid using old figures in the infobox for the most part unless absolutely necessary. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a Commons category[2], it previously redirected to a plant senior synonym. Could be populated with the other images.
Got it. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangely, the plant is under the genus Cerastium [3] on Commons. Do we know if that's actually the current name, and its Wikipedia page should be moved there? Then our animal article could lose the parenthesis.
Dichodon the plant genus appears to be valid based on quick searches from recent results in Google Scholar. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk Do you have a rough idea on when you will be able to start the review? PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed down to "Classification" now. There are a few things that need to be checked throughout, like how people are presented and capitalised species names. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "erected a new taxon classified to the clade called Dichodon" Seems an odd formulation. "Belonging to the/placed in the group"? Also, it seems anachronistic to use the term "clade" retroactively like this before anyone used it in this context.
  • " He noted that its fossils were found by Alexander Pytts Falconer from the Eocene beds of Hordle, England" Would be simple to just directly say the fossil was from there, instead of saying Owen stated it, which is quite a sidetrack.
  • "Dichobune for which Owen stated that its molar mounds were similar to." You already stated it resembled it, so just shorten it to "Dichobune, due to having similar molar mounds".
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to give the etymology of the generic name first? It is after all the first part of the binomial.
  • "naturalist Vladimir Kovalevsky", "but Hans Georg Stehlin". Give nationality as you do for other people you mention for consistency. There seems to be others as well, like " by François Jules Pictet de la Rive", check throughout. Alternatively, remove nationality for them all.
  • "D. Valdense, and D. Frohnstettense" Why are the species names capitalised? You seem to do this throughout.
    • That's how the authors who erected the taxa originally named them. It used to often be that taxa named after individuals or places had their species names uppercase until later in the 20th century. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and naming convention of D. Valdense" Not sure what convention would mean here. Etymology?
  • "that there was a small-sized species from the Swiss locality of Egerkingen, that it was smaller than D. Frohnstettense and that it would have been roughly the size of Cainotherium." This could be simpler: "that there was a small-sized species from the Swiss locality of Egerkingen, that was smaller than D. Frohnstettense and would have been roughly the size of Cainotherium. "
  • "he assigned the species name D. simplex" Could be clearer since it seems the point is that he added it to an existing genus, like: "Deciding not to establish a new genus because of incomplete material, he assigned to Dichodon as the species D. simplex".
  • "in 1910 suggested that Kovalevsky based the species on fossils previously described by François Jules Pictet de la Rive" But that he didn't name? Could be specified.
  • "and D. cervinus, the latter of which was previously erected and classified to the genus Dichobune by Owen in 1841" This is chronologically confusing: why do you only mention a species already named in 1841 down here instead of earlier when you cover Owen's other naming?
    • I'm following the typical taxonomic section format in which the recognition of the genus name is referenced first followed by species names and reclassification. I reference species not initially classified to a genus first only if I follow a research history format first, which I don't here. It's mainly for the sake of simplicity. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "established the binomial name Tetraselenodon Kowalevskii based on fossils from the French department of Tarn-et-Garonne in 1886. He justified the genus by arguing that Pictet incorrectly referred it to Dichodon due to the dentition being simple-looking in form." This is somewhat confusing. Is this a new name for the taxon mentioned under "he assigned the species name D. simplex"? If so, state it, and why did he think he could just create a new name for it? And why is the specific name capitalised?
  • "Sudre therefore established the species D. lugdunensis." Why is this necessary when you start the sentence with "the French palaeontologist Jean Sudre erected D. lugdunensis"?
  • "although he emended D. subtile to D. subtilis and D. frohnstettense to D. frohnstettensis" Did he explain why? Of course because of some incongruence, but could be specified for the reader.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dichodon_(mammal)&oldid=1234946595"