Talk:Duerotherium/GA1
Latest comment: 3 days ago by Jens Lallensack in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 15:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm on it now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- As for the classification section, I am worried about GA criterion 3b: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. – I don't think it stays focused on the topic, as almost the entire classification section is not really about Duerotherium itself. It reads like a section that should belong in the Anoplotheriidae article. I understand that there is not much to say about Duerotherium itself (apparently it has never been included in a phylogenetic analysis?), but then, the other information is just context/background and should be much (much) more concise (see WP:Summary style). I suggest to move that text into Anoplotheriidae and only leave a brief summary here – except for the information that is actually specific for this genus.
- Such a huge cladogram that does not even have Duerotherium included? It is fine to have it to illustrate broader relationships, but I really think it should be much, much more simplified, with only the major groups (and perhaps some species as outgroups) shown, and the rest collapsed.
- his academic thesis – Should say "Phd thesis"
- Note that much of paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 of "Classification" is redundant. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not yet planning on working on the Anoplotheriidae article, so that's for future me to deal with. For now, I decided to cut down the classication subsection a bit as requested. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The paragraph on Weppe could be written much more concisely with the same information. In addition, there is some information that I don't think is really relevant here (such as Anoplotherioidea, which have not been mentioned before. Also, if he did a cladogram including Duerotherium, why isn't that included in the article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)