Talk:Hadropithecus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 16:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave the article a quick lookover earlier today and it should be close to GA. I'll read it again in more detail later today. Do you think you have incorporated all relevant information? It is looking pretty comprehensive, since it's probably not a very well-known animal. Ucucha 16:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I found a source lising Pithecodon von Liburnau, 1900, as a synonym. It's not listed in McKenna and Bell, though. You might want to include it. See also this article. Ucucha 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! I will work on incorporating the new info. As for comprehensiveness, it covers just about everything from all the major secondary sources... excluding some extensive details about its teeth, which I'm saving for a future re-write where I will comb academic literature and (hopefully) acquire enough detailed information to push for FA. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps some of the skull reconstruction part from the paper I linked could also be included?

Comments:

• "although recent finds have caused some dispute" - dispute about what?
• "Therefore Hadropithecus stenognathus means "Large ape with a narrow jaw", despite the fact that it is a large lemur, not an ape." - perhaps strike this sentence; it doesn't add much that is not in the previous sentences and may be considered original research.
• "anthropoid primate" - it's better to avoid such jargon when possible. Did he think it was an Old World monkey (cercopithecid)? If so, you'd better say just that.
• "Originally thought to have been a sister group to the living indriids" - what "originally"? You just said that von Liburnau thought it was an anthropoid. That sentence is rather long and convoluted, by the way; you'd probably better split it anyway.
• Do we need the taxonomic list in the middle of the article? The cladogram already fulfils much of its function.
• "Due to its specialized dentition and likely diet, Hadropithecus is thought to have been the more terrestrial of the two." - what else did Archaeolemur do? Did it live in trees?
• "Hadropithecus had shorter metatarsals and limbs, as well as a broader thorax." - compared to A. or baboons?
• "incisors and strepsirrhine toothcomb" - aren't the incisors part of the toothcomb?
• "it is thought to have been terrestrial or semi-terrestrial, an unusual trait for lemurs" - perhaps put this with the other stuff about terrestriality in the previous section?
• "It was probably a manual grazer" - I have no idea what a "manual grazer" is, and grazing doesn't enlighten me. Did it use its hands to grab the grass before eating it or did it always first read the manual before eating its food?
• "It disappeared completely from Madagascar around 444–772 CE." - perhaps say "The last known record was radiocarbon dated to around 444–772 CE." (assuming that is correct)

Ucucha 21:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to add as much detail from the article mentioned above without diving into the level of anatomical detail I hope to someday add for a FAC run. Most or all other issues have been addressed and need review. To address of few points here:

• The source said "anthropoid primate", and since he gave it a scientific name with "pithecus" ("ape"), I'm assuming he thought it was an ape. If you have a better idea, feel free to change it.

• "-pithecus" is also commonly used for monkeys, so that's not a very strong argument. However, I found von Liburnau's paper online here, and the does explicitly call H. a "Menschenaffe" (ape). You could cite it here and a few other times. (I also found Lorenz 1902 here. He synonymizes Pithecodon with Hadrolemur and notes that Hadrolemur is not an ape, but a lemur, and related to Nesopithecus (=Archaeolemur). He also has some great pictures of the bones, which I am going to upload here. Ucucha 13:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• First one done, more to come later. Ucucha 13:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• We also have File:Hadropithecus, Megaladapis Lorenz pl II.png now. Let me know if you need any help with the German if you want to include more information from these papers. Ucucha 14:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've included the material and photos, leaving the refs blank and commented out for you to fill in... which I've noticed you're already doing!  :-) Let me know what you think. I just wish the new article you pointed me to would have release its contents under CC-BY-SA so that we could include the most recent reconstructions. Oh, btw... there's an error in the File:Hadropithecus, Megaladapis Lorenz pl II.png description. "X" is used twice when one should be "IX". I can't read German, so I can't fix it. Anyway, thanks for going the extra mile! – VisionHolder « talk » 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the attempt at the new layout, but there were some problems as mentioned in the revision summary. Also, the ref for the 1899 paper still needs to be filled in. It's hidden in the Classification text. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. I don't like the current layout much (the new images are too small and the whitespace next to them is ugly), but mine wasn't too good either. Ucucha 17:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and hopefully by adding more content at a later date, I will be able to address this. It's just a case of having too many large pictures and other illustrations and not enough text. If only I could use the new skull illustrations, then that would at least kill some of the white-space. Alternatively, I could force the images to a larger size, similar to how Materialscientist did on Illegal logging in Madagascar earlier today. Anyway, don't forget to fix that description error described above on WikiCommons. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for reminding me about the X; I wrote about that earlier but you edit-conflicted me, so that most of my comment became unnecessary, but I forgot to save that part. The error is actually in the original, and since I am reproducing the original caption there, I have kept it as it was. Ucucha 17:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The taxonomic list was included because many other primate articles have had them, including some of my FAs. (I just never got rid of it during my re-writes.) Anyway, I've deleted it. I've always like cladograms better anyway.
• The shorter metatarsals and broad thorax sentence was actually about Archaeolemur and was added due to sleep deprivation on my part. It has been removed.

Otherwise, let me know what you think. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes made! I made one more comment above, and once that's sorted out I'll be happy to pass this article. Ucucha 13:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! Ucucha 17:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)