Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paraceratherium/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Paraceratherium

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest land mammal that has ever lived. The article was in a sorry state before, but luckily the first semi-technical book devoted to this animal was published last year, which synthesised a lot of obscure information, and is the main basis for this article. Much of its history is very complicated, and I have tried to explain it in an understandable way. The article is part of the Wikipedia CD Selection, which may be of importance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Indricotherium.jpg: both of the links under the description are dead - they're not essential, but if you have updated links that would be nice
I'd rather just remove them, but do you prefer archive.org links perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "restoration" really the correct word for those drawings? It's not a usage I'm familiar with
It is widely used for "palaeoart". Palaeontologist Dougal Dixon explains in "The Age of Dinosaurs": "A mounted skeleton, as often seen in a museum, is called a reconstruction by palaeontologists. On the other hand, a restoration is a portrayal of what the entire animal would have looked like in life. A restoration can be a painting or a sculpture - or a photographic presentation, as in this book - and invariably is much more speculative than a reconstruction." FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Indricotherium11.jpg: this appears at deviantart under a different license, one not acceptable for Wikipedia
It was also uploaded by the Deviantart user to Commons. He has dozens of other images there. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was also uploaded by the Deviantart user to Russian Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - ooh goody, glad someone has buffed this. I'd planned to do it one day but pleased someone else has...I'll just order the book and read at my leisure :)

....comments below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the book is weirdly balanced I think, I'd have liked more info about specimens for example, but instead there's pages and pages of biographies... FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of sentences in para 2 of lead start with "It..." - it'd be good to vary the sentences a bit.
Ah, forgot this, varied a bit, does it need more? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the shoulder height was about 6 metres (20 feet), and the length about 8.0 metres (26.2 feet). - why 8.0 metres and not 8 here?
Not sure, conversion templates were added by the copyeditor. But their parameters seem to be set the same way? How can this be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I removed the .0, fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The classification of the genus and the species within has a long and complicated history. - I suspect "taxonomy" may be a more accurate word than "classification" here.....
Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
although the latter may be a distinct genus. - "latter" --> "last" as there are three not two items listed.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link taxonomy at first mention
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The superfamily Rhinocerotoidea can be traced back to the early Eocene age - "age" is redundant and misleading here - should be removed
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've erred slightly on the side of underlinking - I'd link vertebra, molar, premolar, incisor...some of the more obscure things in para 2 of skull section might have links too.
A lot links were removed and much was reworded during copyediting, I'll fix it. SOme words, like incisor, are already linked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything more on the habitat at all in the source?
I'll see if I can squeeze some more out. Perhaps the stuff about territories and "home ranges" could be moved into that section from behaviour as well? This: "Prothero suggests that animals as big as indricotheres would need very large home ranges or territories of at least 1,000 square kilometres (250,000 acres), and that because of a scarcity of resources, there would have been little room in Asia for many populations or a multitude of nearly identical species and genera. This principle is called competitive exclusion; it is used to explain how the black rhinoceros (a browser) and white rhinoceros (a grazer) exploit different niches in the same areas of Africa." FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that'd be good into a paleobiology section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant whether it should be moved from palaebiology to habitat/distribution? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry/yes/my bad/go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for the animal's extinction is unknown— "reasons... are"? Likely to be multiple according to your article
  • sizes ranged from dog-sized to the size of Paraceratherium.— rephrase to avoid three sizes in one sentence
  • pi (π) shaped— should be hyphenated, and I think piped "π-shaped" looks neater anyway
Thanks, fixed the two first suggestions. You don't think I would need to spell pi out? I'd believe not all people are familiar with the sign? FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the hyphen is obligatory, as with L-shaped later, so you need would pi- (π-) shaped, which is awful. I think that anyone reading this article would be familiar with what is probably the best known of all Greek letters, more so than with perissodactyl, and the link through to the article would immediately enlighten anyone who didn't Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone.

