Talk:Ferugliotheriidae

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I will be taking on this review. The article looks good at a glance, but I'll have specific comments shortly. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments: As I said, it looks good. Just a few minor details:

Taxonomy

• "...and suggested that the teeth that Vucetichia was described on..." Personally, "was described on" sounds awkward and made me re-read the sentence. Maybe "from" instead of "on"?
  • Changed "described" to "based". Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a rough cladogram for some of this? I guess I'm having a hard time following some of this since you're telling the story of how they thought everything was related, and inevitably it changes. Where you say "Bonaparte considered the gondwanatheres to be probably most closely related to the xenarthrans...", you may need to indicate that this was an early idea that has since changed. Otherwise, it seems to get stuck in my head, but then you talk about multituberculates, which from my understanding are possibly somewhere between Theria and Monotremata (and not closely related to xenarthrans), and I start to get confused. Sorry if I'm making this difficult.
  • I've started a timeline of classifications at User:Ucucha/Gondwanathere timeline. It's true that the frequent changes in classification are confusing. There have basically been three major hypotheses: that they are xenarthrans or something close to them (proposed for sudamericids when Sudamerica was discovered in 1984, argued against in 1990, disproven by 1993; no one believes this any more); that they are multituberculates or something close to them (proposed for Ferugliotherium when it was discovered in 1986; first proposed for all gondwanatheres in 1990; canonical by 1993; controversial in 1999; revitalized in 2009; now probably the leading contender); and that we have no idea what on Earth they are (canonical since 1999). Within those three strands, there are of course minor differences, such as exactly what multis they are related to, and there have been some alternative proposals that gained little traction.
  • I've added some clarification on multituberculates and xenarthrans. Multituberculates I think are either sister to therians or to monotremes plus therians (we're not sure which of the two it is). Xenarthrans, of course, are placentals, although the discovery of sudamericids led some to resurrect the "Paratheria" hypothesis which makes them a third major group in addition to marsupials and placentals. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• "...described a single enigmatic tooth..." – Can you explain briefly what was enigmatic about it, or would that complicate things too much?
  • I prefer to keep description out of "Taxonomy". It's described in a single sentence there, though; perhaps I should add more (the article on the tooth itself has more discussion) but I'm also hesitant to write too much about this very tenuous record of a ferugliotheriid. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Ultimately, this and the point above it are complicated because you almost need a general "evolution" article for all the groups involved. (Personally, I'm finding such specialty topic articles to be helpful for bringing information about multiple species together into a single article on a common thread.) I'm not saying that you have to do this. As more information is discovered and published, maybe someday such an article will be merited. For now, I'll let this pass and see what other reviewers think when you take this to FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Description

• "A diastema (gap) is present between the premolar and the incisor that would have been located in front of it." – The "it" at the end of the sentence is ambiguous. It carries over from the previous sentence (the fourth premolar), right?
  • It's between the incisor and premolar, so in front of the premolar. In re-reading the sentence, I don't think it's ambiguous, but I suppose we could substitute "the premolar" for "it". Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • A second read through and I think you're right. I'm just used to looking for the target of the pronouns within the same sentence, particularly when dealing with prepositions and (in)direct objects. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• This is just an opinion, but the red-linked "wear" should probably be spelled out in the text as "tooth wear" rather than just linked to it. It's a real shame that it's a red-link... I may need it soon when I write about sifakas.
  • "has undergone much more tooth wear" just sounds odd to me; in this context you'd always just say "wear". Yes, we need an article on the subject. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• "a broad loph" – What's a "loph"?
  • Bigger version of a ridge; substituted that word. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Range, ecology, and evolution

