Wikipedia

Talk:Mixtotherium

Latest comment: 1 month ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic Did you know nomination
Learn more about this page

Did you know nomination edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments5 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

(
)

Created by PrimalMustelid (talk). Self-nominated at 00:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mixtotherium; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply

  •   I just noticed I will not be able to review this, as the QPQ was of Acherontemys which i wrote/nommed--Kevmin § 18:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It isn't actually uncommon for scientific names to mix Greek and Latin meanings in scientific names. How about:
ALT1 ... that the scientific name of the extinct genus Mixtotherium means "mixed beast"?
With that said, if the reviewer thinks the original hook is better, I won't object. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
In theory, the hook is less effective. While it can work, I'm thinking that instead, I should focus on convergent evolution along with the name etymology. In addition to usage of the original source for the etymology, I'm thinking:
ALT2 ... that the scientific name of the extinct genus Mixtotherium, meaning "mixed beast," has traits of both extinct primates and hyraxes? Source: A List of the Genera and Families of Mammals https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/83341#page/436/mode/1up Source: Brain damage: the endocranial cast of Mixtotherium cuspidatum (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) from the Victor Brun Museum (Montauban, France) https://hal.science/hal-03464281/
I'll let you and anyone else decide which ultimately works best. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
This good article about a strange beast is DYK-eligible. Well-sourced, neutral, and my copyvio checks came out clean. While ALT0 may not be interesting to subject matter experts, it probably would be to our general audience, but I think ALT2 is the best of the bunch. But I'll leave that up to the prep builder, as all three are sourced, neutral, and interesting – and I imagine choosing a hook is one of the fun parts of the job.   Good to go! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago103 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mixtotherium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 01:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • So now we're here! I'll start reviewing soon, preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • At first glance there's a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[1] Note that doesn't include names linked in the cladogram.
  • You don't need to spell out Mixtotherium every time you mention a binomial, could be abbreviated to M. where you do (and as you have often done already).
  • Rename Postcranial remains to Postcranial skeleton. You don't call the other description "Skull remains" or "Dental remains".
  • You could add a year to the caption of the mandible drawing. I see it's already struggling to fit text, but it's also extremely narrow. Personally I'd just make a version without the text in the image and flip it so it becomes horizontal instead.
  • Generally not sure if the old text is needed in the illustrations, but not a big deal.
  • A bit unfortunate the Henri Filhol image clashes with the cladogram. Any way this could be rearranged, using a picture where he faces left and right aligning it, or making a cropped version of the version not showing almost his entire body? Also, I'm not sure how that image fits the text under classification. I'd rather use the space to show more anatomy or related genera.
    • I think I addressed most of the preliminary issues for now, I don't think the mentions for full species binomials for the first two image captions is an issue. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks good, note it will be easier to keep track on what has been done if you add your responses under the relevant points, this is also the style that will be expected at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "he designated the new genus plus species name" Plus seems very informal, why not just the straightforward "and" or "new binomial"?
  • "meaning "mixed beast"" Do we know why?
    • Not any that I could find in the original source or the etymology source. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Present Jean Albert Gaudry and other people mentioned, as you do for Filhol.
  • "He said that the upper incisors were missing" Who said? Also, I'm not sure you need to name who said it if it's just the facts about the condition of the specimen.
  • "He said that it had a strong upper canine and upper molars" Likewise.
    • Replaced with "the specimen"
  • "he designated the genus plus species" Per above.
    • Corrected to "he designated another binomial name."
  • "Adrotherium derives in Ancient Greek" Derives from?
  • "plus θήρ (beast or wild animal)" You have already defined this in the previous paragraph.
  • "The naturalist provided more detailed descriptions" Not the only naturalist you've mentioned by this point, so better to name him.
  • "another new genus plus species name Uphelognatos quercyi" As earlier. Just say "and" or "binomial".
  • " He recognized that the species name will draw attention to" Why jump to present tense?
  • Be consistent in whether you mention nationalities of people or not.
  • "He also stated that he disagreed with" Could just simplify to "He also disagreed with".
  • "of Adrotherium (misspelled as "Adiotherium")" Misspelled by who, and is it really that relevant to point out here in an already packed sentence?
  • "from the Jebel Qatrani Formation of Africa" That is very unspecific, name the country, Egypt.
  • "species classified to Mixtotherium" Classified in/as.

PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Chose as. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • "to be from outside Europe" To be from is redundant.
  • "The species was eventually synonymized with Bothriogenys sp." How can a named species be synonymised with an unnamed species?
    • Well, that's what the 2010 source says, no newer source concerning the synonymy. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Link and explain natural group.
  • "during the middle Eocene with possible artiodactyl and perissodactyl dispersal routes." Link Eocene and taxon names in the caption.
  • A bit puzzling you have a section called "Taxonomic disputes" when much of the text preceding it is already about taxonomic disputes? Maybe it should instead be reframed as "modern taxonomic interpretations" or similar, as that's what it seems to be about?
  • "He stated that M. cuspidatum was the type species" Why does this need to be reiterated? We know from the first paragraph that it's the type species?
    • Sometimes, the first species to be described won't necessarily be the type species even if it was first assigned to the correct genus. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Link and explain derived.
  • "Other researchers tie them as being more closely related to" not sure "tie them as" is a proper construction, just say "consider them more closely related to"?
  • "phylogenetic analysis on the Cainotherioidea" of the is more common.
That's normal for such replies. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "tree used for the journal and a" Used for the article/paper, journal is too wide.
  • "The phylogenetic tree used for the journal and another published work about the cainotherioids is outlined below" I'm not sure what this means. The same cladogram was published in two journals, or it's a mix of two cladograms?
Ok, could this be rephrased somehow? Hard to follow. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Already had, didn't I? PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "created a phylogenetic analysis in his academic thesis " Included or conducted for would make more sense.
  • It seems you've chosen UK English (based on the use of palaeo), which makes sense because it's a European taxon, but then you also say "Paleogene". Should be consistent throughout, check for US spellings other places.
  • "Possibly according to Sudre in 1972" This phrasing makes it seem like this was possibly stated by Sudre.
  • "may have occupied folivorous diets" I don't think you can "occupy a diet", but you can have one.
    • Replaced with "had."
  • "is a mystery because of the overall lack of evidence." This very precise phrasing could need in-text author attribution.
    • Replaced with "is poorly known because of the overall lack of evidence." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "Notably, mixtotheriids share similar cranial morphologies to two" Share with.
  • Link adapine. Why say adapid in the next sentence and not just say adapine again?
  • "have possibly occupied arboreal habits " Likewise, I don't think you can occupy a habit.
  • "Lophiodon sp. skeleton" Not sure why we need the sp. here, as the image is just to illustrate the genus anyway.
  • Probably no need to list the museum for non-Mixtotherium taxa either, as those are not the subject of this article, so it doesn't add any relevant information (and you didn't add it for Cainotherium anyway).
    • I don't see how specifying the extant hyrax species is a problem. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is about listing museum names in captions, right now it's inconsistent either way, and I'm not sure it's necessary for taxa other than the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've seen most other GA or FA articles list museums in captions outside of the lede image, so I'm not sure why it'd be a problem here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but I'm strictly talking about the images that don't show Mixtotherium itself. Either way, you have to be consistent, and the Cainotherium skeleton doesn't have the museum listed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mentioned the museum that hosted the Cainotherium skeleton. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "Mixtotherium is characterized as" By?
  • A lot of technical terms under description that could need parenthetical explanations, also as to their locations.
    • I feel like including a lot of parenthetical explanations might inflate the text... maybe you can point out which particular terms need explanations? PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
It will inflate the text, but it will also surely be asked for at FAC, so it's pretty much required. I can point out some in the first paragraph, the you'll get the drift. See my current FAC Nasutoceratops for how much explanation that would be expected under description. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I think I addressed the issues mentioned here, let me if I missed any. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "The orbits for the eyes" I don't think this makes clear to most readers that it's the eye sockets. I'd just say "the orbits (eye sockets)".
  • "toward the back of the occipital ridge" Could state where on the skull this is.
  • "The frontal bones of" Likewise.
    • I feel like "frontal" would be obvious, but specified anyways. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "situated toward the center area of the skull's face" This is a bit hard to follow. You just mean they're directed forwards? Or close to then midline?
  • "while the postorbital bar is incomplete" I assume this just mean that even in life, it didn't connect? Now it could read as if it is a preservation issue.
  • Probably avoid anatomical direction terms like "lateral" and replace with common terms where possible.