  • Interesting beast, and interesting article. Quite a few prose/accessability issues
The article was thoroughly copy edited by bafflegab, so should be ok, but I'll fix these issues later today. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1908, he referred the species to the extinct rhinoceros genus Aceratherium, as the new species A. bugtiense." I couldn't understand this sentence; I am guessing the reason is an odd use of the word "referred", but can't be sure.
"Refer" is standard taxonomy language, changed to assigned or moved. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1913, Forster-Cooper named Thaumastotherium ("wonderful beast") osborni based on larger fossils from the same excavations..." Not sure what this is saying exactly. This appears to be talking about a new species called Thaumastotherium osborni - is that correct? If so, then the paragraph probably needs clearer signposting that we are going to be talking about multiple species. If not, then i don't understand what it's saying.
It is saying he named a new taxon, I will add this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a literally correct, but very unorthodox use of the term "preoccupied" that would be better replaced with something else, such as "the former name had already been used to describe..."
I'm not so sure, that is standard taxonomy language, and even has a good redirect. The taxonomy section uses taxonomic language, simplifying it will probably not be helpful to convey the exact meaning. But I have clarified this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... so fragmentary that Foster-Cooper was unsure what kind of perissodactyl they belonged to..." This isn't fair to the reader - it isn't enough to provide a link to such an obscure term, particularly when that link turns out to be a redirect. The text should explain more fully what the difficulty here was about.
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1936, Walter Granger and William K. Gregory proposed that Forster-Cooper's Baluchitherium osborni was likely a junior synonym of Paraceratherium bugtiense because these specimens were collected at the same locality and were possibly part of the same morphologically variable species.[16] Forster-Cooper had expressed similar doubts.[17] This was also suggested by William Diller Matthew in 1931." - how can someone "also suggest" something before the other person proposes it? The chronology of this section needs to be reworked to put the proposals in chronological order, oldest first.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • regarding the same passage, i think a plain English explanation of junior synonym will help readability.
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar issue with nomina dubiae
Changed to the English term dubious names. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paraceratherium is considered the largest known land mammal that has ever existed" - very unusual to use the singular for a genus containing several species. Should it not read "are considered to have been the largest known land mammals ever to have existed"?
Well, it is a genus, singular, just like for example Diplodocus, Stegosaurus, etc. Likewise, you could say "the elephant is the largest living land mammal", or "Stegosaurus had spikes on its tail" even though the terms denote multiple species. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't look at the rest right now, but there's some to start with. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can I clarify: current literature recognises multiple species, is that correct? At least 3 and possibly as many as 7? It is hard to be clear from that section what the current view(s) are.
Four species. This is specifically mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, and the second paragraph under Species and synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see an explanation or link for the reader to explain the Christian cross-shaped symbol used in the infobox. What is its significance?
(Animalparty responding) The dagger symbol (not a Christian cross) is a widely used symbol in biology and paleontology to indicate extinct taxa. Some articles have the dagger wikilinked to extinction, or have an HTML code that says "extinct" when a pointer hovers over it. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is extinction. It has been added to most articles about extinct animals, so it is a wider issue that I have little to no control over. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I meant to say is, this should be explained and/or linked for readers. I've fixed that with a note in the box. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They used to be links, it seems the template has been altered. It should be relinked, then a note will be redundant. I'll see if I can fix it. See also this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_4#.22Extinction_dagger.22_guideline_needed Also see here[2], where I've proposed the dagger should be a link. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like User:Animalparty, I don't believe the article should begin with taxonomy. I don't believe any article about a thing should start with anything other than a description of that thing, a view I have expressed in the past at FAC. It is a pattern that has become mistakenly established in our articles about animals, and I don't really have the energy to try and turn all of them around. However, the pattern in plant FAs, such as Banksia marginata, which I do support, is to begin with the description. This is also the convention set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. Note also that the article template at Wikiproject animals also does not start with taxonomy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article template - instead it begins with anatomy and morphology, which is essentially description of the thing. I think it is crazy to have an encyclopedia for everyone that has articles that do not begin by telling the reader what it is we are talking about. I believe that this has resulted from our animal articles following the practice of the scientific literature. But Wikipedia isn't the scientific literature, it is written so that an everyday reader can access it. I propose the order to be: description - taxonomy - palaeobiology - distribution and habitat. In the case of the P. article I would have thought this would be particularly helpful, since the description (and its uncertaintly) would help the reader understand why the taxonomy is so complicated. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see my response to Animalparty, which he agreed with. Most other FAs about mammals start with taxonomy, so I prefer to follow this clear precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, i'm just wanting to be clear that I don't support the practice, in those precedents or here - i don udnerstand why you would want to follow it. One of the difficulties is in knowing how to change the practice, given that the approach isn't grounded in a Wikiproject template or guideline. But I'll leave this for delegates. :-)
I've actually reconsidered and think precedents should be questioned. There are relatively few paleo mammal FA, and while there does appear to be a common structure of having Taxonomy or classification before description, lets face it some go pretty deep into the minutiae. The trend appears reversed in dinosaur articles (e.g. Allosaurus, Iguanodon, Tyrannosaurus), which often delve deeply into the history of discovery well after the description, and I don't see why that can't be a precedent. The mammal taxa on average don't seem to have taxonomic histories as complex or detailed as Paraceratherium, and the length alone might suggest it be restructured. It may just come down to style differences (i.e. opinions), but I feel most readers would be interested in the size, description, and biology first, and care less about soldiers in Baluchistan (do we need to know his name was Vickaery?), nomenclatural nuances, and lots of names unfamiliar to the average reader (notable scientists be they may). Like I said below, I believe little to nothing would be lost by restructuring, and big-picture clarity might be improved. But I also don't think it's worth debating a whole lot, so I've said my piece. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then all it comes down to is taste, not policy. Dinosaur articles are structured quite differently from mammal and even bird articles overall, so I don't think they work as precedents. As also noted below, most sources about this animal start by untangling the taxonomic issue before anything else, which gives the subsequent info context. I think you can find as many people (including myself) who prefer taxonomy first as not, but I don't think this article should be a battleground for that. Better to bring it up on the tree of life wikiproject talk page or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Animalparty

