Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review

Welcome to the peer review page of the WikiProject Palaeontology, which is a way to receive feedback on paleontology-related articles. This review was initiated to improve the communication and collaboration within the WikiProject Palaeontology. In contrast to WP:Peer Review, where ready-made articles may be submitted to prepare them for the high standards required at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, we here focus on short content reviews ("Fact Checks") without paying too much attention to stylistic details. For authors: Paleontology-related articles of any length and quality may be submitted. This includes works in progress, in which case guidance in the process of writing may be provided. At the other extreme, this also includes recognised content such as Featured and Good Articles that are in need of a review, such as after updates or when becoming out-of-date. Although direct collaborative editing on listed articles is encouraged, the nominator is expected to address upcoming issues. Reviews will be automatically archived after 100 days of inactivity. Archived articles may be re-submitted any time. For reviewers: Single drive-by comments are encouraged. Since this review does not lead to any kind of article approval, complete reviews are not required. Fact Checks Fact checks are relatively quick reviews that are focused on article content. They are mainly used to assess the article's accuracy, and can be applied to any article, regardless of quality or length. To get an article fact-checked, click the button below to create a new section. Please indicate if you would, in addition, also like to receive critique on style, prose, layout and comprehensiveness. Click here to submit an article for a fact check Full Peer Review Full peer reviews are longer and more rigorous, and also involve critique on style, prose, and layout. These are useful for getting an expanded article into shape for WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and are more likely to attract non-expert reviewers who may check comprehensibility. For this type of review, please go to WP:PR and follow the instructions there. The review, together with other Natural Sciences reviews, will be automatically transcluded to this page. Go to WP:PR

---

Wikipedia Peer Review (Natural Sciences and mathematics)

Tropical Storm Kai-tak

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch review

This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly.

Date added: 26 August 2024, 01:00 UTC

Last edit: 12 October 2024, 04:28 UTC

Fact Checks

Andrewsarchus

A couple of months ago I completely overhauled the Andrewsarchus page, as for a (fairly) well-known taxon it felt a bit lacking. Since I'm on another editing kick at the moment, I figured now was as good a time as any to put it up for peer review. Feedback on style, prose, etc, would be appreciated if possible. Cheers in advance. Borophagus (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Known from a largely complete skull, most of a lower jaw and isolated teeth, – As described later there is more than that, such as a second mandible, so it is not just known from one skull?
  • Poor wording on my part. I more so meant that it was known from the holotype skull (minus the jaw), isolated teeth, and the "Paratriisodon" mandible.
• it is notable for being historically reputed as the largest terrestrial, carnivorous mammal. – for the lead, it would be good to add the modern interpretation here. Is not no longer considered carnivorous? Or have larger species been discovered? (It seems that its size has been overestimated; just mention that in the lead, too!)
  • Done. Will admit I'm not entirely sure why I put what I originally did. Hopefully the edit is an improvement.
• though it is not clear whether the same is true of the lower jaw. – Not sure, I would write something like "whether the same applies to the lower jaw".
  • Done.
• You use both "lower jaw" and "mandible", why not just mandible? Using different terms just confuses readers.
  • Done.
• masseteric fossa and polytomy – both need wikilink and/or explanation.
  • Done.
• link "worn" to tooth wear, link "family", link "mya".
  • Done.
• You can make the article more accessible by replacing "et al." with "and colleagues" (it's a difficult technical term that is easy to avoid).
  • Done, where it seemed relevant (and per what PrimalMustelid said it doesn't seem to be a *huge* issue, so I've retained it in the taxonomy section.

