Wikipedia

Talk:Palaeotherium/GA2

< Talk:Palaeotherium
Latest comment: 1 day ago by PrimalMustelid in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago82 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 04:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply


Hi there, I will review this now. A difficult topic since a modern revision does not seem to exist. My main concern is the language; the article does not quite meet criterion 1 (reasonably well written). My general advice is to keep it as simple as possible. Within a sentence, try to mention the most important information first. Also, our audience include people without knowledge about all these technical terms, and we should get them on board, too. Below two examples how to put this advice in action:

  • The first sentence in the lead says Palaeotherium is the type genus of the extinct Palaeogene perissodactyl family Palaeotheriidae, close relatives of the Equidae (horses and relatives) whose closest ancestors diverged by the Palaeocene to early Eocene. – Notice that the sentence is 1) very long and therefore not simple (one resulting problem is an ambiguity with "whose", does that refer to Palaeotheriidae or Equidae?); 2) contains too many technical terms, including four (!) in a row (Palaeogene perissodactyl family Palaeotheriidae) that form a large MOS:Seaofblue; 3) does not provide the key information first (for example, this article is about Palaeotherium, so we first want to know when and where Palaeotherium lived, not when the "closest ancestors diverged"). Instead, you could write something like this: Palaeotherium is an extinct genus of perissodactyl that lived in Europe and possibly the Middle East from the middle Eocene to the early Oligocene epochs. The eponymous genus of the family Palaeotheriidae, it was closely related to the ancestors of horses (Equidae).
  • Paragraph "List of lineages": Since 1968, many species of Palaeotherium have multiple defined subspecies due to taxonomic revisions conducted by Franzen involving new species plus subspecies erections and conversions of some species into subspecies that were accepted by subsequent authors. From his dissertation was he able to justify the subspecies by proof of various intraspecific variations. – A lot of text here for stuff that you already discussed in the paragraph on Franzen. Instead, I would just stick with the crucial points – what does this list show? I'm not sure myself because you don't explicitly say; how do you determine what to put into this list and what not?

Another problem is, in my opinion, the level of detail, which in places seems excessive, especially in the "Description" section. Much more readers will enjoy the article if you keep it concise (and reviewers will be happer, too). Again, few examples for now:

  • Compared to the earlier-appearing pachynolophines, the palaeotheriines have more molarized deciduous premolars. For instance, Stehlin illustrated a Mormont fossil of P. renevieri with erupted dP1-dP4 plus an unerupted M1. dP1 appears small and triangular in shape with two buccal cusps (paracone and metacone cusps) and a smaller posterolingual cusp. dP2-dP4, in comparison, are molariform in shape and have four major cusps. Stehlin theorized that the dP1 tooth is unreplaced by any adult P1 due to the similar sizes of the milk tooth to the adult tooth. A juvenile skull of P. magnum with deciduous premolars was described by Remy in 1985, who noted their molarized forms. As is the case for the juvenile P. renevieri, the dP1 of the juvenile P. magnum is triangular in shape and has two close buccal cusps plus a smaller posterolingual cusp. It also shares the trait of molariform, four-cusped dP2-dP4. While Remy proposed that an adult P1 had already replaced its deciduous counterpart in P. magnum at an early age, there is no strong evidence to support his claim. – I think that this can easily reduced to just two sentences without loosing pertinent information.
  • I don't see the point for giving all those measurements for the footprints; those will be different for every discovered trackway anyways. The footprint section could be much condensed.
  • The cladogram seems pretty large, too; some genera could be collapsed (e.g., we don't need to see all the species of Pachynolophus when we don't even see them for Palaeotherium itself?)

Yet another problem is the lack of recent revisions, and that the literature where many of the claims are based on is pretty old to a point where we often cannot assume that the stuff is still accepted knowledge. We need to be very careful here. For example, I don't think that most trackers would agree with Ellenberger that particular footprints can be ascribed to particular genera or even species; and in newer articles you see Palaeotheriipus being introduced as a paleotheriid track only.

