Talk:Enhydriodon

Deletion?

"This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about an individual animal (e.g. a pet) that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."

Eh? It's an article about a genus, not an individual.... 71.233.90.196 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Enhydriodon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 18:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Alright, I did a pretty thorough peer review here[1] with the FAC criteria in mind, so I'll see what has been changed since then, so I don't anticipate much more has to be done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Enhydriodon is known well by its advanced dentition" Well-known for? Not sure what the current sentence means. And well-known seems a bit strong, I doubt it's well-known for much more than specialists. Or "its advanced dentition is well-known"?
  • Changed to the latter suggestion and revised the sentence slightly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Bunodont dentition refers to typically molars" Not sure what "typically molars" means. "Bunodont dentition refers to molars that typically have"?
  • Fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• I know you prefer it, but using "et al." is discouraged in the MOS, so you're ready if that gets brought up during FAC.
  • I guess I'll be prepared for such. I can bring this up on the MOS talk page and try to validate usage of "et al." sometime. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• "Erections and statuses of African species" While I know what it means, "erections" does sound a little funny. Why not simply "naming"? I think "status" singular would work better too.
  • Changed the title. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Since these are mainly known for their teeth, it would make more sense, and be more attractive as the first image the viewer sees, to use the image of the dentition there.
  • To use where? PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

As the first image in the taxobox. They're not exactly known for their limbs, it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• It is advised that subjects of images face the text, so the restoration could be right aligned for that.
  • Should be addressed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Also best that life restoration or similar is linked in the caption, so that the reader is redirected to paleoart, as this has caused confusion in the past. There is a chance that some reviewers will ask that "hypothetical" is added in front of the caption.
  • Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• The restoration could also need some citations in its Commons description that supports how it's depicted. Any sources you think would fit?
  • I suppose pull from the 1992 source by Verma and Gupta. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• All species and synonyms should redirect here.
  • I don't think creating all redirects is really necessary, but I created one for the type species. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

All valid species should be redirected, though, as this is the article where they're covered, in case someone searched for them. Some may even search for the synonyms if they are reading older literature, has certainly helped me a lot when researching old taxa.

Alright fine, linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)