Talk:Protypotherium/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 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.

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811:, specifically regarding the lead section, should the citations and links be moved to the body of the article? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEADCITE suggests that citations are not required in the lead, and my general preference is to leave out citations in the lead except for the most controversial claims. Since there are none here, it would be fine to de-reference the lead, provided that there are reliable sources for all of its information somewhere in the body. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811:

Done 6b. Also, for 2d, the information that I've included cited by the paywalled sources have not been copied from or reproduced in any way. Will do more when I get back home, and for now, I’ll tackle the easy stuff. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No rush required! I tend to be a slow reviewer in any case. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: Have you reviewed the other criteria yet? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811 Also, I have

Done your suggestion. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't, you'll see when I have! Usually takes me about a week depending on my familiarity with the subject, as it's hard for me to know whether an article is comprehensive enough / too detailed until I dig into it a bit. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to change some of the references into notes in accordance to the 2a criterion? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no need to do that. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For 3a, all of the information is in the taxonomy section and I’m afraid it’ll result in repetition, that is, if I just copied it. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 15:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little redundancy is better than a lead which doesn't adequately represent the article. See what you can do to change the phrasing, but if that's not possible or results in something too awkward, direct repetition is fine in small chunks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnatyrannus, will you have time in the next couple days to fully address the comments below, or would it be helpful if I put the review on hold for a week to give you time to make changes? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnatyrannus, I see you have made a few changes and improvements, but we're still a good ways off. How long do you think it will take you to fully address the comments below? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnatyrannus, as you haven't yet given me a timeline of when you'd be able to address these comments, and haven't edited the article for more than a week despite editing elsewhere, I am putting the review on hold for 2 days (until the 3rd). At that time if we're not making progress / have a timeline, I'll have to close the review without passing it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing due to nominator inaction. Unsuccessful. Magnatyrannus, you are free to renominate the article, but unfortunately I will no longer be able to review it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Technical jargon should be either wikilinked (if a page exists), defined in line, or defined parenthetically (a few words will do). Wikipedia is for a general reader, not a paleontological one. Examples of words/phrases I have in mind: euhypsodont, typotherian, temporal fossa, hypotympanic, ectoloph, prism diameter, outer enamel service, enamel dentine junction, protolophs, That's not a comprehensive list, there are a bunch more - if you aren't sure which might be too jargony let me know and I'll list the rest. If you find it's impossible to work definitions of some these words into the prose smoothly, that's an indication that the section might be too detailed and you could remove some of these details altogether. Where they are kept, these details need to be put in context. I can read a whole paragraph or two on Protypotherium's molars, but what does it mean? What does it imply about their diet/lifestyle/etc, according to our reliable sources? Readers should be educated, not bewildered. For example, "The Hunter-Schreger bands are thin (20–50 μm thick) and oblique" is fine from a readability standpoint but lacks context. What do thin bands mean? What does their obliqueness indicate? If you have questions about these comments, just let me know! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues (added formatting to External link Commons template).
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass, exclusively reliable academic sources in peer-reviewed journals. None of the journals appear to be problematic (pay to publish, etc etc).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, but manual spot-checking required as many sources are behind paywalls. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The lead is too short for the article's length and too focused on where fossils have been found. Incorporate some description of the animal (in mostly non-technical language) and mention when it was first described, roughly how many species in the genus, paleobiology, etc. It's at 78 words - you can take it up to around 175-200, I'd say, before it gets to be too long.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There are a few other minor issues that we can deal with later, but the main issue is that the 'Paleoenvironment' section is much too detailed. Remember that a Wikipedia page is a summary and does not need to be a complete listing of all species found nearby. For a non-paleontologist, it just blurs into a mass of unmemorable names. Pick out a few examples and have more text describing if there is anything notable or unusual about Protypotherium's paleoenvironment. The second-to-last paragraph (The Collón Curá...drying effect on continents) is good - the rest should be similar to that. I don't mind a few taxa being mentioned, but extensive inline lists of taxa should be trimmed away. Similarly, a little more summarization would be of benefit to the first paragraph, describing locations where fossils have been found. That section could actually be made its own subsection, which might be a little clearer to the reader. Let me know if you have any questions about this.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues with general NPOV or political neutrality, any issues with archaeological neutrality that may appear can be dealt with elsewhere. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding issues on talk, no edit warring, no ongoing expansion. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	To me, File:Protypotherium australe - National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo - DSC07782.JPG looks like a better infobox image than the current choice, since it's head-on and slightly less blurry-looking. Alternately, File:Protypotherium australe.jpg (the reconstruction) can be swapped in, if it's still considered scientifically accurate. I'm sorry to say, since it's your own work, but I'm not sure File:Protypotherium praerutilum.png adds much to the article given that we have 3+ other examples of Protypotherium jaws/teeth etc. Can be removed. Issues addressed, pass.—Ganesha811 (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.

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.