Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diprotodon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 March 2023 [1].

Diprotodon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest marsupial ever, and the first Australian fossil mammal ever described, an elephantine wombat which lumbered across the continent until 40,000 years ago. This would be only the 3rd marsupial FA, after Tasmanian tiger and Tasmanian devil, and the 1st prehistoric marsupial Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tammar wallaby and Koala are also FAs. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Evolution_in_the_past_(Plate_55)_BHL21155651.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
1951 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding full name and dates to description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Diprotodon_optatum_(2).jpg: what sources support this illustration?
it was reviewed at WP:PALEOART Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, looks like it hasn't, I've added it now and I'll remove the image from the article in the meantime Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Diprotodon_molars.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Diprotodon_femur_interior.jpg, File:Diprotodon_femur_exterior.jpg
1892 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding dates to description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Extinct_monsters_and_creatures_of_other_days_(cropped).jpg: where is that licensing coming from?
It's the cropped version of File:Extinct monsters and creatures of other days (6288822378).jpg Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That version has conflicting information. To what does the CC license apply, versus the PD status? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it looks like it first came to Commons via Flickr (hence the CC) but the image itself comes from a publication which has entered PD Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fire-stick-_Lycett.webp: when and where was this first published?
Australia, 1820, in an album Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was the album legally published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would PD-1996 work better? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the creator [J. Mcfarlane] died before 1 January 1955" according to https://bearalley.blogspot.com/2018/04/j-macfarlane.html he died in 1936; added pd-US-expired Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • and was able to colonise most of Australia – "did colonise"
colonised Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably one facing backwards like a wombat. – "like in wombats"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, there is no solid direct evidence of – "conversely" seems the wrong word here; do you mean "however"?
On the other hand Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1830, bushman George Ranken – What does "bushman" mean here? Wiktionary tells me "A person who lives in the bush, especially a member of a community orfo ethnic group who lives in the bush". That would suggest to me that he was an Aboriginal Australian; is that the case?
The source uses the word "bushmen" prefacing George Ranken, but in a footnote it clarifies he got to Australia in 1821, so maybe "colonist"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better I think, yes. "Bushmen" is simply misleading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were excavated – what is "they" referring to? The "fossil assemblage" is singular, so "It"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • there were no serious scientists in Australia – I fear that "serious" is judgemental and inappropriate. There was a "formal expedition" that excavated the remains, so on what basis can we claim these were not "serious" scientists? This is thin ice in my opinion.
The source says "...the lack of scientific expertise in the Australian community at the time..." and then introduces Owen. Maybe, "At the time these massive fossils were discovered, in the early years of colonial expansion, few minds were turned towards purely scientific careers"? Though this may be stretching the source Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would stick to the source as close as possible; maybe just "Australia lacked scientific expertise" or something similar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid too many of the same words like "lack" due to close paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mitchell published the correspondence in his journal.[3] – that would be volume 1, right? But you are citing volume 2.
The letter is in volume 2, volume 1 only has a footnote Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • attracted quite an audience – maybe too colloquial? "attracted a large audience"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the largest from Lake Callabonna – the largest fossil, or do you mean individual?
largest assemblage Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ; in their 1975 review of Australian fossil mammals – I suggest to start a new sentence here; the sentence is too long.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, adult Diprotodon specimens come in two distinct size ranges; … – this part seems to be a bit out-of-place. You discuss species, then size ranges, and then species again. Do species first, and then have a paragraph on the size ranges?
the size variation was one of the "subtle anatomical variations", they're all part of the same thought Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cladograms: On my screen the cladograms are one above the other, not left or right as indicated in the text.
yeah Wikipedia just made desktop view like mobile view, fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • better adapted to the spreading dry and open landscapes – steep claim I would say: Can we argue that a species was poorly adapted to its environment? Where is that covered in the source?