• "All three are approximately equally old..." – Maybe "All three are approximately the same age..."? It sounded a little funny, but not a big deal.
  • Done. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• "estuary, tidal flat, or coastal plain" should probably be linked.
  • Done. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe it's just me, but sudamericids seem to get a lot of mention in this article, which felt a little off because they're not in the family. I don't know... given their close/uncertain relations, maybe it's appropriate. I just thought I'd share my concern in case someone else brings it up. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Part of it is placing them in context, since sudamericids are (probably) feruglios' closest relatives and therefore comparisons between the two are significant. Moreover, the history of sudamericids and ferugliotheriids has been intertwined so much that it's hard to cover the one comprehensively without also discussing the other. However, perhaps there are specific places where I have gone overboard with sudamericid material. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Same as what I said above about an evolution article. Again, I'm not saying we need such an article right now, and nor will I hold this article back. Maybe other reviewers at FAC will have some informative thoughts on the matter. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, it looks really good. The article meets GAN requirements, as far as I can see, but since you may take this on to FAC, I'll hold off promoting until we've worked out the details above. Great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 22:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This certainly will go to FAC. Thanks for the review. Ucucha 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Great article. I'm happy to pass it as a GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Categories

I added the category "Cretaceous mammals". The category "Gondwanatheres" was already there, but my understanding is that not all Gondwanatheres are Cretaceous mammals.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nor, perhaps, are all ferugliotheriids. I'd prefer to keep "Cretaceous mammals"-type categories limited to the lowest taxonomic levels (the genus, in this case), but I don't know whether there's consensus for that. Ucucha 11:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I've raised the issue at Category talk:Cretaceous mammals.

Regarding nomenclature, I hope it's correct to say this: "Members of the Ferugliotheriidae family are called ferugliotheriid gondwanatheres or simply ferugliotheriids." Also, I'd recommend splitting the lead paragraph by merely putting in a paragraph break before describing the particular fossils. WP:Lead has special requirements for the lead paragraph. This is obviously an extremely informative and well-researched article, but the lead paragraph needs to address the general public rather than specialists.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not everything that is correct needs to be mentioned explicitly. They can be called ferugliotheriid gondwanatheres, but also ferugliotheriid animals, or ferugliotheriid mammals, or whatever. I know that we have guidelines for writing a good lead, but I fail to see how those guidelines would mandate splitting up that paragraph. As it is now, the first paragraph gives a general taxonomic overview of what ferugliotheriids are, the second describes their anatomy, and the third their ecology (as far as that is known). Ucucha (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article discusses a family called "Ferugliotheriidae" and a genus called "Ferugliotherium", so I don't see any harm in clarifying whether other similar terms used in the article refer to one of those, or instead refer to something else (especially if the other similar terms are used in the lead). And I see no reason to exclude from this article the person whom all of these things are named after: Egidio Feruglio. But the article is impressive even without making those fairly simple improvements. I won't be involved with this article anymore. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that says they were named after Egidio Feruglio, I'd be happy to see it; I haven't yet found any. The original description of Ferugliotherium was in an obscure publication that I haven't been able to locate. Ucucha (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See page 46.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not as good a source as I should like, but I've added it to Ferugliotherium. I don't think it's necessary for the family article to have this information. Ucucha (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

More FAC comments

I'm always late to the party (when I make it at all), but I had a few suggestions regarding FAC. It looks as if that has now closed.

1. I think the family authority needs to be included. I'd do it myself, but I find it so odd that it's not there that I wonder if it was left off intentionally. Even though the text indicates that the family was named at the same time as the genus, the taxobox is there for a quick reference.

   Oversight on my part; I've now added Bonaparte, 1986 as the family authority.

2. I see crown height in the intro, but perhaps the basic shape (i.e. rectangular) of the molariform teeth could be included there. That plus crown height (to me) sets the basic stage for diet, etc. in a way that the comparison to multituberculates doesn't. That comparison is great for the bladelike premolar, but I'm not sure too many people know what the rest of the cheek teeth in multis look like without looking it up.

