Talk:Ambondro mahabo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Back again to review; comments in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! (To pre-empt one point: I am not aware of any reconstructions whatsoever of the biology of this animal, or of the early australosphenidans in general.) Ucucha 19:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm used to articles about genera telling me in the first sentence that this article is about a genus; this one says that Ambondro is a mammal. Isn't A. mahano the mammal?
  • To me, the distinction is meaningless; Ambondro and A. mahabo are the same thing until a second species is discovered. But I added "genus" anyway; it is a useful point of clarification.
• 3rd sentence talks about the central cusp, but I think you may be assuming too much here… what's a cusp? I don't know that its a "occlusal or incisal eminence on a tooth"
  • I linked it... not sure yet about a good way to explain it; "occlusal or incisal eminence" is hardly much clearer.
• trigonid, talonid = scary redlinked jargon in the lead
  • But explained; I'll try to write short articles on these topics soon.
• the lead is difficult, too many words the average reader is not likely to understand. Can anything be done to simplify this a bit? Also consider making it more explicitly clear why this discovery is important in the paleontological scheme of things. Eg., something like this sentence from here would help: "Ambondro extends backwards the known temporal range of the tribosphenic tooth by some 25 Ma, which is equivalent to about 20% of its previous known history."
  • I have added something similar to that. I do think the lead needs to give some description of the animal—after all, it's the distinctive morphology that give this animal (arguably the oldest known crown mammal) its significance.
• "in the Isalo III unit of the Isalo "Group"" what does this mean? Is this a known archeological site?
  • It's a little far back for archeology. Clarified.
• holotherian?
  • Removed.
• "The p-last has a strong central cusp" Is "prominent" a more appropriate adjective here?
  • I usually vary between these two (and a few others, like "well-developed") to say the same thing. Flynn et al. also use "strong" in reference to the cingulum, and they say the premolar is "dominated" by the central cusp.
• "The p-last has a strong central cusp and on the back and probably front lingual sides smaller cuspules." this sentence doesn't quite parse
  • Split sentence and reworded.
• The description section has too much unexplained jargon; I don't know what any of the redlinked terms mean, and I get the strange feeling of reading something in English but barely understanding what is being said :)
• Is there a picture or photo in one of the papers? A labeled sketch would work wonders here I think.
  • I will ask J.J. Flynn whether he is able to release an image. I think that will help in clarifying the description; I know I looked at the illustrations in the Nature paper a lot when writing it. Ucucha 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I would like to make the article about this interesting mammal actually comprehensible, so I'll try hard to improve it, but don't have more time right now, so I'll come back later today. Ucucha 06:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I just made an extensive copyedit, clarified and extended some material, and added a picture of a Megalomys tooth to clarify the terms of direction used. Is it better now? Ucucha 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's much better, there's enough context around the redlinked terms that I can mostly understand what I'm reading now :)
• "Ambondro is a genus of mammals" only one mammal in the genus, so shouldn't use plural
  • Yes.
• "Each of the teeth has a prominent cingulum (shelf) on the lingual (outer) side." shouldn't that be lingual (inner) side?
  • Yes; mixed up a little there.
• is a cuspule a small cusp?
  • Yes.
• "Flynn and colleagues identified wear facets five and six lingual to the distal metacristid–cristid obliqua and in front of the hypoconulid" I don't quite understand the first part-five or six wear facets were found? The wear facets are numbered 5 and 6? Could you gloss wear facet?
  • Clarified. Ucucha 19:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm satisfied that GA criteria are met, am promoting now. Sasata (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)