edit

--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The taxomomic history is probably the least interesting and least useful to the majority of readers: I think it should be moved to below the Description and Paleobiology. I don't think any clarity is lost by doing so, i.e. there is little in the Taxonomy section that is crucial to understanding the description, etc. Moving the taxonomy to the end would also mirror the current layout of the lead, which is preferable for logical flow.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure, first, it follows the structure of most other mammal FAs (lion, elephant, giraffe, woolly mammoth, etc.), which almost always have the taxonomy sections first. Secondly, after its size, the taxonomy issue is the most often mentioned and potentially confusing issue regarding this animal, so it is therefore one of the most important things to clarify before the reader goes on to the rest of the article. Thirdly, the section flows naturally into evolution, which should definitely be at the beginning of the article. And I'd hesitate to claim that most people would find the section the least interesting, if they do, it is rather easy to skip it. Prothero 2013 devotes a very long chapter to taxonomic history, before even describing the animal and its biology. I think this article should follow the precedents set by other FAs and the sources cited. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I won't object to precedents.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a couple of red-linked terms in the Description section should be defined in plain English or omitted rather than left red-linked: e.g. "had pleurocoel-like openings" means virtually nothing unless the reader already knows what a pleurocel is, and "graviportal build" is similarly jargony.
Fixed those you mentioned. More? FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, I'd like to see a bit more nuance in the evolution section. Is the 1989 cladogram still the consensus (if there is any)? The cladogram shows one hypothesis, yet the following sentence suggests at least one opposing view. Is there anything more recent that resolves the conflict? Here, citations to review articles or secondary texts (like Prothero 2013) might be best to provide balance and context. If there is controversy, explain it!
Prothero strictly follows the 1989 cladogram, the other hypotheses, Holbrook and the Chinese ones (which are already explained as iffy in this article), are minority views. Not much more to say about Holbrook's view, because his conclusion regarding indricotheres was just a short side remark in a study about a wider group, including tapirs. Also, this article is about a specific genus, not the indicothere subfamily as a whole, so in depth discussion of classification issues for the entire group is best left for the subfamily page. But I've added a bit more clarification. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the text above the cladogram, why is it emphasized that Triplopodinae was found to be the sister taxon to Indricotheriinae? Assuming there are only 2 subfamilies, isn't this a likely result?(oops, see below) or was this the first time Triplopodinae was proposed? Since Triplopodinae is red-linked, you may want to define or clarify it, and perhaps invert the sentence structure so that Indricotheriinae (the more relevant clade to Paraceratherium, and one which the readers will have encountered by this point) is mentioned before Triplopodinae (an otherwise foreign term for the reader).
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the cladogram itself: Why is the rest of Hyracodontidae omitted? Going only by that cladogram, one might assume (as I did) that Hyracodontidae consists only 2 families. The stem of the cladogram should be more clear.
The original source does not include more clades at the stem, so adding any would be original synthesis. But I have added the hyracodont name, as in the source, so should be clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a 1999 study, Luke Holbrook instead found the indricotheres to be outside the hyracodontid group and wrote that the indricotheres may not be a monophyletic grouping. K. Heissig suggested that they were most closely related to rhinocerotids" - The form of these sentences gives the impression that Heissig' suggestion was published in Holbrook 1999, which presumably is not correct. Heissig should be individually referenced (or at least "Heissig (cited in Holbrook)"), and some kind of conjunction between the clauses (similarly? alternatively?) might also help flow.