No, that's not a big issue, but inconsistency within the article is. You should better decide which form to use and stick with it for this article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. Was a bit scatterbrained in the morning. I've edited it to remove et al entirely. Borophagus (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Below is a simplified cladogram based on the results of Spaulding et al. (2009) and Yu et al. (2023).[7][15] – What does the cladogram show, Spaulding or Yu? We should avoid merging distinct cladograms.
  • If memory serves the cladogram better reflects Yu. I'll have to check when I have time and make any necessary changes, but I did amend it last night for the time being.
• Very well-written overall. It can probably be expanded quite a bit, but I really like that the text so far is concise without going into excessiv detail, which makes it pleasant to read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. I do hope to expand on it more if possible, especially since (provided enough information can be gleaned, which per FunkMonk and PrimalMustelid's comments seems plausible). Borophagus (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I had this on my to do list for a while, and I think it could be perhaps be easy to get to GA/FA with some major expansion. What would you think about that prospect? FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to give an expansion a go. There does seem to be a lot of possible inclusions I didn't account for, so it feels a lot more feasible now than it did when I put the review request up. Borophagus (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Since there aren't so many images available anyway, could be nice to show this photo of a cast from a different angle than the one in the taxobox:[1] Perhaps with a closer crop. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. I did consider putting another image there yesterday, as it felt repetitive, but couldn't decide which one to go for. Borophagus (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

PrimalMustelid here. Hi. It depends on whether or not you eventually plan on taking this article to GA at least. I think the article seems to be fine enough. However, I do think that certain sections are fairly lacking and that some subsections should be split or made into different sections. Contrary to Jens here, I'm on the opinion that it needs to be expanded a considerable amount if you want to take this to GA. Some broad-level comments below:

• I recommend converting the "history of discovery" section into a taxonomy section, merging the phylogeny section into there as its own subsection per standard formats of Cenozoic fossil taxa. Accordingly, as a monotypic family, the taxonomic history of the Andrewsarchidae should be touched upon in the main taxonomy section. Refer to the Mixtotherium article (the sole genus of the Mixtotheriidae) to see how that works. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Fine by me. Wasn't aware that Cenozoic taxa had a standard format, so when I have time later I'll overhaul those sections and try and bring them up to scratch. Borophagus (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• It might be worth describing the first impressions that the original author (Henry Osborn) had upon describing the fossil as indicated by the first pages of the paper that he wrote in 1924. Note that he compares the skull to those of entelodonts, which adds some really important historical contexts to this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Will do (again, later). Borophagus (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• For cynodonts with advanced heterodonty (so most of them including Andrewsarchus), cranial and dental diagnoses are both given equally heavy weight in their validities. There should be enough information about dentition to split it off into its own subsection. It is important to define diagnoses in terms of what separates Andrewsarchus from other artiodactyls (and mesonychians), especially the entelodonts. This is important especially for monotypic families such as this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Not entirely sure how this slipped my mind, but it's a *fairly* easy fix at least. I should be able to do some work on that fairly soon. Borophagus (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• The paleobiology section is lacking. If there is not enough information about proposed hypotheses about its behavior and such, I'd recommend merging the information into the description section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Done.Borophagus (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• The palaeoenvironment section meanwhile should be made into its own section. Discuss more about the climatic and environmental trends that Andrewsarchus and contemporary animals lived under. I'd also recommend giving mention to the animal families that it coexisted with. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Made a start by elevating it to a section (plus moving the diet section).. Borophagus (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Something you can do is just reuse the first paragraph of the paleoecology section of the Mixtotherium article, which provides a good basic overview of Eocene climatic and faunal trends (at least the early and middle). I’ve reused the first two paragraphs for other artiodactyl articles, although the second will be less relevant to Andrewsarchus because it’s not a European mammal. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all for now. Andrewsarchus is lacking in research in general, so there isn't as much to write about as in say Anthracotherium or Coryphodon. However, you should aim to squeeze more out of what little sources there are. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Much obliged. Will be hopefully doing a lot of work on the article over the next few days, so with luck I can whip it into shape. Borophagus (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, by the way, you don't need to italicize "et al." If you want, you can link it so that the audience can understand what it means. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I largely do that out of habit, admittedly, but it's good to know that it's not necessary. I won't fret too much about removing it outright, though if it does affect readability I might change it further down the line. Borophagus (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:MISCSHORT suggests that we use et al. only in the reference citation templates, not in the main text. It's really not a big deal, but at WP:FAC people will pick this up and suggest to change to "and colleagues" (same goes for all other technical terms that can be easily replaced with plain language). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I've seen certain articles such as Mosasaurus get away with "et al." and still be FAC, so I don't think it really matters that much. At least, I doubt that reviewers would oppose to that alone at all and can be negotiated with accordingly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)