Talk:Palaeotherium/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 04:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 22:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@AryKun Thanks for taking the review. Just checking in, when will you start the review? PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- First paragraph is very jargon heavy and hard to parse for a lay reader.
- Links would be nice for taxonomic ranks.
- "another French naturalist Georges Cuvier since 1798" to "another French naturalist, Georges Cuvier, after 1798"
- "Cuvier erected the genus
name" - "recognized multiple species up to 1824" ungrammatical.
- "official taxonomic authority" I don't think that "official taxonomic authority" is a thing.
- "It...genus" Run-on sentence.
- "Cuvier's research efforts" I feel like "Cuvier's description" would be better.
- "Americas recognized many" to "Americas have recognized many"
- "In particular...other palaeontologists." Too many commas.
- Overall, the prose seems below the standard I would expect for a GA; there's a fair few grammatical errors and, more importantly, much of the vocabulary is just too jargon-y for generalist readers. Would you mind getting someone from WP:GOCE to copyedit it once before I proceed with the review? There's a couple suggestions for the prose almost every other sentence, which I feel is too much for a GA review. AryKun (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd remove the EB external link, I don't think a 1911 encyclopedia article will be very useful.
@AryKun Addressed all the above at least, and I wrote a message requesting copyediting. I really appreciate that you took this review since Palaeotherium is one of the bigger name fossil mammal taxa. I will say that most fossil mammal page formats are dense in ways that other taxa like most dinosaurs aren't because of generally longer taxonomic histories and more complex anatomies. Unfortunately, they're different beasts by necessity, but I will do my best to improve the prose where possible. Again, thanks for taking the review. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AryKun After a few days of thinking, I think that I need to inform you more about the GAN review formats of fossil taxa. I've mentioned that fossil mammals are different beasts because of their complex taxonomies and anatomies, but generally speaking, all fossil taxa are dense plus comprehensive by necessity and therefore often require long and close-to-detail GAN reviews. There are several examples to how large and extensive peer reviews and good article reviews for such taxa such tend to be when you look at those of Mosasaurus and other paleontology-based GANs. Recent GAN reviews I've been participating in for the likes of Mixtotherium, Dichodon, and Dacrytherium have been very extensive. Palaeotherium shouldn't be much different, although it needs a very large review given the larger article size and its level-5 vital article status. I know that you've already done FAC reviews for fossil taxa, but I think you might want to be aware that GAN reviews in WikiProject Palaeontology are more functionally similar to the rare A-Class review types than they are to average GAN reviews. You also may need to be aware that as a result, GAN progress boxes for GAN reviews for medium-long fossil taxa pages aren't necessary, although GAN rules still apply.
- I know that you typically do short GAN reviews and generally expect them to be, but typical reviews for medium-long fossil taxon pages are anything but. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