I will add a year in front of Hessig's sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments. Reads a bit better now. P.S. there are some public domain tooth and bone illustrations in Forster-Cooper (1911) that may or may not be useful to include.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the illustration of a jaw is actually from that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: I noticed some of the old journal titles were incorrect (e.g. "Journal of Natural History" rather than "Annals and Magazine of Natural History"). I've fixed some, but more might need double-checking: e.g. "Records of the Geological Survey of India" might in fact be "Memoirs of ...". --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, especially since those refs are filled in by a bot. And by the way, DOIs are already links, so for example here[3], there are two links to the same page. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's why you can't trust bots! :) Also, some DOIs link to Subscription sites, e.g. this one, because for some reason Taylor & Francis publishers demand payments for public domain works, even some over 100 years old!--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank the maker for archive.org and biodiversity library... FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Comment: The duration and time that Paraceratherium lived should be emphasized and clarified a bit: the lead mentions the Oligocene, the taxobox says 34–23Ma, but that seems to be the entire duration of the Oligocene. Do Paraceratherium fossils span the entire Oligocene or just a section? The Distribution and habitat mentions 11 million years but that has not been firmly stated in the article yet beyond the taxobox. Some dates (even if rough) in the lead and body would help, e.g. "...lived in the Oligocene epoch, from around XX to XX million years ago", with maybe some discussion of earliest and latest stage/age of occurrence in the body. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are a bit superficial when it comes to this issue, Prothero writes several pages about how some formations have been inaccurately dated in the past, but there is little about when the various species then actually existed. I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made it a bit clearer now, and added a bit more info about other things. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and that it contains three discernible species; P. bugtiense (the type species), P. transouralicum, P. prohorovi, and P. orgosensis, although the last may be a distinct genus"- Did you mean four discernible species, or three discernable species with one equivocal species?
    • "The three species of Paraceratherium are mainly discernible through skull characteristics. P. bugtiense and P. orgosensis..." same as above, are there 3 or 4 in referering to P. orgosensis?
I was a bit unsure what to do with P. prohorovi, Prothero says it may not be possible to evaluate its placement, which I interpreted as him saying it was a dubious name, but he doesn't say this specifically, so I added the species anyway. So it should be four, I have fixed this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first fossils of Paraceratherium were discovered by the British geologist Guy Ellcock Pilgrim ... In 1908, he moved the species to the extinct rhinoceros genus Aceratherium..."- this might be clarified to something like: "The first fossils now recognized as Paraceratherium... In 1908 he placed the species in the extinct ...", since Pilgrim didn't really move anything yet.
Good catch, I implemented the first suggestion you made, but worded the rest a bit differently. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't P. bugtiense Pilgrim, 1908 be written as P. bugtiense (Pilgrim, 1908) due to Forster-Cooper's new combination?
Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and distinct crochets of its molars" -what's a crochet?
Good question, the source doesn't give a definition... I'll give it an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nothing... FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be a hook-like projection or hook-shaped structure, given the derivation of crochet. I've seen it mentioned in some paleo works but not clearly defined. I'll keep looking. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a question that's not mentioned: How many toes did Paraceratherium have?
I think one source specifically says that this is unknown, I will add this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It only said the front feet had three toes, but it seems all rhinos have both three front and hind toes on each limb, so I'm not sure if this is redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (No not yet. see below)- I think with the resolution of this last set of comments the article is readable, coherent, and complete. Some of the red-linked terms do stand out a bit, but not detrimentally, and I think the word graviportal can be omitted entirely, or at least unlinked, as the adjective seems an unlikely article to be created (Graviportality? List of large and heavy animals?) and all necessary context is in the article. I think it meets WP:FACR, although there is always room for future improvements: one might be to include views from other secondary sources besides Prothero's- recognized authority as he is- to ensure that a western bias or personal bias isn't inadvertently introduced, and to fairly reflect how other researchers synthesize primary literature, but I don't think this prevents FA promotion. Lastly, it would be really cool to get this image in the article, if allowable, to really hammer home the size of the beast! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We did actually have that image once, but I realised it was made after 1922, and therefore not PD US. In any case, we do have an image that shows the animal's size next to a museum crowd (with a cast of that skull in an armature), and we do have a photo of that exact skull, so it would be fairly redundant. As for competing hypotheses, I'll add which species and genera that are recognised by Chinese researchers soon. FunkMonk (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Old skull image has been readded (from another source), see below... FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another set of comments (which is why I've temporarily stricken my support):
  • First, I don't think this should be passed on as FA until someone with access to the original references does at least a cursory review. I may be able to access a university library within the week, or otherwise obtain the subscription journal articles.
That is how FACs are always done (standard practice), there is a "source review" and an "image review". The source review is done before the article can be passed, so supports have no bearing on it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxobox mentions 4 species under Species, yet only 3 species under species synonyms. Is P. prohorovi without synonyms? (totally fine if so). But going solely from the info in the article (please verify), shouldn't P. transouralicum Pavlova, 1922 and ?P. orgosensis Chiu, 1973 be written P. transouralicum (Pavlova, 1922) and ?P. orgosensis (Chiu, 1973) since they were both originally in a different genus?
P. prohorovi has no junior synonyms. As for parenthesis, this is not done in the sources, though, but it is technically true. Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Paraceratherium/Indrocotherium synonymy debate seems a bit more equivocal than stated. Ye et al. (2003) mention that McKenna and Bell's classic Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level (1997) recognizes the two genera as distinct. A 2004 description of P. yagouense recognizes both genera as well as Dzungariotherium. Sen et al 2011 (p. 12) do appear to show that most authors favor synonymy, but mention that Fortelius and Kappelman 1993 considered the two genera distinct, which is evident in the abstract. A 1959 monograph by Gromova apparently makes a case for the distinction of the two. I haven't seen McKenna & Bell or Fortelius & Kappelman to evaluate, but they may have salient comments. I realize that these conflicting opinions make a single article harder to write, but that's what we're stuck with. I don't know if Prothero mentions this or if newer literature clarifies it, but to dismiss or understate the views of non-western paleontologists would make an imbalanced article. Even if the 2-3 genus view is a minority, I think it warrants more coverage than "a 2003 paper by Chinese researchers".
McKenna and Bella (and others) only used the names without any analysis, therefore it has little scientific weight. Prothero complains about this in his book. The Chinese researchers actually argue for it, but with arguments that are not considered valid by Prothero and others. I can add a little more commentary. Pre-1989 articles can't really be used to contest more recent opinions. Also, P. yagouense has since been moved to Urtinotherium.FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added mention. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference of P. yagouense being reassigned? Not arguing, just curious. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth stating the most common synonym(s) at the top of the article, e.g. "Paraceratherium, also known as Indricotherium,.... " or perhaps at the end of the first paragraph. Both names (with and without "also known as...") are fairly prevalent both in popular and scientific literature: a Google Scholar search for Indricotherium -Paraceratherium in the last 20 years yields about 150 results, while the opposite yeilds about 100. A Google N-gram search similarly shows I. a little more common than P. (but both dwarfed by Baluchitherium!) --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitate to do this, these are not common names, they are synonyms (and are often mentioned in most works that don't even recognise them, therefore they get recent scholar hits) and they are already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead (which used to be the second, until someone complained on the talkpage it was too complicated for regular readers to start with). Baluchitherium is not considered valid by any researchers today, which also shows that scholar hits may not be entirely useful for determining anything here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review #2

