Wikipedia

Talk:Dichodon (mammal)

Latest comment: 2 months ago by FunkMonk in topic GA Review
Learn more about this page

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago157 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dichodon (mammal)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 02:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • There are a lot of duplinks, can be highlighted with the usual script.[1]
Addressed most duplicate links outside of ones in the lede section or cladogram. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • A bit of a shame there's no full body restoration? Could perhaps be of another species than the one there's currently a head of.
This is due to the unknown nature of the postcranial anatomy of xiphodonts other than Xiphodon itself, so only the head is constructed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I see it's complete in the size diagrams, though, what are those body dimensions based on? The Commons description doesn't make that clear, mentioning various skull material instead. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • One of the old figures may look even more interesting for the infobox than the current image there.
I'd rather avoid using old figures in the infobox for the most part unless absolutely necessary. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can understand that when it's outdated reconstructions, but here it's just old photos of fossils that look exactly the same today, with no outdated modifications. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I've made a Commons category[2], it previously redirected to a plant senior synonym. Could be populated with the other images.
Got it. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Strangely, the plant is under the genus Cerastium [3] on Commons. Do we know if that's actually the current name, and its Wikipedia page should be moved there? Then our animal article could lose the parenthesis.
Dichodon the plant genus appears to be valid based on quick searches from recent results in Google Scholar. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@FunkMonk Do you have a rough idea on when you will be able to start the review? PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've reviewed down to "Classification" now. There are a few things that need to be checked throughout, like how people are presented and capitalised species names. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "erected a new taxon classified to the clade called Dichodon" Seems an odd formulation. "Belonging to the/placed in the group"? Also, it seems anachronistic to use the term "clade" retroactively like this before anyone used it in this context.
  • " He noted that its fossils were found by Alexander Pytts Falconer from the Eocene beds of Hordle, England" Would be simple to just directly say the fossil was from there, instead of saying Owen stated it, which is quite a sidetrack.
Hmmm, one of the most relevant parts of the sentence is that Falconer found them, so if you don't remove that Owen stated this fact, just restore it to what it was. It seems to just make the sentence overly wordy and complicated to say that Owen said who found it and where, as it doesn't add anything to the reader other than extra words, as we can already assume it's from Owen's publication. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Slightly rephrased. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The sentence doesn't make it clear if that's all that was known, if it was, could be specified. But since the image also shows jaws, that can't be right? FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Added "cranial." PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nice, the new sentence has a few issues, there can only be one holotype, if there are more type specimens, they would be paratypes or syntypes. And a genus doesn't have a holotype, only species do. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Addressed above suggestion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to give the etymology of the generic name first? It is after all the first part of the binomial.
It's the order I'm concerned about. You start by mentioning the naming of the genus, then the species, but when it comes to etymologies, the order is reversed, which seems unnecessary. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "naturalist Vladimir Kovalevsky", "but Hans Georg Stehlin". Give nationality as you do for other people you mention for consistency. There seems to be others as well, like " by François Jules Pictet de la Rive", check throughout. Alternatively, remove nationality for them all.
  • "D. Valdense, and D. Frohnstettense" Why are the species names capitalised? You seem to do this throughout.
    • That's how the authors who erected the taxa originally named them. It used to often be that taxa named after individuals or places had their species names uppercase until later in the 20th century. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, we talked about adding the note elsewhere, I still don't think it's necessary to include those variants in the prose here after the first example, as modern studies wouldn't do that either when covering such names. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "and naming convention of D. Valdense" Not sure what convention would mean here. Etymology?
See below. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "that there was a small-sized species from the Swiss locality of Egerkingen, that it was smaller than D. Frohnstettense and that it would have been roughly the size of Cainotherium." This could be simpler: "that there was a small-sized species from the Swiss locality of Egerkingen, that was smaller than D. Frohnstettense and would have been roughly the size of Cainotherium. "
The two points above are unaddressed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe I already had, I might have forgotten to mark the suggestion as addressed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "he assigned the species name D. simplex" Could be clearer since it seems the point is that he added it to an existing genus, like: "Deciding not to establish a new genus because of incomplete material, he assigned to Dichodon as the species D. simplex".
