Talk:Indraloris

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this. Guettarda (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The overall structure of the lead could use some work. At present, like most leads, it follows the structure of the article, but it should also serve as an easy-to-follow introduction to the topic, especially when it a fairly obscure topic. My suggestion would be to make the main points in the first or second sentence: not just 'fossil primate from the Miocene', but also some sense of how long ago (the "Distribution and ecology" section actually does this quite well; you might want to reproduce the structure of that section). The names of the species and the approximate size should come before the (convoluted) taxonomic history. And the possible third, unnamed species, should be linked more closely with the other two - putting the location where the material was found in between the first two species and the unnamed third breaks the flow and makes it seem like the subject is the Potwar Plateau rather than the (potential) third species.

Taxonomy

As complicated as the taxonomy section is, it would be helpful to give the reader a roadmap up front: two recognised species, a third unnamed species is likely (and perhaps the fact that Vasishat recognises a fourth species, but other workers do not). Then tell the story of how we got here. In addition, since the last paragraph mentions the newer material found by Flynn and Morgan you might also want to mention the material (tentatively?) assigned to the third unnamed species.

Description

There's a rather notable shift between the lead and the Description section with regards to the "large unnamed species". In the lead it's just "other material"; here it's "The unnamed large Indraloris". It might also interest some readers to say a word or two about how size is estimated (allometric equations?) Without something like that, it just seems like a wild guess. Guettarda (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I've rearranged the lead a little to put anatomical detail and taxonomic history in the second paragraph. I've also added an initial summary paragraph to the taxonomy section. I don't think I see your point about the unnamed species—as far as I can see, I refer to it throughout the article as an unnamed species. Vasishat did not recognize a fourth species; instead, he considered Indraloris and Sivaladapis to be congeneric and Indraloris himalayensis and Sivaladapis nagrii to be conspecific. I suppose that may have meant he recognized Sivaladapis palaeindicus as an additional species of Indraloris (my sources don't say), but in any case I. kamlialensis had not been described yet at that time. Ucucha (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Chopra and Vasishat did list palaeindicus as a second Indraloris species; sorry for missing that previously. Ucucha (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The description section is necessarily dense. While I think it could be made more readable, but it's well within what we expect from a GA or FA.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All looks good here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems comprehensive in its coverage.

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):

   Not applicable, no images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice article!