Talk:Catodontherium/GA1

GA Review

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

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]