Talk:Cryptoprocta spelea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "In some, it occurs together with C. ferox" unclear… do you mean occurs with subfossil bones of C. ferox?
  • Yes, clarified.
• "positive evidence" -> conclusive evidence
  • Just evidence seems enough.
• link or gloss species pair, extant
  • Species pair seems a straightforward term (it redirects to "cryptic species complex", by the way, which doesn't make much sense) that doesn't need explanation. Swapped "extant" for "living".

• Further research reveals that "species pair" is a specific term used in lichen biology (although other biological disciplines use it as well) to refer to otherwise morphologically identical species that reproduce differently. I'll start a stub sometime. Sasata (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• "G. Petit, writing in 1935," Shouldn't start sentence with an abbreviation… can you find his first name?
  • No, unfortunately. His surname is French for "small", and a rather common word, which doesn't help.
• any details on how the antamba jaw was different?
  • Not in Goodman et al.—will have to dig up Lamberton for that.
• "specific name" is linked in the second paragraph of Taxonomy, but there's an unlinked "species name" in the first para
  • Done.
• link postcranial
  • Done.
• "…and it was among the top carnivores of the island." clarify what is meant by "top carnivore"
  • Just the largest, changed.
• any value in including a map with the collection locations indicated?
  • Yes, will do (sometime).
• …suggesting that the two species may ecologically have been able to coexist." -> "ecologically coexist" sounds like an odd construction to me… there's a word for this but I can't seem to remember it now
  • Was clumsy wording, changed.

Ah, now I remember... sympatry. Sasata (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• "…it may have eaten some of the big, now extinct subfossil lemurs that would have been too large for C. ferox, as well as smaller lemurids." ambiguous wording; could mean that C. spelea ate both subfossil lemurs and smaller lemurids, or that C. spellea and lemurids ate subfossil lemurs, or that subfossil lemurs were too big for the lemurids. Yes, it's deducible from context, but should be tweaked for unambiguity.
  • Moved around.
• have you tried a Google Book search? There's a few snippets that might be useful... see for example this, which mentions that it may have predated Megaladapis; this snippet mentions the "Methuen collection" (not sure what that is)
  • I did. The article already says that it probably ate subfossil lemurs (such as Megaladapis), but that there's no direct evidence; I don't think it would add anything to mention Megaladapis specifically. I think I cited an abstract about the Methuen collection in some other subfossil Madagascar article, but it didn't say anything about this species except that they found it.

• how about a pic of an extant fossa?
  • Good idea, done.

Thanks for reviewing! One question for you: you changed "there is more than one surviving species" to "there are more than one surviving species", which sounds really odd to me. Are you sure it is correct? Ucucha 17:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed my error. Everything looks fine, will pass later tonight after I can read it through again carefully without worldly distractions. Sasata (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead, I suggest simplifying contemporaneous for some smaller words
  • Done.
• In Goodman et al (2004) they mention that the subfossil remains are "presumed Holocene", and later "from Holocene paleontological sites", shouldn't that be mentioned in the article?
  • Added.
• the lead says "However, some authors do not accept the two as distinct species." But the dissenting view offered is from Köhncke and Leonhardt, an almost 25-year old opinion. Perhaps the lead sentence should instead say something like "in the past, some authors have not accepted the two" to better reflect the current thought?
  • I might be a bit biased here, because I think Goodman et al.'s evidence that it is a distinct species is rather weak. I changed it to a different wording.
• what was in Grandidier 1905?
  • Will have to look up.
• maybe mention explicitly that Grandidier did not specify a holotype specimen? Similarly, should mention that Goodman et al. designated a neotype
  • Thought it might be too technical, but added.
• I think it's interesting and germaine to this article that there are at least 17 known extinct species of lemur, most of which were larger than the current versions (it's hinted at already but I think the details would be a worthy addition)
  • Added, and also threw in the elephant birds and the hippos.
• doncha think the 2 m long 30 kg fossa in a henhouse reported in Louvel 1954 is worthy of a mention?
  • Why not? Rather doubtful record, though. Ucucha 07:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions, I think it's "Good" enough to promote. Sasata (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written, complies with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Well-cited to reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One image with appropriate license.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: