Jump to content

Talk:Gigantopithecus/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'll be reviewing your article over the next few days. starsandwhales (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
  • I'm not sure, but would it be clearer to say that it is hypothesized that the bones were eaten by porcupines (rather than likely eaten by porcupines)?
I mean it's not controversial, there are gnawing marks on tooth roots. The source says "Based on the rarity of bones in relation to the preponderance of isolated teeth and the presence of extensive rodent gnawing on tooth roots, it appears that the primary accumulating agent in the southern Chinese cave sites were porcupines"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why the discussion about whether it was a human ancestor phased out?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information on peptide sequencing is good and it's clear on how that shows the relations between various apes. However it's unclear to be how the teeth were dated and how the timeframe of the last common ancestor is calculated.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far everything up to Description is well written.
  • I've been told not to link to scientists that don't have articles yet.
really? I feel like I do that pretty often   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked WP:RED, and the links to non-notable people should be removed. You can keep the links for people who have articles other languages, but if someone doesn't have any secondary sources written about them then you should remove the link. starsandwhales (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link pongine/ponginae
Ponginae is already linked in Classification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok starsandwhales (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a template for dental formulas?
added. By the way, the source referred to them as P3 and P4 instead of P1 and P2 and I'm not entirely certain why. Should I say "first and second premolars" instead of "third and fourth premolars"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How were you able to tell that the source was actually talking about P1 and P2? I'm not an expert so I'm not sure, but if that would make this article more consistent with other articles about early apes, then you should make the change. starsandwhales (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They show pictures of the mandible with teeth which clearly show 2 premolars, never mention P1 and P2, and (this makes it the most obvious) they say "both lower premolars" or "both upper premolars" sometimes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should follow convention. 00:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsandwhales (talk • contribs)
I guess it's standard to use P3 and P4 because apes lost 2 premolars   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "generalist diet" instead link to Generalist and specialist species?
yeah   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the hypothesis of the hoofed animals being dragged in not considered viable?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything is well written

Everything looks good! starsandwhales (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gigantopithecus/GA1&oldid=952974986"