Talk:Laomaki

Laomaki 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: December 31, 2023. (Reviewed version).

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.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 11:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this review within this week. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@An anonymous username, not my real name Alright, now that I have time, let's get to the full review, since this article is short:

Full Review[edit]

Order of Sections:

For Cenozoic articles, the "Classification" section should actually be named taxonomy, and you can have the "classification" title as the only subsection of it. Also, it should go right after the "Discovery and naming" section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done but having a section with a single subsection is kind of redundant, so I'd rather just leave it out entirely.

Lead Section:

Optional, but it'd be preferred if the beginning of the sentence goes something along the lines of either "is an extinct genus of Paleogene primate belonging to the infraorder Adapiformes" or "is a genus of Paleogene adapiform primate, an extinct group of mammals." PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first few words ("a genus of adapiform primate") are consistent with related genera. The word "Paleogene" doesn't actually appear in the article (although neither does adapiform, to be fair), so it could be mildly confusing to readers.

Classification:

No phylogeny cladogram? The cited article "A new primate from the late Eocene of Vietnam illuminates unexpected strepsirrhine diversity and evolution in Southeast Asia" seems to have two different sampling trees that include Laomaki. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done although for some reason my attempts to change the dimensions of the cladogram gallery so everything would fit better weren't working. Hopefully you know how to fix this.

Description:

I know this is an obscure genus, so I can let the short article slide in cases in these. However, I think you can squeeze in a bit more out of the description section, especially when it discusses diagnostic differences. For instance, the P₄ and P⁴ premolars being molariform in shape, differing from other Paleogene-Miocene adapiforms I think is notable. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done although what the original description actually says isn't quite what you paraphrased here.
Try talking a bit more about the diagnostics of the "Sivaladapidae" and why Laomaki is classified as belonging to the family if possible. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the description doesn't really go into to detail about why it's classified as it is.

Paleoecology:

Try incorporating paleoclimate into this, especially since the Eocene-Oligocene transition occurred around the time of the primate's existence. Talk about possible habitats. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little weak but I did my best. The sources that specifically mentioned Laomaki don't go into a ton of detail. Also, let me know if the last paragraph should have a "paleoenvironment" subheading (it seems appropriate).
"Other fauna uncovered from the site include fish, turtles, crocodilians, squamates, other primates, gomphotheres, rhinoceroses, suids, and chevrotains."
- These are Neogene taxa, especially given that proboscideans only showed up in Asia by the latest Oligocene-early Miocene. The article you're citing states that the age of the site of Sunetar, where the faunal assemblage is coming from, dates to ∼14–11 Ma, which is the Miocene. Remove that list and replace it with a Paleogene Asian one. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Done
- For a faunal assemblage list that does include Laomaki, refer to the source "Stratigraphical significance of Ulantatal sequence (Nei Mongol, China) in refining the latest Eocene and Oligocene terrestrial regional stages." PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, for future reference, avoid using common names and use taxonomic terms for mammal families in reference to the paleontological record when possible. For instance, "rhinocerotid" is preferred over "rhinoceros" because it is a stricter term that excludes other members of the Rhinocerotoidea and includes just those of the Rhinocerotidae. Even when complications like these aren't the case, I still recommend using them, especially for Paleogene and Miocene-middle Pleistocene taxa. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood.
This article is short, so try listing a few other genera into the faunal list. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More than Done. The amount of red text is quite astonishing; it seems the Wikipedia community has quite a lot of extinct Chinese mammal articles to write.

@PrimalMustelid:, I expect you'll still have some feedback before passing this, but I did my best to improve the article per your suggestions. Anonymous 07:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things before promotion:

I suppose you can list the known specimens of Laomaki including the holotype and its traits. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not every single rodent species needs to be listed on the paleoecology. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@An anonymous username, not my real name You want to finish the few minor suggestions now? PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, my apologies, I've not been very active lately. As far as I'm aware, there does not exist a comprehensive list of every specimen found, and I did already describe the holotype, or at least the material it consisted of. Rodent list has been condensed. Anonymous 04:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and promoted. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]