it says diprotodontids are the most diverse group of vombatomorphs ever, and "While many vombatomorphian families... were extinct by early Miocene times, diprotodontids were one of the few to increase in diversity throughout the Cenozoic, appearing to benefit from the opening up of Australia's forests" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • than other vombatiformes; and attained a – I think the ; needs to be removed or replaced with a comma
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the Late Miocene, diprotodontians became the most common marsupial order in fossil sites, a dominance which endures to the present day; at this point, the most prolific diprotodontians were diprotodontids and kangaroos. – I can't follow. How can a dominance in fossil sites endures to the present day (fossils do not form from one day to the next)? Is "at this point" referring to the "present day"?
diprotodontians are still the most abundant marsupial order Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1977, Archer suggested that Diprotodon directly evolved from the smaller Euryzygoma, – Most of the "Evolution" section is not directly about Diprotodon but provides context. This sentence, however, might be the most important information that directly concerns Diprotodon of the whole section; yet I fear it gets a bit lost, being attached to a longer paragraph like this.
  • The Phylogeny section seems to miss an important information: What are the closest relatives of Diprotodon? Do scientists agree on the sister taxon or do different hypotheses exist? Were these closely related forms very similar in morphology and size to Diprotodon?
The only diprotodontid I see anyone trying in some way to relate to Diprotodon is Euryzygoma mentioned in Evolution, but you can see in the Beck 2020 cladogram that they decided not to group them as sister taxa with no explanation, so I'm not sure what to do here. It's probably because the diprotodontid fossil record is pretty fragmentary Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description is easy to follow and accessible. However, it only compares Diprotodon with modern marsupials, but does not stay how to distinguish it from its closest relatives. What were the diagnostic features? If you think this is too technical, consider adding just a sentence to the "Phylogeny" section giving some examples to provide an idea how paleontologist diagnose this taxon.
Owen didn't specifically give a list of diagnostic features as he was describing the entire skeleton, he just started going off with comparisons (which I guess is kinda the same thing). Price seems to give a lengthy description of the topography of each tooth, which I guess would also be diagnostics, but I think far too specific Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • than Murray's guesstimate – again, I think "guesstimate" is judgmental and has to be avoided. Just say "estimate". Instead of writing "more analytical approach", I would go for "more sophisticated approach".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's not important enough actually to explain it, so I just removed it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adult Diprotodon skeletons can measure 160–180 cm (5 ft 3 in – 5 ft 11 in) at the shoulders, and 275–340 cm (9–11 ft) from head to tail. – this is slightly mis-representing the source, which is clearly about size in life, not the size of mounted skeletons.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, the low seasonal δ13C values (its carbon isotope ratio remained about the same in both winter and summer, so it ate the same proportion of C3 and C4 plants regardless of their seasonal abundance) indicate that Diprotodon was a selective eater, at least more so than the modern wombat. – I think this needs clarification and has several issues. First, where is "its" referring to, to the delta-13-C? If so, how can it be both "low seasonal" and "about the same in both winter and summer"? And why does this indicate it was a selective feeder? Lastly, the addition in the brackets is better placed in a separate sentence; this sentence is too long and confusing as is.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • These fossilised herds – this does not seem to be covered by the sources? Diprotodon graveyards could have accumulated over time (therefore comprising members of multiple herds). A single herd (as implied in "fossilised herds") can only be demonstrated when there is exceptional evidence; does such evidence exist?
In a few places, the source says things like "As the [Bacchus Marsh] assemblage is thought to represent individuals trapped in muds of a drying marsh, it is possible that a single herd was sampled" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but then we need to add the word "possible" ("possible fossilized herds"), it is very important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and paw dimensions – paw dimensions or track dimensions? These can be quite different.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The marsupial metabolic rate is about 30% slower – a rate is low or high, not fast or slow, I think – so it should be "lower".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • or as fast a generation time – and here, I think a time has to be "short", not "fast".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the relation between female – I would say "based on the relation …" to avoid confusion; otherwise people might rightly ask "who is using it?"
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • most especially following – drop the "most"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • across most any habitat Australia – almost?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as the thylacine, modern kangaroos – needs to be "which included the" instead of "such as the", right?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • smaller sized Diprotodon – "smaller-sized"
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of Roberts et al. – should be "When Roberts et al. published their analysis" or something like that.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • though at the time it was not impossible – should be "it was not considered impossible", right?