  • "and the squamosal bone is" Location could be explained.
  • "The tympanic part of the temporal bone" Explain location.
  • "that covers it in the skull of the mixtotheriid" Convoluted, you could just say Mixtotherium and spare some letters.
  • "The horizontal back portion of the mandible, or the ramus" I think ramus would also (if not mainly) refer to the upwards projecting part.
  • Present Colette Dechaseaux".
  • You should switch the order of the two paragraphs under "Body mass"; now you start by saying this or that species is smaller or larger, with no reference to individual sizes. Better to get some masses listed so the reader has a point of references before reading about their relative sizes.
  • Are there no length or height estimates?
    • No, not realistic for a taxon generally lacking in postcranial skeletons. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • " only from astragali and a calcaneus" State where these bones are in the body.
  • "possibly belong to Mixtotherium is described as" Was.
  • "are elongated plus have" And instead of plus. Less letters and less informal.
  • Explain bunoselodont.
  • "They also appear subtriangular or subtrapezoidal" Could just sat "almost" or "roughly" instead of "sub", which would be incomprehensible for most readers.
  • "Their conical paraconule cusps are reduced and are part of the preprotocrista crest. The protoconules are weak, and the parastyle plus mesostyle cusps appear labially round. M1–M2 usually exhibit back-sided cingulids that are round lingually and extend to the back of the entoconid cusp. The transverse third lobe of the M3 is compressed." This entire run would be hard to understand for most readers, could need some explanations.
    • I tried elaborating slightly more on definitions, but I can't really simplify cusp definitions unfortunately, this is inevitably one of the more advanced areas of anatomy. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "The original-sized virtual plaster model" I'm not sure what this means. Is it a 3D scan of the old plaster model, or a new one based on the skull itself?
  • "from other endemic artiodactyls" Why mention endemic here? And endemic to what?
  • "In a more complete model of the brain cast" What is this new model? The 2021 one? Then just say that to avoid confusion.
  • "half of the olfactory bulbs meet with each other, in which the bulbs then diverge 90°" In which refers to what? Maybe say "meet with each other from where they diverge" or similar.
  • I'm worried if the Endocast anatomy section is too detailed compared to even the adjacent sections, and wonder whether all that text is really needed, as it will be incomprehensible to 90% of readers (and even many paleontologists not specialised in brain anatomy, I'd assume). Perhaps cut it down to the essentials, such as the parts that distinguish this genus or are relevant for classification and comparison, and not general descriptions?
    • I'm not really in favor of that, the endocast sources by Dechaseaux are largely inaccessible, so I think it's handy to the very few paleoneurologists who cannot normally obtain the source. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can imagine this will be brought up at FAC, but I guess now you're prepared. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Link omnivorous omnivorous.
I'm not sure I'd entirely agree, and a link sure couldn't hurt. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright fine, linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Link Grande Coupure.
  • "late Eocene (MP17 - MP20)" Explain what the numbers in the parenthesis mean. Important, as you return to that kind of labels later in the text.
  • The first two paragraphs under Palaeoecology have no context for how they're related to the subject if the article. Could start right of with stating when and where Mixtotherium lived in a sentence, then go into the nitty gritty about what happened during these times.
    • Personally, I think offering pre-evolutionary context first then explaining an individual taxon's appearance is more ideal, I did add "in the western European fossil record," however. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "have yielded remains of the Gastornithidae and Palaeognathae" State that these are bird groups.
  • Do no modern researchers consider some of the species to belong to distinct genera?
    • Not currently, no. Henri Filhol already attempted to establish two additional genera that ended up being synonymized. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Are there no cladograms that show more of its species and how they're interrelated?
    • No, individual species cladograms in relation to the whole genus are very uncommon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "Known taxonomically as mixtotheriids or mixtotheres" Not sure what is meant by "Known taxonomically", as you just said they belong to Mixtotheriidae, which is the actual taxonomic name. Those latter terms are informal/common variations, so you could say "informally/commonly known as mixtotheriids or mixtotheres".
  • "the artiodactyls were endemic" Too unspecific, "these artiodactyls" instead.
  • "went extinct by the late Eocene, although why it specifically went extinct is not clear." The bolded part is unnecessary.
  • Do we have etymologies for some of the specific names?
  • When you get a restoration, remember to include what sources it was based on in the Commons description, I see it's lacking from the Anoplotherium[2], for example, but it is often asked for at FAC. Pinging Triloboii for this.
  • That should be it, I think this would make it rather close to FAC quality overall, though beware that they are much more critical of wording and formatting than me there. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mixtotherium&oldid=1215836168"