Talk:Danuvius guggenmosi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Danuvius guggenmosi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Danuvius guggenmosi 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 1, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 11, 2019.

Germany Mid‑importance

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

Palaeontology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Primates Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Danuvius guggenmosi be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

untitled

Missing: impact on "out of Africa" theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.35.72 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one's talked about Danuvius in the context of the out of Africa theory to my knowledge User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great topic. Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; the first puzzle concerns the topic of the article. The title suggests the species; the first line suggests the genus. What we do with fungi articles is something like this: "Genus is a genus of whatevers containing a single species, Genus species." The article title, meanwhile, would be the genus name. Do you know of anything in the MOS about this?

Danuvius is a disambiguation page, so in this instance we use both the genus and species name in the title User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is explicitly covered at WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA - but the subject of the first line of the lead should still match the title of the article. I have modified it; what do you think? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does "seasonal climate" mean?

As in, there were clearly defined seasons User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a wikilink. Do you object? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's alright (but I think season is a pretty basic word) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"greatly elucidates the anatomical structure and locomotion of contemporary apes" What does this mean?

As in, before its discovery, how Miocene great apes (more or less contemporary with Danuvius) moved (as in, their locomotion) was largely unclear because their limbs, pelvis, shoulders, etc. (which are anatomical structures) were not recovered User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the word elucidate that's tripping me up. I wonder if the sentence could be rephrased? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It had adaptations for both hanging in trees (suspensory behavior) and walking on two legs (bipedalism)—whereas, among present-day great apes, humans are better adapted for the latter and the others the former." Ok, but surely modern great apes have adaptations for both. DO you mean to say that D g is equally adapted for both? As it reads at the moment, you seem to be suggesting that all modern great apes are adapted for one or the other, but not both. (Or is that right?)

I mean, a chimp can walk upright for a small amount of time, but it is not said that chimps are "adapted" for bipedal locomotion because this can't be sustained for very long User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you copy-paste the relevant section of the source? It strikes me that there are a few different claim that may be being made, here, so I'm reluctant to suggest an alternative in case I change the meaning. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Danuvius combines the adaptations of bipeds and suspensory apes". In reference to chimps "Knuckle-walkers (chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas) lack the extended knee and have less powerfully developed hallucal and pollical grasping" extended knee is a reference to bipedalism and grasping to suspensory behavior. And then there're tons more similar examples. "[Extended limb clambering] includes a combination of joint positions and loading patterns of both hominin bipedalism that emphasize hindlimb extension and spinal curvatures, and extant great ape suspension, which emphasizes powerful and mobile forelimbs" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"called "extended limb clambering"," Quotes without citations always make my eyes twitch. I won't insist on anything, but... (Ditto first line of the paleoecology section.)

the ref is at the end of the paragraph User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article written in British English? If so, try to avoid false titles!

I'm an American and am unfamiliar with British grammar laws. Can you give an example? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"may also elucidate contemporary great ape limb anatomy" Again. Is "elucidate" a technical term, here? If so, a wikilink would help.

No it's not jargon, it's a proper word word meaning to make clear or to make known User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what elucidate means - I just think this is a rather curious use of the word (as above). Is it the word your source uses? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I try to avoid close wording from the source. "These discoveries have provided insights into the anatomy of late Miocene apes. We know that these apes, including Pierolapithecus, Dryopithecus, Hispanopithecus and Rudapithecus, were suspensory and similar to modern great apes to varying degrees. However, without complete long bones of the limbs and well-preserved joint surfaces (especially of the lower limbs), interpretations of details of the positional behaviour of these apes remain limited" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It emphasizes knee extension and lordosis" What does "it" refer to in this sentence?

Extended limb clambering User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I've added that to the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any indication of diet?

I would assume it was an herbivore which ate fruit and reeds and that jazz like other apes, but I don't see the authors actually touching diet User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see the value of the navboxes. Are all the external links necessary?

I did not add those, but I'm fairly certain if I remove those they'll just be re-added again User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then just remove it again. From WP:NAVBOX: "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." I can't see any compelling reason to go against that in this case. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all look appropriately scholarly; you've done a nice job of citing older material without engaging in OR/editorialising. Naturally enough, there are probably going to be a lot more sources in a few years time - not least as anything published in Nature is probably going to be widely engaged with. Images look fine. Please double check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)C[reply]

@J Milburn: Is there anything I'm missing? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping - I'll aim to get back to you this weekend. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking again, I feel I'm still tripping up on "elucidates" (used twice). It may (or may not - I'm honestly not certain) be an appropriate use of the word, but I worry if I'm struggling with it, readers will too. Can I suggest it is rephrased? (And I made a few more edits; please double-check.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any ideas what to change it to? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a fair question. Part of the problem is that I am not certain what is being claimed. Something like "provides possible evidence for understanding the evolution of the anatomical structure and locomotion of contemporary apes", perhaps? That's a bit wordy, but it's clearer on what is being elucidated. No doubt there'll be a clearer way to put it. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...with preserved long bones which could possibly be used to reconstruct the leg anatomy and thus the locomotion of contemporary apes" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy with that; if both elucidates are removed/replaced, I'm happy to promote. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Well, I said I'd promote, so I will. The challenge is going to be keeping this up to date. My guess is that we will see more written about this in years to come; I doubt this is the sort of discovery the will languish, unread, in a journal - not least because it's that journal! Good working with you. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]