Talk:Argentodites

Argentodites 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.

Argentodites is part of the Ferugliotheriidae series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 30, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
August 23, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 5, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Cretaceous mammal Argentodites is known only from a blade-like tooth with eight cusps arranged in a row?

Current status: Good article

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.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Interesting subject; first impressions are that the article looks great, but it's a shame we don't have a picture.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
See below.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
So far as I can judge. I don't feel the article is endorsing any position.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Couple of small issues, but this generally is a great GA candidate.

Thanks for the review; I've replied to all concerns below. Ucucha 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"gondwanatheres may themselves be multituberculates." Perhaps "however"? I'm assuming the "two teams" don't think that?~~ I see now I'm wrong- perhaps that could be made a little clearer?
- It is better now?
"is late Cretaceous" Is there not an adjective form? "late Cretacean" or something?
- No, Cretaceous is correct (and is, in fact, originally an adjective).
"two teams argued" Who are these people?
- One of the mentions of that is now gone; in the lead, I don't think it's particularly relevant to name the scientists.
Some more context with regards to what enamel prisms are would be good- it's meaningless to most, I would imagine, and the article doesn't exist.
- I added a gloss.
Category:Gondwanatheres? Category:Prehistoric mammals or a subcategory? A subcat of Category:Extinct mammals by continent?
- I added one for SAm mammals. I am hesitant to add the gondwanathere cat, because it may not be a gondwanathere.
I can't help but feel there is a little cross-over between the first and last sections. Perhaps keep the first section to its discovery and the initial paper, and move all the disputes about its identity to the last one?
- Done. Ucucha 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some quick formatting fixes on the literature cited section (it may also want some bold, but I haven't done that) as the article titles should be in quotemarks, while the journal name should be italicised. I'm happy to promote now- good job, the effort you've put in here is clear. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]