  • "in 1910 suggested that Kovalevsky based the species on fossils previously described by François Jules Pictet de la Rive" But that he didn't name? Could be specified.
  • "and D. cervinus, the latter of which was previously erected and classified to the genus Dichobune by Owen in 1841" This is chronologically confusing: why do you only mention a species already named in 1841 down here instead of earlier when you cover Owen's other naming?
    • I'm following the typical taxonomic section format in which the recognition of the genus name is referenced first followed by species names and reclassification. I reference species not initially classified to a genus first only if I follow a research history format first, which I don't here. It's mainly for the sake of simplicity. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Makes sense, I misread Dichobune as Dichodon, they didn't make it easy when many of the names are so damn similar... FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "established the binomial name Tetraselenodon Kowalevskii based on fossils from the French department of Tarn-et-Garonne in 1886. He justified the genus by arguing that Pictet incorrectly referred it to Dichodon due to the dentition being simple-looking in form." This is somewhat confusing. Is this a new name for the taxon mentioned under "he assigned the species name D. simplex"? If so, state it, and why did he think he could just create a new name for it? And why is the specific name capitalised?
  • "Sudre therefore established the species D. lugdunensis." Why is this necessary when you start the sentence with "the French palaeontologist Jean Sudre erected D. lugdunensis"?
  • "although he emended D. subtile to D. subtilis and D. frohnstettense to D. frohnstettensis" Did he explain why? Of course because of some incongruence, but could be specified for the reader.
They look smaller than what I can get, so they should be updated by either of us. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The Classification section could need some more historical details, like was this genus classified as part of Xiphodontidae from the get go or did that come later? Especially since you have a photo of Owen there, I'd expect discussion of his initial thoughts on its relations. Otherwise you might as well use that space to show more relevant photos of more complete relatives or such.
    • I personally think that the specific family-related information should be reserved for the Xiphodontidae page for the sake of simplicity since the placement of Dichodon in the Xiphodontidae is uncontroversial. E.D. Cope did suggest a monotypic family Dichodontidae in 1889, although this was not followed by other paleontologists except for Charles Deperet, something worth covering in the Xiphodontidae page as a synonym. I could probably replace the classification image if that works better. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, it's definitely worth mentioning in this article that a family was named after it. It is directly relevant also because it tells something about the classification about this genus specifically. Doesn't have to be much, just what you say here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gave a brief mention. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "Some researchers considered the selenodont families" / "Other researchers tie them" likewise, we could need more context for these statements: who made these suggestions and when?
    • I do get the concerns, but I don't think that it needs to be touched upon further within the context of individual genera; the specific taxonomies of the families is likely better reserved for the family pages themselves if and when they're fully expanded (though that's a really long way to go). PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "making them the first selenodont dentition artiodactyl" Link and explain selenodont at first mention, and probably say "first representatives of artiodactyls with a selenodont dentition" for clarity.
  • "first appeared by MP14 of the Mammal Palaeogene zones" MP14 and this naming concept in general needs explanation, most readers won't know what this means even when you mention Mammal Palaeogene zones afterwards.
    • I'm not really sure that attempting to explain faunal units in a taxon page is a great idea
Already by just saying they're "faunal units" is better than nothing. There's the "don't make readers chase links" guideline for that.[4] FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Very well, mentioned "faunal unit." PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • You could probably make this easier for the readers if you added some common names after animal group names, like "even-toed ungulates" and "the group that includes camels" or similar.
  • "Other researchers tie them as being more closely related to ruminants" This seems to be a mix of two different ways of saying the same thing that don't work together; either "tie them together with ruminants" or "consider them more closely related to ruminants".
  • "In an article published in 2019, Romain Weppe et al. conducted a phylogenetic analysis on the Cainotherioidea within the Artiodactyla" I think you need to make clearer how :Dichodon itself ties into this and the preceding text, as you only mention it a single time at the beginning of the entire classification section.
  • Neither Xiphodontidae or Cainotherioidea are mentioned in the cladogram, which makes it difficult to connect it with the prose.
    • Well, Xiphodon, as referenced in the journal articles and their cladograms, is supposed to be a stand-in for the phylogenetic position of the Xiphodontidae itself. I do understand it being a bit difficult to connect to the subsection, but there doesn't seem to be an easy solution. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • There are no cladograms including Dichodon itself? If this is due to incompleteness or other things stated by the sources, it should be explained here, also where it would potentially fit in the tree (making it clearer it was the closest relative of Xiphodon, if that's the case). In general, that's the weakest point of the classification section, I don't really get much wiser on the relations of Dichodon itself. What's its closest relatives? Has its affinities jumped around?
    • There aren't really any journal article cladograms on Dichodon or Haplomeryx. The closest thing here is Xiphodon being the sole stand-in for the Xiphodontidae in one tree, something I elaborated on slightly earlier. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "as proposed by Alan W. Gentry and Hooker in 1988" See, this is some of the stuff I'd like to see elaborated on earlier in the section, to put the shifting schemes into chronological context. What were the various systems proposed across history, proposed by who and when? It reads confusingly/anachronistically that you only mention a scheme when it's being challenged by later studies.
  • "Within the Xiphodontidae, Weppe's phylogeny tree classified Haplomeryx as a sister taxon to the clade consisting of Xiphodon plus Dichodon" I assume he only includes Dichodon in his thesis version and not the published version? Which is a shame. But I think it should be stated explicitly, that he included it in one and not the other.
    • Well, the published tree includes non-EEPA artiodactyls that aren't outgroups while the thesis tree focuses almost entirely on European dichobunids and EEPAs. I explained in parentheses that the journal article tree only represents Xiphodon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Seems a shame to hide the restoration so far down the article when there's plenty of room in the description section, for example under skull, where it would make sense.
Sure, now it's just a bit crammed there with another image, whereas there is plenty of space in the skull section. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "Dechaseaux considered that the two xiphodontid genera may have been more derived than North American Palaeogene tylopods." This seems to be about classification, not biology. Unless it can be elaborated on to make it relevant to the section.
  • "Due to the lack of postcranial evidence of other xiphodonts, it is not possible to prove that the postcranial morphologies of Dichodon and Haplomeryx were similar to those of Xiphodon" A bit confusing, I think you mean "Due to the lack of postcranial evidence of other xiphodonts other than Xiphodon"? Would make it clearer if you said that upfront instead of hiding Xiphodon at the end of the sentence.
  • I've reviewed Classification now, but note I've also added some important points to previous replies.
  • "Compared to Xiphodon, Dichodon lacks diagnoses based on cranial anatomy." Unsure what this means. Does its skull lack diagnostic features, or is there a lack of sources giving diagnoses based on skull features? Either way, should be made clear. And if the latter, perhaps just write that it lacks sources that discuss the skull, as "diagnosis" is a bit over the head for most readers if you don't give more context.
  • "along with a mandible of D. cervinum that was figured by the French palaeontologist Charles Depéret in 1917." This reads as if she had to base it on that figure and not the specimen itself, if not, should be clarified.
  • "The external nostrils are wide in their middle and are close in position to the end area of the premaxilla." Not sure what "wide in their middle" means, and "at the front of the premaxilla" would be clearer than "end area", if that's what you mean.
  • Some terms seem to be linked at second instead of first mention, check throughout. I see premaxilla and others mentioned earlier, but there are possibly more.
  • "The lacrimal fossa on D. cervinum is well-developed and therefore affects the maxilla, nasal bones, and frontal bone." Not sure what "affects" means, extends across/covers?
  • It can be hard to follow the description section because many anatomical terms and their positions aren't explained.
  • "The mandible of the xiphodont" Unclear what you mean here, if you refer to Dichodon, use that name, otherwise it reads as if you mean xiphodonts in general. If you do mean that, say "xiphodonts" plural.
I know what quadrupedal means in an animal, I have no idea what it means for a tooth, so I doubt most layreaders know either. Four roots? Four cusps? FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The tooth itself has a quadrupedal shape. Reworded phrasing slightly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm still very puzzled by this. What is a quadrupedal shape? Do you mean quadrangular or quadratic? "Quadrupedal" always means "four-legged" as far as I'm aware. What does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
… I’m a fool, intended “quadrangular” the whole time, corrected. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "The four-cusped trait on the xiphodontid genus" As before, just use the genus name, this is wordy and harder to follow. While it's probably for variation, it's better to be very clear and simple in a text that is already complicated.
  • "including the earliest-appearing D. simplex of Egerkingen." Why do we need its location? Doesn't add much under description, and you don't give it for any other species mentioned there.
  • What was the assignment of those postcranial bones based on? Were they found near skull material?
  • "Alternatively, D. vidalenci?" You seem to add the question mark randomly, and with no explanation. Best to keep it under taxonomy only to avoid confusion. Also, the quoted sentence itself seems to belong under taxonomy, not description.
  • The last paragraph under Dentition reads like it really belongs under classification, being about evolutionary trends and relationships rather than dry description.
  • "The two species very large species were" Double "species".
  • "The weight estimates of Palaeogene artiodactyls, calculated from dental measurements or those of astragali, have included Xiphodon in the case of a 2019 study by Helder Gomes Rodriguez et al." Very convoluted, could just be "In 2019, Helder Gomes Rodriguez et al. included weight estimates of Palaeogene artiodactyls including Xiphodon, calculated from dental measurements or those of astragali, but not but not the other xiphodont genera Dichodon and Haplomeryx".
  • "Estimated size comparison of D. cervinum, D. lugdunensis, and D. cuspidatum based on known fossil remains" As mentioned earlier, if they are known for so little, it's unclear what the diagram is based on. Could be clearer in the Commons description.
Yes, but that is not a citation for the size estimate for Xiphodon that was followed, that should be included for it to be of use. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "In particular, the dentition of D. stehlini is very large, attesting to the gigantism of it and D. cuspidatum compared to other species" Saying something is large or small is pretty hard to decipher when no measurements are given. Are there skull or jaw lengths these sizes are deduced from to add from the sources?
  • "The Grande Coupure is often marked by palaeontologists as part of the Eocene-Oligocene boundary as a result at 33.9 Ma" The placement of "as a result" is confusing, if this is what you mean, would be easier to understand if you start the sentence with "As a result,".
  • "A panorama of the Headon Hill Formation in the Isle of Wight. The stratigraphy of it and the Bouldnor Formation" Neither of these formations are mentioned in the text, so there is a disconnect for the reader. I wonder if there are other graphs or maps that would be more directly related to the prose in that section, or if there could be more direct reference to what the caption says in the article text.
  • "The xiphodontid had" As earlier, but since it makes more sense in the less complicated intro, should say "This xiphodontid" or such, to make it specific.
  • "it differs from them by the "molarization" of the fourth premolars, meaning that the top teeth appear quadrangular while the bottom ones appear more triangular." See, this is the kind of explanation the article body also needs.
  • "with various other fauna that also evolved with strong levels of endemism." Should be "fauna" or just "animals", otherwise it (faunas) means specific groups of animals in a given time or place.
    • Replaced with "animals." 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • "Some of the first undisputed xiphodont species to appear in the fossil record are D. ruetimeyeri of the Egerkingen-Huppersand locality of Switzerland (MP13? or MP14?) and D. cartieri of the Egerkingen α + β locality (MP14).[19][34][41] By then, it would have coexisted with" Why singular when you just listed two species?
  • ".[15][20]The xiphodont genus is recorded in" Again, extra confusing you don't just state the genus name in these very long and complicated lists of taxa. Also, space is needed after the preceding citations.

@FunkMonk Alright, I addressed as much as I could and left comments. Let me know what other issues need to be resolved. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added some answers above and further points below, also copied some issues down that were unaddressed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "The particular xiphodont genus" While I'm sure you're going for variety, I just don't think it works making the sentence even more wordy and convoluted, why not just use the genus name to be completely clear? After all, we're trying to explain complicated concepts in simple words for layreaders.
  • "In 2019, Helder Gomes Rodriguez et al. included weight estimates of Palaeogene artiodactyls including Xiphodon" A bit repetetive with the double "include", perhaps say "published weight estimates"?
  • The following point from earlier wasn't adressed: "The lacrimal fossa on D. cervinum is well-developed and therefore affects the maxilla, nasal bones, and frontal bone." Not sure what "affects" means, extends across/covers?

@FunkMonk I believe that the last major issue is covered. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, nice, I was pretty baffled there haha, looks good to me now, promoting. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dichodon_(mammal)&oldid=1240173525"