"ruled out" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been a lot busier than I was anticipating. I'll try to get to these this weekend Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
FunkMonk ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll to to give it a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time these massive fossils were discovered, it was generally guessed that the fossil assemblage represents rhinos" Jarring and unecessary change in tense, say "represented".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were not formally described until Mitchell, while in England publishing his journal, brought them to his former colleague, English naturalist Richard Owen, in 1837." Very choppy sentence structure.
better? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the acceptance of its apparent replacement "australis" has historically varied widely." Youn should make clear that this is the universally accepted name today.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be good to show some of the first known fossils in the history section.
Yeah, now that desktop view displays like mobile now, there's a lot more space for images Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "still classified the molars from Wellington as "M. australis"." The last binomial you mentioned included Deinotherium, so spell out if this binomial uses Mastodon.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also continued to describe Diprotodon as likely elephantine.[6] In 1847, a nearly complete skull and skeleton was recovered from the Darling Downs, which confirmed this characterisation.[8]" This reads as if he thought the complete skull confirmed the elephant classification, which seems improbable.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Australian Aboriginal at first mention.
is it not? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First mention in the article body is "Fossils were first noticed here by an aboriginal stockman", which is unlinked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossils were first noticed here by an aboriginal stockman working on a sheep property just east." When?
doesn't say, presumably 1893 or 92 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diprotodon means "two protruding front teeth"" But what does the specific name optatum mean?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to D. optatum and "D. australis", several other species were erected " But as you explain it, these two were not intended as different species, but names for the same, so it's somewhat misleading. Just mention the valid name.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain joey, this is hardly a well-known term outside Australia.
really? It's like one of the common baby names, like kid for goat or lamb for sheep Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arguable, but I've only heard Australians saying it in documentaries. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synonyms are usually not written in quotation marks. That's reserved for invalidly published names.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An image like this of a fossil in situ[2] would be interesting in the history section.
  • The title "In culture" is very vague and inclusive, and would attract all sorts of trivia. Something like "Cultural significance" would be better for weeding out unimportant info.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This restoration[3] was just uploaded some days ago, maybe it's better than what we had before.
I'll add it to the paleoart review Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's made by a palaeontologist[4], so should be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could avoid the giant white space created by the two cladograms by placing them side by side like in for example Elasmosaurus.
  • "probably a response to the lower quality plant foods available in a drying climate, requiring them to consume much more." But couldn't this also have the opposite effect?
  • "and are thus far more likely to fossilise and be discovered than those other megafauna" Perhaps pipelink preservation bias.
  • "Diprotodon skull reconstructions showing the cranial bones (left) and the frontal sinuses (right)" Could be specified that the right image is based on CT scans.
  • "The occipital bone, the back of the skull" Could be a vaguer "at the back of the skull", as there are other bones in the general area.
  • Perhaps place the size section first in the description section, as this is usually dealt with first.
  • With the contrast and lighting fixed, this museum mount[5] would arguably be better in the Vertebrae section than the old 1910 image. I can try to fix it up.
I've now improved the contrast. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this photo[6] of a skull that was unlabelled on Commons, it has an interesting history, having been found due to floods in 2011[7], so could perhaps go under "Fossil evidence". Also shows a part of the skull otherwise not illustrated.
  • "relevant to closing the jaw" Sounds rather vague, as it had all sorts of other functions. Why not "used for closing the jaw"?
  • "thickening as it approaches the body of the mandible (where the teeth are)" Never heard this terminology, seems to be humanocentric? Just say dentary bone?
  • "are coated in cementum like kangaroos." Like in kangaroos. Otherwise it sounds like kangaroos are coated in cementum...

