Talk:Dermotherium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review. Ucucha 14:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, a question of scope; do you intend to write articles on the two species, or have you included all the details about them here? I note that you have redirected the species articles here, so I assume that answers the question, but I just thought it would be worth clarifying. Either option strikes me as legitimate.

The paleontology project generally recommends redirecting species to the genus. I'm not sure whether that's the best option for large, widespread genera where the species are often individually discussed, like the hedgehog Galerix or the hamster Kowalskia, but in this case there's very little to be said about the species individually. I did the same in the FAs Seorsumuscardinus and Plesiorycteropus, and Visionholder's FA Mesopropithecus also treats all three species in the genus article. Ucucha 23:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "A single isolated molar from the Early Oligocene of Pakistan has been tentatively assigned to D. chimaera." "In addition"?
  • Yes.
• "paleoenvironments" Not a very accessible term
  • Replaced.
• "obligate" Again
  • Removed.
• "Their fossil record is exceptionally poor, and no undoubted colugo fossils were known until 1992, although Paleogene groups such as the Plagiomenidae are considered by some to be closely related to colugos." Odd phrase
• "S. Ducrocq" Do we know a full name? Is it worth mentioning who he or she is?
  • Stéphane.
• "Dermotherium was" Seeing as we're referring to at least two species here, I'm not sure the singular is appropriate
  • Changed.
• "tines" What are these? You mentioned them in the same line as cusps, but I assumed you meant tines or cusps, not tines, also called cusps
  • i3, c1, and p3 are all pectinate, meaning they consist of longitudinal rows of high structures. (i1 and i2 probably were too, but we don't know them in Dermotherium.) However, the things in i3 are very narrow, high structures that don't really have a parallel in other mammals (as far as I know); they're usually called tines. The ones in c1 and p3 are more like cusps in other teeth, and therefore are called that. Ucucha 23:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I think this needs to be clarified in the article. J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
      • What exactly needs clarification? The article says i3 has tines and c1 and p3 have cusps; that's true, and seems an appropriate summary. Ucucha 11:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
        • What a tine is- it's not a word that's going to be known by the majority of readers. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I've added something. A comb seems a good analogy for colugo incisors; they leave the lemurs' "toothcomb" look rather silly. Ucucha 13:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• There are a number of terms (some redlinked) that you leave without explanation, but this leaves non-dentists like myself struggling to follow. Examples- "tribosphenic tooth", "buccal side",
  • I've blued "tribosphenic tooth"; "buccal" is explained on first occurrence
• "cristid obliqua" Italics?
  • No, it's an English term.
• cingulum is a dablink
  • Fixed.
• "The enamel is wrinkled on the flanks of the paracone and metacone and in the Thai but not the Pakistani specimens on the lingual side of the protocone." Commas would be helpful
  • Yes.
• "Dermotherium major was found in a lignite pit" The remains of?
  • Don't think that's necessary.
• "The fauna of the Krabi Basin contains at least 40 mammalian genera, mostly artiodactyls but also including some primates, such as Siamopithecus, Wailekia, and Muangthanhinius.[32] This fauna has been dated to about 33 to 35 million years ago, during the Late Eocene.[33]" It's not clear what this has to do with anything
  • It's what major comes from; I've clarified.
• "he Paali fauna also contains a diverse mammal fauna, including many rodents, some primates, and rhinos." Rephrase? Also, specify that you're talking about the age from which the fossil came? (If you are)
  • Reworded. I think it's clear that we're talking here about the fossil site D. cf. chimaera came from.
• et al should perhaps be italicised?
  • No; common English terms don't need italicization.
• I don't really know what the dashes in the initials mean in the references?
  • Double first names, for example Jean-Jacques Jaeger, which becomes "Jaeger, J.-J.". Ucucha 23:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• The sources, image, stability and tone are all appropriate.

I really struggled to follow the details of the dentures, but I don't think there is any easier way to put across this information, which is clearly of importance to the article. I wonder about the use of a sketch/diagram to help illustrate the concepts- thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Something like in Ambondro mahabo? I could give it a try; I actually drew some dermopteran teeth for fun, but will have to clean them up. Ucucha 23:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that "tine" is still referred to in the lead without explanation, but I'll leave that issue with you. If you're interested in FAC, I think the challenge would be to smooth it out so that it's more readable to non-specialists. A diagram would almost certainly help that, but I'll leave it with you. Right now, I'm happy to promote this article- it seems complete, is well sourced and is well written, despite coming across as a little over-technical. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)