Talk:Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 13:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Looks great! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Comments:
- No images are provided, which is understandable. However, could one or more of the global paleogeographic reconstructions located here, such as File:LateJurassicGlobal.jpg and File:LateCretaceousGlobal.jpg, be used? And if you want the middle Jurassic rather than the late Jurassic, the images come from here, and with an image of the middle Jurassic available. The uploader (and author?) left comments on my talk page without signing several months back, so maybe you could try to track him down and see if you could upload more of them.
- I considered that, also for UA 8699, but there are two problems: the maps don't cite any reliable sources, and they aren't contemporaneous with the Mesozoic faunas. The late Jurassic one is about 15 Ma younger than Ambondro and the late Cretaceous one is about 25 Ma older than the Mahajanga Basin mammal fauna. Ucucha 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- The citations for the maps can be found on the website that they originally came from. Also, I said there is a map of the middle Jurassic that dates to 170 mya and a map for the Maastrichtian, which dates to 65 mya, on the original web site. I'm sure you could get approval to upload it to Commons if you contacted the author or tracked down the original uploader. Obviously, I won't hold up the GAC if you try and end up waiting for an email response. It's ultimately up to you, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'll e-mail the author. Ucucha 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- The citations for the maps can be found on the website that they originally came from. Also, I said there is a map of the middle Jurassic that dates to 170 mya and a map for the Maastrichtian, which dates to 65 mya, on the original web site. I'm sure you could get approval to upload it to Commons if you contacted the author or tracked down the original uploader. Obviously, I won't hold up the GAC if you try and end up waiting for an email response. It's ultimately up to you, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I considered that, also for UA 8699, but there are two problems: the maps don't cite any reliable sources, and they aren't contemporaneous with the Mesozoic faunas. The late Jurassic one is about 15 Ma younger than Ambondro and the late Cretaceous one is about 25 Ma older than the Mahajanga Basin mammal fauna. Ucucha 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"The fossils come from the Maastrichtian (latest Cretaceous) of the Anembalembo Member of the Maevarano Formation." What's the "Anembalembo Member"?- A member is a subunit of a formation; put in a link to clarify. Ucucha 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"Recent Madagascar fauna" – "Recent" or "recent"?- As Awickert explained at the C. spelea FAC, "Recent" in geology has a particular meaning where it is capitalized, and that meaning applies here. Ucucha 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If possible, please briefly describe "zhelestids"... it's red-linked with no description, giving the reader nothing to go off of.- Poor things, they deserve an article. I put in a short explanation. Ucucha 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to hold up this GAC over FAC issues, but if you plan to go forward with this article, the language, especially in the lead and opening sections, is a bit dense and poorly described. I hate pointing this out because I know complicates the article.
- I'm not sure whether I'll bring this to FAC, but regardless of that I'd like the prose to be as good as possible, so please do bring up any issues you see, even when they go beyond the GA criteria. Ucucha 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not as good as you at critiquing prose. On the first read, it went fairly smoothly, with only that one correction I made. As for clarifications for the readers...
- 1)
In the lead, terms "tribosphenic molars" and "multituberculate" are linked by not described. Personally, I don't care as long as you provide a link... but at FACs, I've had people demand brief explanations.- Expanded a little. I think it would really go too far to say exactly what tribosphenic entails—a talonid basin isn't exactly a familiar thing to most people—but I have put in a little more.
- I'm not sure whether I'll bring this to FAC, but regardless of that I'd like the prose to be as good as possible, so please do bring up any issues you see, even when they go beyond the GA criteria. Ucucha 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- 2)
In the Jurassic section, "tribosphenic pattern" is mentioned again. I'd recommend a very brief explanation here or in the lead (per the previous point).- I think what is there, with what I added in the lead, should be enough; this is a summary article that deals mainly with the big patterns and the exact morphological basis of tribosphenicity can be left to the article on Ambondro.
- 2)
- 3)
You mention clades without even a link to Cladistics. I don't think you can assume, even in an article like this, that readers will know what a clade is.- Clade is linked, though; shouldn't that suffice? Ucucha 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I missed the link. I'm sorry. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Clade is linked, though; shouldn't that suffice? Ucucha 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- 3)
- 4)
"Cat-sized mammal" – Are we talking a house cat or a tiger? I know what you mean, but I'm not sure if anyone else would call you on it.- House cat, I assume, but the source doesn't say more than this.
- 4)
- 5)
"procumbent" – Yes, I obviously know what it means, but to an average reader, they may not understand.- Replaced.
- 5)
- Anyway, I may have been a little easy on you compared to some of the FAC reviewers, but I also understand the complications created by adding extra descriptions and/or writing at the high-school level for graduate-level material. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need to be easy on me; as I said, I'd like the article to be as good as possible and any comment can help. Ucucha 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going easy on you as a favor. If I am going easy on you, it is strictly because my views seem to conflict with those of other editors who feel every article should be written at a high-school level or lower. I sincerely feel that certain material is simply beyond that level, and writing about it at a lower level is either futile or confounding. For example, if a high-school student who is just learning the ins-and-outs of algebra wanted to know what Calculus was, I wouldn't want the Wiki article written at their level. That's what wikilinks are for. An article on the topic of calculus should be written at the level of a student studying at a college-level, or "Calculus I" level. Similarly, Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar should cater to reading level of the people who would be coming into the field (paleontology). No high-school that I know of teaches paleontology, and most readers wouldn't know a tibia from a metatarsal. So, in short, I think the article is fine. If some illustrations could be added, that would be ideal. Otherwise, as long as the literature has been adequately covered, I think the article merits a run as FAC. If you are okay with this opinion, then I will pass this GAC and leave its progress in your hands. However, if you want me to knit pick from a high-school reading level, I can give it a try. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you there, so there's no need to go for a high school reading level. Thanks for the explanation. Ucucha 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going easy on you as a favor. If I am going easy on you, it is strictly because my views seem to conflict with those of other editors who feel every article should be written at a high-school level or lower. I sincerely feel that certain material is simply beyond that level, and writing about it at a lower level is either futile or confounding. For example, if a high-school student who is just learning the ins-and-outs of algebra wanted to know what Calculus was, I wouldn't want the Wiki article written at their level. That's what wikilinks are for. An article on the topic of calculus should be written at the level of a student studying at a college-level, or "Calculus I" level. Similarly, Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar should cater to reading level of the people who would be coming into the field (paleontology). No high-school that I know of teaches paleontology, and most readers wouldn't know a tibia from a metatarsal. So, in short, I think the article is fine. If some illustrations could be added, that would be ideal. Otherwise, as long as the literature has been adequately covered, I think the article merits a run as FAC. If you are okay with this opinion, then I will pass this GAC and leave its progress in your hands. However, if you want me to knit pick from a high-school reading level, I can give it a try. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need to be easy on me; as I said, I'd like the article to be as good as possible and any comment can help. Ucucha 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway, I may have been a little easy on you compared to some of the FAC reviewers, but I also understand the complications created by adding extra descriptions and/or writing at the high-school level for graduate-level material. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, great work as always! – VisionHolder « talk » 13:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking up the review. Ucucha 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm pleased to pass this article. One last suggestion would be to look into creating a map of fossil sites for this article. Are there a lot of them? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! There are basically only two: the one where they got Ambondro (near Ambondromahabo) and the Maastrichtian one (several sites closely together near Berivotra). It can't hurt to have a map, but it's not as useful as for Recent mammals. Ucucha 05:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)