Talk:Dacrytherium/GA1

GA Review

Passed. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:39, 2 September 2024 (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

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 17:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 16:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to give this a review. Looks good but I do have some comments. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to go about this, but when I first read the etymology in the lead I thought it meant "tear" as in rip, not "tear" as in cry. This is also true in the body, those who don't know "lacrimation" is crying may not understand how the lacrimal relates to tearing food.
- Specified by adding "teardrop". PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
middle and late Eocene are lowercase in lead but uppercase in taxonbox
- Uppercased "middle" and "late" in lede. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistencies between US and UK spellings (recognized vs recognised, paleontologist vs palaeontologist)
- Changed "recognized" to "recognised" for consistent British English spelling. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preorbital fossa in lead, lacrimal fossa in body
- Fixed wrong link and added a bit more on the lacrimal fossa. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Since then," rephrase to provide what the other species are and who named them, eg. "Alongside the type species D. ovinum, Fihol named D. elegans in 1884, and Hans Georg Stehlin named the species D. priscum and D. saturini in 1910."
- Rephrased. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"had a deep preorbital fossa" should be present tense, the bones still have one
- Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"different morphology", bit clunky I would state "although the depression in D. elegans is different from other species."
- Implemented.
"morphologies" feels a bit technical, "anatomy" is fine
- Replaced. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-mammal person, the sentence about "lineages" doesn't read to me in a way that makes sense, especially since the "former lineage has been doubted"
- Reworded a bit to make it clearer. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"likely folivorous, but its behaviours ..." seems like behaviours in this sentence should be replaced by "diet"
- Replaced with lifestyle to make it clear that the lacking postcranial fossil evidence is preventing understanding of its behaviors. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 44.9-34 mya age range in the taxonbox is uncited and not in the body
- The taxobox range is based on its faunal unit range from MP13 to MP19 of the Mammal Paleogene zones. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions but not requirements:
- The years in paleontology pages can be cited in the taxonbox
- I like to add the citations as well (see eg. Echinodon) for the references of naming
  - Added for the genus and type species. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Type species" box feels a bit out of place as the synonymy is replicated in the "Synonyms" dropdown, "Dacrytherium ovinum (Owen, 1857)" is probably enough.
  - Removed synonymous name in the type species box. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "he said" is needed at all, the citations and context show whose opinions are being provided
- Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"had a dental formula, in terms of the incisors, canines, and molars," replace ", in terms of" with "for"
- Replaced. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"similar in character" the "in character" can be dropped
- Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The specimen that he had" why not "The specimen, [institution] specimen [number]," we know it was Fihol that had it
- I don't think he mentioned the holding institution or the specimen number. It could be QU17146 at the MNHN, but I need explicit confirmation. Removed the mention of Filhol's name, though. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The same year, Paul Gervais referenced Dacrytherium, previously erected by Filhol," lots of breaks, why not "French palaeontologist Paul Gervais compared Dacrytherium in 1876 [to hipparionines and merycionodonts]"
- Reworded. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes of specific words from authors are a bit overused, Fihol and Gervais wrote in French, an anoplotheriid quadruped is not unique enough to not be paraphrased, and species names do not need quotations around them
- Removed quotations. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"referencing the lacrimal fossa" maybe add how that fossa is involved in crying or some other way to contextualize "tear" vs "tear"
- Elaborated more on the fossa's function. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1877, however," the however isn't needed
- Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"while displaying fossil evidence in his source" what does this mean?
- Reworded. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"which had a lower jaw and some leg bones that potentially belonged to it" the "which" is out of place
- Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Plesydacrytherium elegans" should be in quotes and not italic, as it is a nomen nudum
- Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This also means it should probably be removed from the synonyms list, since general WP:PALEO convention is to not list empty names
- Very well, removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ovinus vs ovina vs ovinum and cayluxi vs cayluxense spellings need some explanation (and also can be listed in synonyms)
- Added a note for context. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if separating early and later revisions is needed, they are only two paragraphs in the latter and the 1885 vs 1891 separation seems arbitrary
- Merged into one "taxonomic history" section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mixtotherium plus Plesidacrytherium with Diplobune" replace plus with and, but add a comma after Diplobune to distinguish from the synonymy of Adrotherium and Dacrytherium
- Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He said that he previously reclassified "Dichobune ovina" to Dacrytherium based on the dental series of a cranium" more like "He contextualized that his 1855 reassignment of Dichobune ovina to Dacrytherium was based on ..."?
- Implemented suggestion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Just a few months" this might be better with a "However,"
- Replaced. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Also in 1910", this is not an "also" statement, as it is Stehlin no longer synonymizing Mixtotherium
- Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and synonymized Plesidacrytherium" replace and with but
- Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"refers to a larger form of the genus" genus, or the species D. priscum?
- Larger species of the genus, specified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any specimen numbers or institutions or known material for any of the species?
- There is for a few species I believe (including the type specimen stored at the Natural History Museum, London), but I'm not sure if such information fits anywhere in the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the D. ovinum mandibles and calcaneus image elsewhere, and the D. elegans image down to that location, so that we don't have text sandwiched between images
