Talk:Ortotherium

Ortotherium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 11, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ortotherium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! AFH (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The external phylogeny (sloth family, etc) is currently not quite helpfully diagrammed, as the tree is rooted in the Folivora but the text discusses Edentata which is not shown. I suggest we add Xenarthra (=Edentata), Cingulata, Pilosa, and Vermilingua to the base of the tree (details and sources are provided in [{Xenarthra]], giving something like this:

Xenarthra

Cingulata (armadillos and allies)

Pilosa

Vermilingua (anteaters)

Folivora

Megalocnidae (Caribbean sloths)

	Nothrotheriidae (ground sloths)

	Megatheriidae (giant ground sloths)

	Megalonychidae

	Bradypodidae (three-toed sloths)

Scelidotheriidae (two-toed sloths)

("Edentata")

Conversely, the tree gives unnecessary (distracting) detail of 4 species of Bradypodidae, not relevant to this article: just Bradypodidae would be sufficient and better.

"Large waterways in South America erupted" --- please reword.

A distribution map would be useful. It would be nice to show related groups as well as Ortotherium.

"Mandibles and teeth" would be (much) more readable with a simple diagram of a typical Xenarthran jaw, labelled with "Diastema", "Molariform", "Caniniform", "Alveoli", etc.

"Paleoenvironment" would benefit from some sort of illustration. If there isn't a Duria Antiquior image, perhaps we can find something that suggests the ancient biotic environment, even if it's just a gallery with one of each of the major sorts of beast mentioned, i.e. a crocodilian, a notoungulate, a litoptern, a glyptodont... (and you might use a photo of tidal mudflats on the Amazon, too, maybe something like thumb|Pneumatóforos e Marismas - Praia do Belo would do, there are surely others).

The images are properly licensed. Your drawing of the dentary does look as if it's smiling!

The refs I checked are fine.

There are 14 citations in the lead; there seems no good reason to have any of them up there, and many of them exist only up there contrary to policy, so I suggest we move all of them into the article body please.

A couple of refs [31], [38] SHOUT IN UPPERCASE and need to be reformatted.

The Ameghino refs should be linked to his article using |author-link=Florentino Ameghino.

Summary

This is a well-constructed article, and I've really only found the most minor things to mention, with a few optional suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be good. AFH (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Next time, if you could mark under each "Comment" when you've done it, that makes checking much easier. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added several images AFH (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.