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....in weight. Females were much smaller than males. It supported...—perhaps ....in weight; females were much smaller than males. It supported... to keep subject of "it" clear.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owen compared the tooth to that of a wombat or a hippo—and a hippo?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diprotodontoidea family tree according to Australian palaeontologists Karen H. Black and Brian Mackness, 1999 (left),[27] and Vombatiformes family tree according to Beck et al. 2020 (right):[22]Diprotodontoidea family tree according to Australian palaeontologists Karen H. Black and Brian Mackness, 1999 (left),[27] and Vombatiformes family tree according to Beck et al. 2020 (right):[22] —This verbless sentence appears to be acting as a heading, so either needs formatting as such or made into a sentence eg The Diprotodontoidea family tree according to Australian palaeontologists Karen H. Black and Brian Mackness, 1999 (left),[27] and the Vombatiformes family tree according to Beck et al. 2020 (right):[22] are shown below.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In large kangaroos, females usually reach sexual maturity and enter oestrus soon after weaning, and males need double the time. — needs tweaking, males don't reach oestrus
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

I realise that the nomination is attracting some attention, but it has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it makes significant progress towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has now been open for well over five weeks and seems no closer to a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next couple of days it will be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker to stay the hand of Gog the enforcer - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is written in AusEng? If so, take my spelling and hyphen comments as being from a position of complete ignorance! Having said that, three of the following four are likely to be wrong, with one possible:

  • In Size: "ahve": have and "cartilagenous": cartilaginous?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Extinction: "rockshelter": is that really one word?
either variation is acceptable Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Mythology: "burdgeoning": burgeoning?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • I'm not sure what is meant by "browse": is there an alternative word that can be used for the non-technical reader?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the other hand": is there a way of avoiding this slightly cumbersome wording?
"However"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, likely tomorrow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Research history
  • "colonist George Ranken": "colonist" is an odd description that doesn’t aid understanding (his nationality doesn't affect what he did). Is there a better descriptor? Farmer?
The source only describes him as a bushman or a colonist, and someone above commented that bushman is vague Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This describes him as a farmer. It also gives information about what he did with the fossils he found, which could be included. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added he was a farmer but the part of handing them off to the University of Edinburgh while in England is already in the text (he more specifically gave them to Owen who was alma mater there) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generally guessed that the": "generally thought that the"
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were not formally described until Mitchell, while in England publishing his journal, brought them in 1837 to his former colleague, English naturalist Richard Owen.": a bit garbled and a bit too much unnecessarily detail. Maybe "They were not formally described until Mitchell brought them to his former colleague, English naturalist Richard Owen."
This has been changed, but is more unclear than it was before. SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's more confusing with the clause "while in England publishing his journal" appendaged onto the end? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1838, while studying a piece of a right mandible with an incisor, Owen compared the tooth to that of a wombat and a hippo, and designated it as a new genus in a letter to Mitchell, as Diprotodon": again, a little cumbersome with the letter factoid in the middle. There are two options here:
  • "In 1838, while studying a piece of a right mandible with an incisor, Owen compared the tooth to that of a wombat and a hippo; he wrote to Mitchell and designated it as a new genus: Diprotodon"; or
  • "In 1838, while studying a piece of a right mandible with an incisor, Owen compared the tooth to that of a wombat and a hippo, and designated it as the new genus Diprotodon". You can change the next line to say that when Mitchell was told, he included it in the journal
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the one time": once?
I prefer "the one time" so it's clear it's talking about the aforementioned usage, otherwise it sounds like an introduction Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "Darling Downs" and "the Darling Downs": is the definite article needed?
Where is the definite article not used? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rather complete": rather complete? Are they complete or nearly complete?
What's wrong with the word "rather"? I've used it as a descriptor many times without problems, like Ambulocetus, Solo Man, Homo antecessor, etc. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in dry lake- or riverbeds" Looks (and reads) a little oddly. "in the beds of dried up lakes or rivers" may be better
"lake- or riverbed" is a perfectly valid phrase Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a sheep property just east": again, a little odd. "a sheep property to the east"?
that works too Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diprotodon individuals over a few acres, and more were uncovered": this sentence covers 80 years and is a bit surprising (we were looking at Hurst's activities at the beginning!). Maybe a full stop after acres and continue from "More were uncovered..."