- Moved mandible and calcaneus image down to the skull subsection. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions probably don't need the (=D sp) as the text itself provides that information
- Removed synonymous names in image captions. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IJReid Believe these first issues should be addressed for the most part; let me know of any remaining issue. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruminantia should be linked at first mention
- Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and was generally followed upon for decades by other palaeontologists like Jean Sudre. Since 2007" This suggests that it was centuries, not decades, of Dacrytheriidae. What authors and when supported it? What genera were included?
- Did a slight rewrite, referencing Sudre (1978) and Hooker (1986) in terms of support for different clade levels. I don't think that the subsection should be too extensive since it's mainly focused on the position of Dacrytherium itself. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"along with the Amphimerycidae and Xiphodontidae" add a comma following this
- Added comma. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The phylogenetic tree used for the journal and another published work about the cainotherioids is outlined below" This reads confusingly. Maybe just reduce it to "The results of Weppe and colleagues are seen below:" with the two citations? If they are truly the same tree
- Copied another sentence from the Dichodon article to replace the other sentence per previous GAN suggestions. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the results in Weppe's thesis can be included, especially if they show the relationships of the different Dacrytherium species
- I think that I'll ask other editors about whether they think that the inclusion of dissertation trees in wiki articles are viable before I include them. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"in the case of D. ovinum since 1876" cut
- Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"whose preorbital fossa has a different morphology" how?
- Clarified a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"of the dacrytheriine" just say "of Dacrytherium"
- Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"in terms of the front area" the snout?
- The 1941 source says "front" of the skull, but the snout seems close enough. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The zygomatic arch is thin and very prominent that it can stand out amongst the skull." so that it? Perhaps "very prominent, standing out amongst the skull"
- Implemented. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"has a shortened width" is not very broad?
- Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"curvy (or sinuous)" no brackets needed
- Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the sagittal crest discussed in two separate parts of the paragraph?
- Removed the second part discussing the sagittal crest to trim the paragraph. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The dacrytheriine" Dacrytherium
- Replaced. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The foremen of he " foramen, the
- Corrected. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"is well-developed in terms of the cerebral hemispheres" has well-developed cerebral hemispheres
- Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the neocerebellum is large but longer" large but longer suggests the other is large but shorter?
- Both are large according to the cited source, specified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the neuroanatomy and some of the cranial and dental anatomy goes over my head suggesting its too much for a layperson audience, diagrams would be nice if possible
- There are skull diagrams of D. ovinum in the 1941 source by Delmont, but I'm unaware of the author's date of death and therefore cannot upload the images. Someone can recreate the skull diagrams if they want to help on the paleontology Discord server, though. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Delmont someone we have heard of earlier? Might want a referesher.
- Mentioned his full name earlier, but I suppose it can't hurt to reference it again. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"with no clear modern evaluations of its postcranial evidence in terms of its limbs" this sounds like WP:OR, probably just best to cut it.
- Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Several of such fossil materials" this is a new paragraph, what fossil materials?
- Limb bones specified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"he pointed out" cut
- Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"has a large width" awkward phrasing
- Rephrased. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Dacrytheriine postcranial remains are typically rare." this doesn't have a citation or text mention until later
"The researcher used" who?
I think the life restoration would be better further up near the "Skull" section, perhaps move the Anoplotherium or D. ovinum mandibles and calcaneum down
- This is something I've previously discussed with FunkMonk in the GAN review of Dichodon, and I think that the life restorations fit the paleobiology sections better. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Jerry J. Hooker also speculated the possibility of other anoplotheriids sharing similar behaviours" this could be moved outside brackets by adding a "with" in front
- Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move the Amphirhagatherium image down to the paragraph that mentions it
- Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A mention of the MP ages would be nice, if only to give context to the dates in the taxonbox
- Specified for MP13 and MP19, the first appearance and last appearance of Dacrytherium. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The synonyms list should include the spelling variations, ovina, ovinus, cayluxense etc
- It's a bit tricky to include emended names since taxonomists don't seem to always bound themselves to a single species spelling, but included. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IJReid I about addressed the second round of issues. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for the note, you could cite the ICZN Code [1] (Article 34) and just provide the context that "The suffixes of species names should agree in linguistic gender with that of the genus, and where they disagree the ending of the species name must be changed"
- I would also have this note at the occurrence of each spelling variation instead of the end of the sentence, so you can get rid of the clunky (or D. cayluxense) etc
  - Done both. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be it, theres nothing else that would hold this article back, and a review of eg. reference formatting shows that they look good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some other notes for the future, there are images available for Dacrytherium in Owen (1857) and Fihol (1877, plate 10) and Stehlin (1910 some 20 figures), the plate on Deperet (1917) could be re-uploaded using the BHL page, which is higher-res and doesn't have colour-fixing artifacts IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IJReid Think this should be all then. Thanks for the review, and good day. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2024 (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.