Talk:Catopsbaatar/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Casliber in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok I will take a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The article (particularly the lead) lacks information on what the animal looks like, how big it is etc. The illustration looks pretty complete so surely there is a source.
- Heh, all we know about how it looked is in the article body. The problem with multituberculates is that they are extremely obscure (rarely if ever mentioned outside the technical literature), and often very little is preserved of them. In this case, no body length is given in the sources, because a complete skeleton isn't known (including the tail), but several skull and limb measurements are given here. We are lucky to even know they had hair, which is mentioned under palaeobiology, and they may generally have looked rodent-like, but that's really all we can say. I added their heads may have looked like those of rodents to the intro (hair is already mentioned), but there isn't really more to put in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, well some sort of line in the lead saying "all that is known is that it is rodentlike with a large head and spurs" or something like that. Putting it after the lead sentence on skulls etc. I'd move the rodent-like to the species as some of the multitubs are bigger...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- None of the sources specifically state that's all that is known, though, which might make it a bit iffy to state it outright. But I've moved the text about the heads being rodent-like up to the start of the skull section from the paleobiology section, and up to the description in the lead. As for multituberculates being larger than rodents, remember the modern capybara! They're larger than any multituberculates were, and the statement covers multituberculates in general, not just the smaller ones. I have some sources that state most multituberculates were shrew to rat-sized, though with the largest genus having a 16 cm long skull (Taeniolabis).[1][2] Do you think that would be appropriate here? FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, really tricky - and can't really stray too far. I think you've done about the best that can be in the circumstances now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- None of the sources specifically state that's all that is known, though, which might make it a bit iffy to state it outright. But I've moved the text about the heads being rodent-like up to the start of the skull section from the paleobiology section, and up to the description in the lead. As for multituberculates being larger than rodents, remember the modern capybara! They're larger than any multituberculates were, and the statement covers multituberculates in general, not just the smaller ones. I have some sources that state most multituberculates were shrew to rat-sized, though with the largest genus having a 16 cm long skull (Taeniolabis).[1][2] Do you think that would be appropriate here? FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, well some sort of line in the lead saying "all that is known is that it is rodentlike with a large head and spurs" or something like that. Putting it after the lead sentence on skulls etc. I'd move the rodent-like to the species as some of the multitubs are bigger...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- Heh, all we know about how it looked is in the article body. The problem with multituberculates is that they are extremely obscure (rarely if ever mentioned outside the technical literature), and often very little is preserved of them. In this case, no body length is given in the sources, because a complete skeleton isn't known (including the tail), but several skull and limb measurements are given here. We are lucky to even know they had hair, which is mentioned under palaeobiology, and they may generally have looked rodent-like, but that's really all we can say. I added their heads may have looked like those of rodents to the intro (hair is already mentioned), but there isn't really more to put in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- "
coeval" needs linking or explaining
- Explained, nothing to link to. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine a tiny critter having a "massive skull" (not massive in comparison with an elephant!). Maybe "heavy-set" or something?
- I guess it is relative to the body, or its build, but the source doesn't specify. I could say "heavy-set" or "robust", but it might change the meaning. Further up under description it is stated the heads were large in proportion to their bodies. I think I'll go with "heavy-set" then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Otherwise looks pretty tight. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
NB: free of copyvio.
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall: