Talk:Catodontherium

Catodontherium is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by PrimalMustelid (talk) at 15:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: Extinct genus of Palaeogene artiodactyls

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Catodontherium appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that due to a misunderstanding, Catodontherium was moved from its original genus name?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Catodontherium.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

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 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Catodontherium had a prior genus name that was mistakenly thought to have been used before and therefore was replaced? Source: Classification of Mammals: Above the Species Level, pg. 406 ("'Proposed on the grounds that Catodus is preoccupied by Catodon Linnaeus, 1761. This is not preoccupation, but Catodus was a numen nudum in its earlier publication (1905) so that Catodontherium may be retained' (Simpson, 1945:147)"
- Reviewed:

Created by PrimalMustelid (talk). Self-nominated at 16:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Catodontherium; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Starting Review--Kev min § 15:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article new enough and long enough, though a bit dense for a lay reader at times. no copyvio issues identified and hook source verified. I think we should maybe look at wordmithing of the hook itself so it flows a little better and is a little more concise.--Kevmin § 17:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, how do you suggest I reword the hook? PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies for the delays in responding. We could go with something along the lines of:
  - Alt1... that due to a misunderstanding, Catodontherium was moved from its original genus name?
  - --Kevmin § 20:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, that sounds good. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we will need another set of eyes to give a verification that the new hook I proposed is acceptable then, The article overall is ready for passing, as it has no copyvio issues. is new enough and long enough, and does not have any notable rules issues.--Kev min § 18:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article says "the genus may have been renamed because of apparent preoccupation of a prior genus name Catodon". If the article equivocates, so should the hook.--Laun chba ller 18:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer Alt1 does that with the verbiage "due to a misunderstanding"--Kev min § 19:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article says 'may', while the hook does not.--Laun chba ller 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer @Kevmin I don't wish for this hook to be in stagnation, so I slightly reworded the sentence to comply with the hook. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the rewording as it helps match the source material.--Kev min § 00:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Let's roll.--Laun chba ller 14:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 15:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) 01:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and take this one. Expect comments soon. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for starting the review. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

"Hyopotamus gresslyi" had always been taxonomically problematic since it was the species that fossils belonging to other artiodactyls such as Catodontherium and later Dacrytherium were classified to. Please rephrase for better grammar and clarity.
- Rephrased. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned at the appearance of technical words (mainly brachyodonty, selenodont, and bunoselenodont) in the first sections without elaboration- for anyone not a paleontologist those are probably wholly unfamiliar.
- Explained the meanings of the dentition types. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the cladogram, bold the taxon name that you want readers to notice- either Anoplotheriidae or Dacrytherium since those would indicate where Catodontherium goes.
- Bolded Dacrytherium in the tree. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dentition subsection needs more of those technical terms linked.
- Linked more terms. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm left wondering:

Why are the two species of dubious placement? And where might they go if they're not this genus?
- Unfortunately, that's not up to me to answer. That's a job for future paleontologists to do, though sadly they're not really focusing on anoplotheriids in general. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How big were these guys?
- There aren't any size estimates for this genus unfortunately. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mention a specimen Ef.419 but give no explanation why this particular fossil is getting singled out, or even which species it belongs to.
- Mentioned that it belongs to C. buxgovianum. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What're the differences between the species??
- I don't normally address species differences since they're very specific in dental forms and therefore are too difficult to understand for most people, not to mention that we probably need a modern rereview of the species. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a nice article. I'm not quite certain that the image of the Anoplotherium fossil is the best to choose when there's several pictures for Dacrytherium, but that falls under editorial discretion. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to replace the Anoplotherium skull image with an old illustrated one of Dacrytherium. I wish that we had a modern image of the skull of Dacrytherium, but that's out of my control. Thank you for the review, and good day. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]