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Multiple herds of these animals at different times probably got stuck in the mud during their crossing while the water was low during dry seasons". Again this is a bit bumpy to read through and if we're reporting something in WP's voice, "probably" shouldn't be included. Hypotheticals should always be attributed. Possible rewording could look something like "Bloggs considers it likely that several herds of Diprotodon crossed the (river or lake) while the water was low during dry season and became stuck in the mud"
You can't use definitive wording in these kinds of matters, because it's not like we have witnesses to the event. And, if I do "Bloggs says xyz" then it sounds like Bloggs came up with the idea and he's the only one really saying it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problem (still). Naming someone who has said something doesn’t mean they were the first. _ SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found the first guy who said it, so attributed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several other species were erected": erected? Identified, maybe? If this is technical use it fails WP:JARGON, if it isn't, then it's not in the OED!
It's not jargon and it's never been an issue before, and I wouldn't use the word identify because it sounds like a real and valid discovery, which clearly it wasn't because the names are no longer used Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not in the dictionary as a meaning that is clear here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
erect as in the sense to set up or establish Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also, adult Diprotodon specimens": never start a sentence with "Also" on WP – it just looks like something that's been forgotten and added in later. The sentence and the one that follows seem to be unconnected to the opening sentence of the paragraph and the final one. (ie, you mention the other species, then talk about the differing/non-differing sizes, then move onto the other species again. It's a bit of a confusing paragraph – at least for a non-specialist like me.
added "Among the variations was size difference" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australian palaeontologists": aside from repeating Australia from three words previously, their nationality is unimportant as far as this article goes. Just "Palaeontologists" will suffice
Including nationality when introducing a person is pretty standard (or at least commonplace) on the paleo side of Wiki, such as in Oxalaia, Cimoliopterus, Paranthodon, etc. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality isn’t important: the names and findings are. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I like reading the nationality to see how multinational (or not) research on the subject is, and it's a harmless, unobtrusive addition Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I, as a reader, don’t feel it’s unobtrusive. The constant repetition of nationality makes me wonder if there is a reason: are American palaeontologists better or worse at some aspects than French or Australian ones? Do British or German ones have an advantage or disadvantage? There are about fourteen references before the family tree: for the general reader this looks like the nationality actually matters somehow ... but it really doesn’t. It’s a distraction that doesn’t add anything for the general (or specialist) reader. - SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like scientists from these places seem to be taking more of an interest in this topic, you're reading way too far into this if you think the average reader is interpreting the small mention of nationality as racist or whatever it is you're implying Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I’m not implying anything of the sort. I have given the reasons quite clearly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullet list: "erected", as before; nationalities, as before
  • "Australian palaeontologist Gilbert": nationality as before

Done to the end of Research history. I have concerns on the text with this article and we're only at the end of the first section. It's a bit bumpy to read through – not just the scientific information, which often causes problems in flowing prose, but in the history and description, where I keep tripping over awkward constructions and odd phrasing or word choice. – SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through one of the lower sections and see other problems in the prose which I think should be cleared up before coming to FAC. I'm reluctantly going to oppose this (something I dislike doing), but my recommendation is that you withdraw this nom and go through PR to get the prose issues sorted before returning. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your comments are purely stylistic so I ask you to reconsider Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are not stylistic, and neither are many of my other concerns. Saying that something passed elsewhere isn’t a defence. Neither is claiming these are ‘just’ stylistic. Just glancing down the page the following caught my eye “They [the sinuses] may have also helped dissipate stresses produced by biting more efficiently across the skull”: reading literally, this is saying by the efficient way the sinuses bit across the skull, they dissipated stress. There are several such points where a reader will both trip up on and be confused by the prose. You don’t have to take my comments or my oppose on board (these are just my opinion, after all), but I’m not inclined to withdraw the oppose. - SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying, my oppose isn’t on stylistic grounds, but on FAC criteria 1.a: “well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard”. - SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help sending it to the WP:league of copy editors? FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might, but this has been open a long time and, as Gog noted earlier, is still not approaching consensus to promote. I'm afraid it's time to archive this and work on improvements outside the FAC process. A visit to PR before another try here also seems worthwhile. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Diprotodon/archive1&oldid=1143307041"