    • I don't think the literature being somewhat recent is much of a problem; 1992 is relatively recent and unlikely to be updated. A few more species and subspecies were recognized afterward, but there aren't any changes to the validities of taxa recognized by Remy in 1992. Also if it helps, Majid Mirzaie Ataabadi and Ahmad Reza Khazaee referenced the type ichnospecies assignment to P. medium by Ellenberger and didn't state that they disagreed or agreed with it (same with the ichnospecies assigned to P. magnum). I'm just going by the books here by listing verified information about these assignments and referencing that they've been stated by specific authors rather than listing them as undisputed information. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Minor comments:

  • As shown in the above phylogeny, the Palaeotheriidae is defined as a monophyletic clade – It's the other way around: Every taxon is defined as a monophyletic clade. We define clades based on stem or node, e.g., "all taxa that are more closely related to taxon x than to taxon y". This is the definition, and a taxon which such a definition is monophyletic per definition. A phylogenetic analysis can either demonstrate this monophyly (then, you could write "is recovered as a monophyletic clade"), or render the clade redundant.
  • postcanine diastemata – There is only one diastema per side, right? So why use plural here, when you use singular when referring to the paired skull bones?
I only see one postcanine diastema though (the one directly behind the canine)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm not really sure if having a singular form helps all that much because I'm ultimately referring to all four postcanine diastemata, but implemented for two out of the three sentences. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hope this helps so far. Please go through the article again with these things in mind, and when you're ready, I will have a another look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and thanks for initiating the review! I will get to implementing your suggestions within a few days and update you on when I’ve done so. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jens Lallensack Obligatory tag because I’ve been addressing the issues so far. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • had amphibious behaviours – "had an amphibious lifestyle" maybe? Being aquatic or terrestrial is not commonly described as a "behaviour".
  • suggesting initially that they could have belonged to the canid genus Canis based on its dentition – "based on its" clearly refers to "Canis" here, but the referral can only be based on the fossils, not the modern genus?
  • Not long after in the same year, he changed his mind and thought that the fossil mammal instead would have been within the order of pachyderms, theorizing that it would have been closest to tapirs and that it would have had trunks like them. – I found this a bit tedious to read, as you use many words for comparatively little content. It could be formulated more precisely: "Later in the same year, he instead suggested that the fossils belonged to a pachyderm that was most closely related to tapirs and had trunks like them."
  • The fossils of Montmartre were credited with great importance to the field of palaeontology, as the fossil taxa found near Paris were embedded in deeper and harder sediments, falling between the Pleistocene-aged mammals and the Cretaceous-aged reptiles. – This sentence gives me some headache, particularly the part "as the fossil taxa found near Paris were embedded in deeper and harder sediments"; may I ask where this explanation is provided in the cited source?
    • I forgot to add "than other fossil mammals such as Megatherium." That said:
      • Per a few sentences in the chapter: "The Montmartre fossils changed the situation dramatically. Remains of extinct animals were found not only in remote places but nearby and, so to speak, under the feet of the Parisians. Moreover, unlike the mammoth, the mastodon, and the megatherium, these fossils did not lie in superficial deposits; they were embedded in deep, hard rocks" (257) and, more indirectly, "The third volume focused especially on the Montmartre’s animals from the Tertiary period, and the fourth volume on some mammals and reptiles whose fossil bones had been found elsewhere, including the famous Maestricht animal, or mosasaur, from the Secondary period" (270). PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • In 1804, Georges Cuvier described the sets of fossils – you already shortened to just "Cuvier" earlier, so stick with that. Also, "the" implies that the sets have already been mentioned, or are the only sets from the quarries; just remove this word?
  • The second paragraph in "First descriptions" does not really make clear that Cuvier initially described new material, not the fossils described by Lamanon. This could be clearer.
    • It's unclear as to whether or not the skull first described by Lamanon in 1782 was also described by Cuvier in the 1790s, as he didn't specify or figure the fossils themselves outside that they were from Montmartre. We can definitely infer from his mention of there being multiple species that he described additional material, but P. medium is more unclear. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • In 1804, Georges Cuvier described the sets of fossils from the gypsum quarries of the outskirts of Paris (known as the Paris Basin). – You seem to refer to the same localities that you previoulsy introduced as "the quarries of Montmartre, a large hill near Paris, France"? This is confusing, I would just refer to that first mention, so that the reader knows what you are talking about.
  • The naturalist, recognizing that its separate affinities from other mammals, – It is preferred to just call him "Cuvier", and stick with it. Also, the sentence has some grammar error somewhere. Maybe "recognizing that the fossil is distinct from other mammals"?
  • established the first species name Palaeotherium medium – remove the "first" (or explain earlier that he named two species at once). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jens Lallensack Can we continue the review process? I know that you have this article in the GAN backlog, so it’d help to do so within the next few days. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I have not forgotten about it; I am just pondering about how to best continue this without it taking forever. Our problem still is GA criterion 1 ("reasonably well-written"), and I think we are not there yet (I see that the previous reviewer had the same concern). The article is just damn hard to read. That is, I think, the consequence of several issues that all come together:
  • Language/grammar issues
  • lack of focus within paragraphs (you sometimes provide so many details that it is unclear what the takeaway message actually is supposed to be).
  • the length and great level of detail (you often do not seem to apply WP:Summary style to a necessary degree and tend to convey almost the same level of detail that is presented in the sources).
  • you are not really writing for a general audience (yes, you link/explain technical terms, which is good, but you expect that the reader knows all the concepts you are discussing).
To illustrate what I mean, I will comment on the last paragraph of "Dentition" again, on which I already commented on above:
  • use of different terms when referring to the same thing (milk tooth vs deciduous tooth; an ignorant reader has to assume these mean different things)
  • use of complex, unexplained notation (e.g., dP2-dP4) instead of spelling it out.
  • the palaeotheriines have more molarized deciduous premolars – this is just too technical (three complicated terms in a row), but it is also ambiguous: A reader might think that "more deciduous premolars" means that the number of deciduous premolars was higher.
  • After understanding what the first sentence means (which is not so easy for a general reader), we assume that the paragraph will be about this fact – the molarisation of premolars, or something related to it. But no, we suddenly get a discussion on the first deciduous premolar, and whether it gets replaced or not. The first sentence is not really pertinent to this discussion, it confuses the readers because they are expecting something that is based on that sentence. This is an example of lack of focus: Your main point of discussion becomes mired within other information, which may be important, but should be discussed separately so that the reader can follow the text. Instead, maybe start the paragraph with your focus point: The first deciduous premolar. Alternatively, you could include an editorial sentence after the first sentence: "It is unclear whether or not the first deciduous premolar is replaced by an adult one", and then continue with the two different hypothesis. This provides the necessary "red thread", guiding the reader through the text.
  • As is the case for the juvenile P. renevieri, the dP1 of the juvenile P. magnum is triangular in shape and has two close buccal cusps plus a smaller posterolingual cusp. It also shares the trait of molariform, four-cusped dP2-dP4. – Here you are repeating all the details you already mentioned for the other specimen. If you insist of keeping these details in the first place, you could at least condense it (In two specimens, the first deciduous premolar is triangular … Stehlin, while discussing the first specimen, proposes that … Remy, while discussing the second specimen, instead proposed that …).
  • Stehlin theorized that the dP1 tooth is unreplaced by any adult P1 – "unreplaced" looks like a grammar error to me; maybe "will not be replaced by an"
  • tooth is unreplaced by any adult P1 due to the similar sizes of the milk tooth to the adult tooth. – The wording is, again, ambiguous as best: It reads as if the similar sizes are the reason why the P1 cannot replace the deciduous tooth, but in fact you want to say that the similar sizes are the evidence that resulted in the hypothesis.
This is a super important article, and you seem to have an excellent overview over the literature and a very deep knowledge about the topic, and I am happy to invest more time in helping you, but obviously we can't continue at this pace. I have to try to persuade you of the necessity of some drastic changes, so that you amend the remainder of the article with the above points in mind before I continue with the review. I know that we are very reluctant to remove any detail from the article, but I wonder what audience you are writing for? Imagine you have to review an article about, let's say, a spider, that is as long as this one, and written in the same style; would you enjoy reading it, or would you rather enjoy a shorter, more concise text that focusses on the main points while properly introducing the discussed concepts and keeping technical terms at a minimum to make it easy to follow and engaging to read? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm guessing that the problems lie mainly within the description section (I may simplify the "Early taxonomy and depictions" a bit), though do correct me if mistaken. That said, I am more than willing to cooperate with you to improve readability of the article. You did mention that we are seemingly reluctant to remove details of the article, and indeed I cannot determine which ones are not "important enough" that they should be removed. There definitely isn't an easy solution to this; I recognize that I need to primarily write for a casual audience just looking briefly for easy information, but I personally also have an audience seeking directions for further information in mind.
That said, I mostly limit this information to the genus level unless there are clearly distinct and large traits separating one species from another. I understand the concerns that you bring up, but when the standard for articles of popular fossil taxa has been mostly extensive and somewhat dense description section (I mean like multiple large paragraphs of multiple subsections too), I cannot immediately determine which information is "not important enough" to include and probably need others to inform me. I'll try to figure this out within a few days, fixing grammar and prose issues where present at the very least.
Also, I made some mistakes while attempting to simplify the deciduous premolars paragraph. I addressed the repeated information concerns, hope this fixes all the issues. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is much better, yes (although some issues I pointed out are still there). You seem to have introduced an inaccuracy now: The abbreviations I, C, P, M refer to the upper dentition only (in the lower jaw, its i, c, p, m). However, the article seems to imply that they refer to both the upper and lower dentition. In any case, it might be easier for the reader to follow when just spelled out.
Regarding the length of the Description section: It is true that these got generally longer recently, but it was not always like this; in the older dinosaur FAs, they were rarely more than three paragraphs long. That's the other extreme of course, and we have to find some balance; making the article comprehensive and informative even for experts, while also not throwing the lay reader over borad. It is, I think, the most difficult aspect of writing palaeo articles, and yes, it is not always obvious what to include and what not, especially if it comes to plain morhological description. I personally only mention anatomical features that have some immediate relevance (i.e, they are apomorphies, have functional relevance that can be explained, or are important for the general appearance of the animal). But yes, it is partly subjective, and there is certainly no hard limit how long that section can be. In any case, I believe this particular description section is the longest I have seen so far, and could certainly do with shortening. That does not mean that some content should be removed entirely; rather, the existing content could be simplified where possible (as you have done now with the last section of "Dentition"). I will continue with the history section soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Someone told me about one solution to handling this: would it help if I made a separate anatomy article for where most of the anatomy-based subsections will be imported, leading to replacement with a more summarized version in the main article (a similar solution to those of research history sections)? If it works out here, perhaps this can be a standard for fossil taxon articles with more abundant anatomical information moving forward. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is an excellent idea, and exactly what WP:Summary style is clalling for. It would allow you to reduce that section to half its size or more, making it general and accessible enough for the general audience, while keeping the more specialised content in the spin-off article. And yes, that could be a template for other articles where the description section got a bit too long; I don't remember any paleo article where we did that. For Tyrannosaurus, we did follow this strategy, although with different sections (Specimens of Tyrannosaurus, Tyrannosaurus in popular culture, Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Great, I'll work on that in a few days and will let you know by then when I'm finished. In the meantime, you can continue to review the research history section as you stated earlier. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jens Lallensack Done simplifying the anatomy-based subsections and transferred much of the information to its own anatomy page as linked in the article. Hope this resolves the problem. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

More comments

edit
  • Shouldn't "Classification" be a major heading rather than subheading?
  • The phylogenetic tree for several members of the family Palaeotheriidae within the order Perissodactyla (including three outgroups) – remove "within the order Perissodactyla", since it is not shown and is misleading ("outgroups" can refer to Perissodactyla too; I first thought that was the case). Also, say "as well as" instead of "including", since the outgroups are not included in Palaeotheriidae.
  • and Pachynolophinae; not all authors agree on the latter as a palaeotheriid subfamily, however – Unclear. This reads as if some authors think that this subfamily should be outside Palaeotheriidae, but maybe you wanted to say that they doubt it forms a natural group (monophyletic clade)?
  • The geographic range of the palaeotheres were in contrast to equids, which are generally thought to have been an endemic radiation in North America. – Can be more specific by saying what the geographic range is: "The Eurasian distribution of palaeotheres". And "was", not "were".
  • What is "palaeothere" supposed to mean; it could mean members of Palaeotherium, of Palaeotheriidae, of Palaeotheriinae … Best stick with one term to avoid ambiguity (I think it is "palaeotheriid"?)
  • probably true palaeotheres – are there "untrue" ones? What does this mean? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even more comments

edit
  • suggesting initially that they could have belonged to the canid genus Canis based on its fossilized dentition. – This is still unclear to me; Canis is a modern genus, so why based on fossilized dentition of Canis?
  • The fossils of Montmartre were credited with great importance to the field of palaeontology, as the fossil taxa found near Paris were embedded in deeper and harder sediments than other fossil mammals such as Megatherium, falling between the Pleistocene-aged mammals and the Cretaceous-aged reptiles. – I don't think that the concept of the Cretaceous existed at that time already, or did it? This sentence seems to overinterpret the source a little bit (see WP:Synth).
  • In 1804, Cuvier described sets of fossils from the gypsum quarries of Montmartre (known as the Paris Basin). – This says that the gypsum quarries are known as the Paris Basin, which does not make sense.
  • Later, he erected the second species P. magnum, explaining that it had similar but larger-sized dentition compared to the other species based on imprints that he was provided. [8] He also gave mentions to the postcranial fossils of the genus – Means P. magnum was based on skull material only? I would include a very brief mention of the material for context. Also, the part "based on imprints that he was provided" is a bit confusing without further context, I suggest to remove this part.
  • He also gave mentions to the postcranial fossils of the genus and listed a newly recognized species named Palaeotherium minus. – What about "He also erected a third species, P. minus, based on postcranial material"? Much shorter but says the same?
  • In a later journal of the same year, – Makes no sense. "In a later issue of the same journal"? I would just say "Later in the same year,".
  • Based on the metacarpal bone shapes located on the front feet, – You are saying here that there are "shapes on the front feet", which sounds strange. Maybe this one can do without explanation: "Based on the shapes of the metacarpal bones,"
  • he erected the species name P. crassum – He erected the species (delete "name").
  • The naturalist also suggested palaeobiologies of the four species … – This entire paragraph has so many issues that I'm not sure if I understand it. Can you try to fix this first please?
  • Every paragraph in the Cuvier section seems to be "In 18xx, Cuvier recognized additional species of Palaeotherium based on xx materials." There is not really much to learn from this. Are there maybe more general information on how Cuviers knowledge about the genus changed over time, for example?
    • Not much, there isn't really extensive coverage over the earliest taxonomy of Palaeotherium that I could find outside of brief overviews. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'm not exactly finding them. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • In 1822, Cuvier recognized additional species of Palaeotherium based on postcranial materials. – And here I'm not sure if I follow anymore. You don't list any species this time, but later, you have In 1824, he listed most species of Palaeotherium that he previously named and described, namely P. magnum, P. medium, P. crassum, P. latum, P. curtum, P. minus, and P. aureliense – so if these are "most" species, the previously unmentioned ones must be named here?
    • I skipped the 1822 species initially because they were eventually found to be invalid, but I suppose that makes the sentence more confusing, so added. I've been trying to limit invalid species information to the research history page. I can't access the source because IA is down, but from what I remember, he didn't list all species in the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • are notably depicted in the forms of one sculpture representing each species – I guess you just want to say that sculptures were created for the three species?
  • The other two palaeothere (or palaeotheriid) statues in the park represent the medium-sized P. medium and the small-sized "P. minus" (= Plagiolophus minor). – But you already mentioned the species in the park, why repeat here?
  • Stopping for now. I am still not through with the Early Taxonomy, and one long paragraph I had to skip entirely (see above). I hope you understand why I think that the text does not meet GA criterion 1 "well written". But to solve this, it seems we need several rounds of review for each section; since I'm often not sure what exactly you wanted to write, I also can't just do a copy edit by myself at this stage. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Fine by me. I've been expecting that a long GA review will help to resolve problems, since this is a relatively difficult topic to cover for Wikipedia that has hardly been made accessible for most people in regard to secondary sourcing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      • I can't promise that I can finish this, it also depends on my time. But let's keep going for now. In the Cuvier section, there are still parts I don't get (You mention "behaviours" but none are mentioned; what are "bare amounts of hair"?). You also say "located in the geological region called the Paris Basin", but this implies that the material mentioned in the previous paragraphs is not from the Paris Basin, because you introduce it as a new locality (is that the case?). But mostly, I understand the sentences now – the problem is that it is difficult to make sense of the text as a whole. Maybe you made a common mistake in writing this article: Maybe you originally collected any scrap of information you could possibly find, and put it all together in this article? This is not how we should write articles; this is not what WP:Summary style tells us to do. We have to review the sources, figuring out what the important insights are that need to be covered, and figure out how to teach them in a concise and organised way. Ask yourself what each individual sentence adds to the big picture (the main story), and how to best arrange them to convey that "big picture".
      • So how to put this in action? You could figure out, for each paragraph, what the key message should be. For the first paragraph in "Early taxonomy and depictions", it is clearly Cuviers first description of Palaeotherium. So focus on that. You start that paragraph with In 1804, Cuvier described sets of fossils from the gypsum quarries of Montmartre, located in the geological region called the Paris Basin. That doesn't contribute to the big picture (and the locality should be introduced in the previous paragraph, where the skull is first mentioned). Just remove that sentence.
      • The second paragraph looks like this: Later, he erected the second species P. magnum, explaining that it had similar but larger-sized dentition compared to the other species.[8] He also erected a third species, Palaeotherium minus, based on postcranial material.[9] Later in the same year, Cuvier described a mostly complete skeleton from the French commune of Pantin that he determined to have belonged to P. minus. – Note that these are isolated sentences, each of them somehow lacking connection and context. The skeleton seems very significant, but if there isn't anything more to say about it, maybe have this paragraph summarizing the Palaeotherium material and species that Cuvier described in his career. You could start with summary sentences like "Until 18xx, Cuvier described a number of additional Palaeotherium species based on differences in the dentition, skeleton, and size, from [where?], most of which are now considered to be invalid". Then, you could mention the first of these species (P. magnum), and then discuss that complete skeleton and P. minus. Then, discuss P. crassum in the same paragraph, and that's it. The other species don't need to be mentioned, because there isn't really anything to say about them that contributes to the big picture.
      • In the third paragraph, you could then discuss Cuviers ideas about life appearance and life styles, starting with his realization that the forefoot had three toes.
      • This would loose some of the chronology as you discuss species and life apparance/life style separately, but you won't any longer start each paragraph with "[In 18xx, he described species xx]" followed by "[random things he said]", but instead focus on the content that matters and tell the story. Think about it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
        • @Jens Lallensack I think I addressed all your concerns for now, let me know if I missed anything. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
          Oh, and about the first concern, if you don't have time, just let me know. I can just request for someone else to continue/take over the review here instead of closing this one. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
            • So far we are fine, but I will let you know when I run out of time. I will be away until Sunday now, though. Concerning the changes, it's getting better.
            • 1824 was the final year in which he recognized additional species classified to Palaeotherium, some invalid and others eventually reclassified to different genera. – Everything you said here is already mentioned, no need for this.
            • From 1804 up to 1824, the French naturalist continued to recognize many species – Hm, ideally we should be more specific here. Can we state how many species he named, and how many were considered valid by the most recent revision? That could be an interesting information that adds to the big picture. Or maybe have such a sentence at the end of the paragraph to sum it up (and also mention which of his species are still valid), and delete "some valid, some reclassified to other genera, and others invalid" from the first sentence.
            • Do you mind if I try to do some changes directly myself when I get the time? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • In 1812, he named another species, P. curtum, based on metacarpal bones that were nearly the size of those of P. crassum but shorter than those of P. minus. – I'm confused about this information on the metacarpal sizes; what is the relevance? It just says that P. curtum was smaller than both P. crassum and P. minum, so what is the "but" doing there?
    • Removed the last part. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      • You now have "that were nearly the size of those of P. crassum". This wording somehow implies that P. crassum is some standard, or that it is especially large. A more neutral wording would be "that were slightly smaller than those of P. crassum". But again, I have to ask why this is mentioned when you don't compare sizes between the other species; it is therefore an rather isolated piece of information and I don't see what it adds. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
        Gave brief mention to "P. minus" being a small-sized species in addition to the rewording. Also, I doubt that the inclusion of the size mention really hurts. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • sparse integument – You need "hair", not "integument", since "integument" can include just the skin, and "sparse skin" does not make any sense.
  • Palaeotherium was also depicted in 1822 drawings – Formulate as this: "In 1822, Palaeotherium was also depicted in drawings". Otherwise you have an ambiguity here: 1822 drawings are a lot of drawings. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palaeotherium/GA2&oldid=1252133001"