edit

I'm sorry to repeat this when one was already done, but I found a big issue in the initial check, so... File:Paraceratherium.jpg - This is listed as PD-Old-70, but the death date for G. M. Woodward is not given, so there's no evidence it is. Possibilities:

  • If this was published in the U.S., say so, replace license with {{PD-US-1923}}
  • If it wasn't published in the U.S., find Woodward's death date, show he died over 70 years ago.
  • If neither apply, since it's from 1911, it can be hosted here, on English Wikipedia, but not commons. If moved to here, you must use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or {{notforcommons}}.

Unfortunately, This blocks promotion to FA.

Other images:

All the above need more documentation to be used.

Two that are fine to use, but which I have notes for:


Conclusion: Lots of problems, I'll see what I can do about documenting the problematic ones. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will check later. Doesn't seem like huge problems to me, just a matter of switching out licenses, checking if people are dead, and possibly cropping out armature in a few photos. FunkMonk (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we can definitely deal with this. I'd say we should be able to salvage at least 80% of this (for example, the last one listed I've already saved. =) ) Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped the mounted skull image to hide most of the armature. More later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Woodward might well be British - the journal the images appeared in was. Annoyingly, there's a more-famous G.M. Woodward who died about a century to be ours; best solution might be to move all his stuff to en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find more about him. By the way, Indricotherium-rec2.jpg is not a sculpture, it is a photo collage (made like this[5]), created by the uploader. Not sure if the base photos are selfmade, but I'd say they are different enough from the originals (every shape is changed) to not be considered derivative works. See also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/04#Photo_collages FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A very good photo collage. I think that's acceptable then; since it looks like he sells them, I think it's safe to presume they're licensed if not self-made. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, I know her sister's work, actually. Alice B. Woodward. So it is a family of biological artists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support We've cleared all issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! So we can be pretty sure it's the same person? Thanks a lot! And I also thought of Alice Woodward (she drew many palaeontological restorations), but wasn't sure. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it was all but certain, given the list at that site. I mean, we know from that sample list of works that Gertrude Mary Woodward was an expert anatomical artist specializing in fossil bones. That's a fairly unique specialty. The artworks are signed, so we can compare to other works by her to be sure - she apparently did some of the initial illustrations for the Piltdown Man skull, so...Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg is a photoshopped image composed of at least two source images. The providence of these source images and under what license terms they were obtained, is not indicated. Roman Uchytel, who contributed the image to the Russian Wikipedia, claims copyright for the composite image. However, the background is a picture taken by the Rowan family, on one of the visits they made to Ethiopia, and a high resolution version of the image was available from their blog. Tineye has the evidence. I'm not sure that re-using a scenery image as a background crosses the threshold of originality. The image therefore may constitute copyright violation. Samsara 16:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the image in question? That is a pretty long page. In case the background is too similar, I can just paint it white or otherwise alter it enough. Perhaps even a tight crop will do. The important part of the image are the animals, and they seem to be radically modified African rhinos. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found it myself.[7] So what do people think? White background, or close crop with blur effect on the bg photo? Here's an example of the latter, can be blurred and changed further if it is still too close.[8] FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say white would probably look better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. All are fine with that? Or how about black bg? Works pretty well here:[9] Also, what does that family's page say about photo copyright? Perhaps they use free licenses? FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and painted it black, so that it looks more distinct form the drawing under "description". FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Are we still awaiting a source review? If so pls request one at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate if I make the request? FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, saves me doing it... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've now made the request. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

edit
  • I corrected one case of incorrectly formatted quotemarks. Otherwise, the sources all appear correctly formatted, although can we not get more specific than, say, Ref#34, which cites a page range of 164 pages for a single citation ("Vera Gromova published a more complete skeletal reconstruction in 1959, based on the P. transouralicum skeleton from the Aral Formation, but this also lacked several neck vertebrae.")? Can we not get the specific page(s) for the statement being cited? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Gromova. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - thanks for the thorough reviews. Are we all done and dusted here? Graham Beards (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems so... FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paraceratherium/archive1&oldid=743169337"