   Added. Ucucha (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

3. I had to look around to see that not only was Vucetichia a synonomized into Ferugliotherium, but that the two species were merged. I had assumed from reading that paragraph that Ferugliotherium now contained two species. Perhaps that could be clarified.

   I've added the species names to the relevant sentence; does that clarify the matter? Ucucha (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

   That reads well now. --Aranae (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

4. It may be worth defining (or linking to something explaining) p4 for the nonspecialist.

   It's defined somewhere in the middle of the "Taxonomy" section. Possibly the definition should be repeated. Ucucha (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry. I missed it. It's already defined at the first usage as it should be. --Aranae (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

5. I think saying that "The enamel band is restricted to the lower side in the lower incisors and the upper side in the upper incisors" is a little confusing. There may not be a better way of saying it. You have to remember that these are procumbent and then envision what upper and lower means. Otherwise, one might imagine an enamel band (somehow) running near the gumline. Would saying that the enamel band is on the distal surfaces of the incisors be better or would that just lead to envisioning enamel-tipped incisors?

   It's mesial, not distal, I believe. The source does say ventral for the lowers and dorsal for the uppers, which I've "translated" as lower and upper, but I agree that that is not necessarily the clearest way of saying it. Perhaps "front side" is better for both the lowers and uppers; I'm not sure. Ucucha (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, I meant distal as in away from the body (like an appendage) not distal in the dental sense. Both uses of distal are wrong. I think mesial would mean that it is located between the two incisors and distal refers to the sides that border the diastema. Both dorsal/upper and ventral/lower are correct and should stay in my opinion, but they only work because of they are procumbent. Labial/lingual is really the distinction we are looking for here. The enamel is on the labial surface in both cases. What about "The enamel band is restricted to the lower (labial) side in the lower incisors and the upper (labial) side in the upper incisors"? --Aranae (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

   Ah, I see what you mean. Using "labial" has the problem that the term hasn't been defined yet where I discuss the incisors, so adding it would make for a cluttered sentence. I used a different wording that explains it's labial for both the uppers and lowers, but avoids too much jargon; see what you think. Ucucha (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

   Your solution is excellent. --Aranae (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

6. Finally, I think the last paragraph in the article is the paragraph that will be most interesting to the widest readership. But I wonder if those readers will get that far. Could a summary of that move to the introduction? Is there an earlier placement in general appropriate for this?

   I moved it up to the beginning of the section and added a few words to the lead. Ucucha (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall, I support FA status. It's a bit short for a FA article, but I suspect there is almost nothing known or conjectured about these animals that isn't already in the article. --Aranae (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you back, Aranae. I've responded to each of your comments above. Ucucha (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, do you perhaps have access to the original description of Ferugliotherium (Bonaparte, J. F. 1986a. Sobre Mesungulatum houssayi y nuevos mamiferos cretácicos de Patagonia, Argentina. Actas IV Congreso Argentino de Paleontologia y Bioestratigrafia (Mendoza) 2:48-61)? I haven't been able to find it yet. I'm particularly interested in the etymology of Feruglio's generic and specific names. Ucucha (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm currently in a bad place for interlibrary loan (begging and borrowing from friends for obscure stuff). I assume it is named after Egidio Feruglio and doesn't mean "wild glue beast". We, of course, need to verify that before it could go into the article. --Aranae (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a (far from ideal) reference for the genus name (see the section above), but none for the specific name. I suppose it's probably after es:Anselmo Windhausen. Ucucha (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Great work guys! Nice to have an unapologetically scholarly article up once in a while and make it feel like an encyclopedia (not least to offset those recurring Final Fantasy -gasms). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferugliotheriidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414214950/http://www.mnhn.fr/publication/geodiv/g00n3a4.pdf to http://www.mnhn.fr/publication/geodiv/g00n3a4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferugliotheriidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717194315/http://vertebratepaleo.com/downloads/GondwanatheriaThesis.pdf to http://vertebratepaleo.com/downloads/GondwanatheriaThesis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)