Talk:Seorsumuscardinus/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, here we go. I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The MN 4 records are placed in the species S. alpinus and the Affalterbach population is classified as the species S. bolligeri.- looks funny with plural/singular. Be good to align one way or other.- Well, there are multiple MN 4 records and only one from MN 5, so I think using plural for the one and singular for the other is logical. But there may well be a better way to phrase it.
- Maybe something like "in a single site in Affalterbach"?
- I tried a rewording. Ucucha 21:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I tried a rewording. Ucucha 21:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe something like "in a single site in Affalterbach"?
- Well, there are multiple MN 4 records and only one from MN 5, so I think using plural for the one and singular for the other is logical. But there may well be a better way to phrase it.
I know redlinks are generally good, but there are quite a lot. Be nice to blue a few up. Not a deal-breaker but...- I just wrote an article on MN 4, and will do the same for MN 5. We should probably have an article on glirid dental nomenclature, but of course we don't.
- Looking better already.
- I just wrote an article on MN 4, and will do the same for MN 5. We should probably have an article on glirid dental nomenclature, but of course we don't.
If 'Pentaglis földváry' is likely a nomen dubium, maybe any it should ultimately be a redirect to here (?) - in which case, some notes on how it got lost would be good to add. Leaves me hanging..how did it get lost....
- Well, if it is a nomen dubium, we don't know what it is, so it seems inappropriate to redirect it here. The thing should eventually get its own article. It's not too unusual for fossils to disappear somewhere along the way, and dormouse teeth of a few millimeters are probably among the more likely candidates, especially when someone like Kretzoi is near.
- Okay, I'll pay that.
- Well, if it is a nomen dubium, we don't know what it is, so it seems inappropriate to redirect it here. The thing should eventually get its own article. It's not too unusual for fossils to disappear somewhere along the way, and dormouse teeth of a few millimeters are probably among the more likely candidates, especially when someone like Kretzoi is near.
Article leaves me hanging a bit - I feel it need a little more context in relation to other genera, and to (dor)mouse evolution in general - is this particularly ancient? Do we have alot of mouse remains? A little? From reading this are these little guys about the same size as a dormouse? larger? smaller? If we don't have sources so be it - I do recognise we ain't going to get too much if teeth is all we have.
- This isn't really ancient; dormice first appear in the early Eocene, about 30 million years before Seorsumuscardinus. They were very common early on in Europe, but get rarer in the Miocene, when they are replaced by muroids. But I'm not sure how relevant that is to this article, which is only about one fossil genus and not about the history of dormice in general. I think the teeth are in the same general size class as the hazel dormouse, but as you imply there are no sources that actually make the comparison. Ucucha 11:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, with species we often discuss genera and sometimes touch on discussing family of a critter in taxonomy. With genera, I think some general idea of where it lies in mouse taxonomy - I know nothing about mouse taxonomy so even a sentence or two of context, like "Fossil dormice date from the eocene and that many fossil genera have been discovered (looking at the Gliridae article) -
has someone been able to make a cladogram of the genera or are the remains to limited? Do the teeth suggest it is a typical member or an aberrant/very early offshoot?sorry, just realised you had some material on that- Yeah, there's loads of them. I added a little on this. Ucucha 21:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's good - even that little bit just gives the reader a bit of context which is very helpful I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's loads of them. I added a little on this. Ucucha 21:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, with species we often discuss genera and sometimes touch on discussing family of a critter in taxonomy. With genera, I think some general idea of where it lies in mouse taxonomy - I know nothing about mouse taxonomy so even a sentence or two of context, like "Fossil dormice date from the eocene and that many fossil genera have been discovered (looking at the Gliridae article) -
- This isn't really ancient; dormice first appear in the early Eocene, about 30 million years before Seorsumuscardinus. They were very common early on in Europe, but get rarer in the Miocene, when they are replaced by muroids. But I'm not sure how relevant that is to this article, which is only about one fossil genus and not about the history of dormice in general. I think the teeth are in the same general size class as the hazel dormouse, but as you imply there are no sources that actually make the comparison. Ucucha 11:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay - I think that's it. GA pass. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! Ucucha 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)