Talk:Nakalipithecus

Nakalipithecus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 7, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in Kenyan English and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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.

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.

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nakalipithecus. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this. Give me a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be doing some copy editing as I go. Let me know if I mess anything up or do anything you don't like.

"an extinct species of great ape from the Late Miocene of Nakali, Kenya, about 9.9–9.8 million years ago" That reads as if "Late Miocene" is a place in Nakali. And does 9.9–9.8 million years ago refer to when Nakalipithecus lived or when the Late Miocene was? (*Rhetorical question alert*)

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The holotype preserves all 3 lower molars" Left or right?

added "right jawbone" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the 9 million year old Greek Ouranopithecus" If you mean the genus you will upset the Turks by describing it as Greek; if you mean Ouranopithecus macedoniensis (which I suspect you do) then your link is wrong.

Why does the species have its own article?? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Like modern and some contemporary apes" What is the difference between a "modern" and a "contemporary ape"? (Yes, I know, but it is a trap for that mythical beast, the average Wikipedia reader.)

How would you word it? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Like modern apes and some apes contemporary with Nakalipithecus, but unlike earlier East African apes, the first molar is relatively large, with a first molar to second molar ratio of 85%'

or

'The first molar is relatively large, with a first molar to second molar ratio of 85%, like those of modern apes and some of Nakalipithecus's contemporaries, but unlike earlier East African apes.'

done on first use of "contemporary" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"M1/M2 ratio" I think that this needs to be written in full. (As you do in the following sentence.)

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and early Indian Sivapithecus" What does "early Indian" mean?

early Sivapithecus (a species from India) as opposed to later Sivapithecus specimens User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should have added "(*Rhetorical question alert*)". Would it be possible to add a similar clarification for readers. So they don't, for example, think that all Sivapithecus come from India and that the text is merely indicating that they were earlier than Nakalipithecus.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"than that of the Southeast Asian Khoratpithecus." Do we want to insert 'contemporary', or 'slightly later' or something?

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Climate change caused the expansion of grasslands in Africa from 10–7 milling years ago, likely fragmenting populations of forest-dwelling primates." Given that you state that this commenced a little before (or depending on the margin of error, contemporaneously with) Nakalipithecus's remains I am not sure how you are this relates to the topic. (If at all.)

forgot "leading to extinction" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and possibly Choerolophodon, and the colobine monkey Microcolobus." The use of commas here has confused me. If Microcolobus is "possibly", the comma should be before the first "and", not the second.

I'm confused. Microcolobus is not possibly, and Choerolophodon is an elephant (that's why it's "the elephant Deinotherium and possibly Choerolophodon")

An easy solution would be:

'the horse Hipparion, the colobine monkey, the elephant Deinotherium and, possibly, the elephant Choerolophodon'. (Or 'the horse Hipparion, the colobine monkey, and the elephants Deinotherium and possibly Choerolophodon'.)

Or:

'the horse Hipparion, the elephant Deinotherium, and, possibly, Choerolophodon, and the colobine monkey Microcolobus.' (Or 'the horse Hipparion, the elephant Deinotherium – and, possibly, Choerolophodon – and the colobine monkey Microcolobus.'

Is "the elephants Deinotherium and (possibly) Choerolophodon..." fine? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is clear to me.

"Samburupithecus was nearly contemporaneous with Nakalipithecus, and was discovered 60 km (37 mi) to the north of Nakali." Optional: This may be worth mentioning at the first mention of Samburupithecus.
The cladogram forms a MOS:SANDWICH with the bottom of the infobox. Perhaps drop it a paragraph?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nakaya et al (2010): a page range?

that's actually a conference User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*smacks head* You are citing the abstract. Apologies; it was late.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A solid little article. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2020 (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