Talk:Dimetrodon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maky (talk · contribs) 20:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I will be doing this review soon. It looks like an interesting read. – Maky ^« talk » 20:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• "Most Dimetrodon species ranged in length from 1.7 metres (5.6 ft) and are estimated to have weighed between 28 kilograms (62 lb)." – No range given. Given the sentence that follows it, I'm confused.

Fixed. That was an error using Template:Convert. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I know I do this with subfossil lemur genera, but given number of species and the extreme differences in size, is there a reason why each species doesn't merit its own article? I would understand it if they were very similar or poorly known from the fossil record, but it feels like we should be able to say much more. What brought this up is that I looked at the link for Tappenosaurus, and it says that it's from the Middle Permian, but Dimetrodon is from the Early Permian... yet this article said they were found together. Since there's such a variety of Dimetrodon species, I figured I'd look to see if they all are listed as Early Permian. I know the other article isn't part of this GAN, but it's important that we're consistent, and I wasn't able to check that consistency.

My mistake with Tappenosaurus. I rechecked some papers and Dimetrodon material hasn't been found in the same formation, so it's still restricted to the Early Permian. As for the species, there seems to be a consensus originating from Wikiproject Dinosaurs that articles stop at the genus level, at least for long-extinct taxa. I don't think enough information exists for each Dimetrodon species to have its own article (a lot of them are distinguished by very small details in the skull or vertebrae, and others are based on a few scraps of bone) but a List of Dimetrodon species article may be a good idea. The same was done in List of Psittacosaurus species. Smokeybjb (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sphenacodontids are not introduced or linked on first mention.

Linked sphenacodontid and mentioned in the lead that Dimetrodon is in the family Sphenacodontidae. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• A summary for File:Archaeothyris BW.jpg is needed on Commons. Other images used could use sections for their summary on Commons. (Basically, standard clean-up work for older uploads.) The latter isn't required for GA, but is always good to do.

Done. Thanks for all the input so far. Smokeybjb (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• It might be good to explain or link anatomical words like "proximal" or "distal" for those not versed in anatomy.

Done. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Many follow Haack's 1986 paper in concluding that the sail was poorly adapted to absorbing and releasing heat." – I thought it said above that it Haack claimed it was good for absorbing but not releasing heat.

Fixed. You're right, just bad at releasing heat. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Based on these differences, the mounted skeletons... are males... are females" – Are the the sources certain, or is this speculation? The caption of the photos sounds less certain than the text. Just checking.

Definitely speculative. I've reworded the text to say "have been hypothesized" and "may be" males and females. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest adding non-breaking spaces between numbers and units (e.g. 60 million years), abbreviated genera and species names (e.g. D. cruciger), and anything else that would be hard to follow if they got broken apart at the end of a line.

Done. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Paleontologists believed..." – I don't know... call me a hard-liner, but I cringe every time I hear the word "believe" used in scientific discussion. Belief, to me, means accepting something regardless of proof. I prefer "thought", "suspected", "reasoned", etc... But again, maybe I'm just being too picky.

Not at all. It's an important distinction to make. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Below is a cladogram modified from the analysis of Benson (in press)..." – I don't think it's "in press" any more.

It looks like it's still in press. It's still listed as a "forthcoming article" here, and hasn't yet been printed in an issue of the journal. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Following the DOI link, I see: "Version of record first published: 27 Mar 2012" Maybe I'm not seeing it... – Maky ^« talk » 01:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the date it was published online ahead of print. The official publication date is when it's printed in a paper issue of the journal. Sometimes an article makes its way into an issue the year after it first appears online, which might turn out to be the case for this article. Then it would end up being Benson (2013). Smokeybjb (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Dimetrodon was first described by American paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope. ... In 1878, Cope established the name Dimetrodon when he described the species Dimetrodon incisivus..." – I assume these are the same year? To me, it's a little awkward because I start off wanting to know when, but it isn't mentioned until later, at which point the article starts giving dates for other publications.

Reworded. How is it now? Smokeybjb (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good for me. – Maky ^« talk » 17:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1897, Case and his colleague Georg Baur followed Cope’s original classification by placing Dimetrodon as a rhynchocephalian." – Didn't Cope initially put them in this group?

Changed the wording to "reclassified". Smokeybjb (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• The "History of study" section seems a bit long, and seems like it should be broken into subsections. Also, it spends a lot of time talking about the history of synapsid taxonomy, which I know Dimetrodon played an important role... It's making me wonder if some of the material might fall outside the scope of the article. However, let's discuss this before you remove anything. It may be fine as is.

The main reason I wanted to talk about taxonomy is to explain the various interpretations of where Dimetrodon fit in evolutionary terms. A lot of the information might do better in another article like Synapsida, but I still think some of it is important to mention. Maybe the history section could be split up entirely, with the naming of different species under the "Species" subsection of the "Classification" section, and the classification of Dimetrodon under the "Evolutionary relationships" subsection. If we keep the "History of study" section, I think the subsection headings should be titled either by time period (like "Nineteenth century", "Early twentieth century") or by researcher (Cope, Case, Romer). What do you think? Smokeybjb (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree that some of the information could moved/copied to Synapsid, and maybe some could be trimmed from the article. (Don't be afraid to use a "See also..." or "Main article..." below the subheadings.) Also, I like the first idea, where stuff is moved under "Species" and "Classification". I'm not sure if I like the idea of subsections by time period or researcher. – Maky ^« talk » 17:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, since I can't really think of a way to discuss how the evolutionary relationships of Dimetrodon have changed without drifting into how larger-level taxonomy has changed, I've removed those paragraphs. Most of it will probably end up in the synapsid article once I get around to it. As it is now, the "Evolutionary relationships" section already alludes to some of the old classification schemes. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Clear Fork Group, the Wichita Group, and the Pearce River Group" – Since these are red-linked, could you provide (in parentheses) information about where the location of these groups?

OK, mentioned that they are exposed in north-central Texas and south-central Oklahoma. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• "According to Olson, the land-based large-herbivore-dominated land ecosystems continued into the Mesozoic Era and are still present today while the aquatic-based ecosystems are rarer than they were in the Early Permian, existing today in places such as the Everglades." – This really seems to fall out of scope for the article. I think it can also be misleading, especially for people not versed in paleoecology. Your thoughts?

I think you're right. I took it out so it just says that the Everglades is a good model for the ecosystem of Dimetrodon. Plus, it seems like Olson was making some big generalizations about how ecosystems have changed since then. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• In the lead: "...and went extinct around 30 million years before the appearance of the first dinosaur in the Triassic period." – I'm not sure if this can be seen as a summary of material from the body, unless I missed something.

That's a mistake. I corrected it to 60 million years, which is also mentioned in the beginning of the section on evolutionary relationships. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad we caught that! – Maky ^« talk » 17:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• In the lead: "...and there is evidence that juveniles lived in different environments than adults to avoid competition and predation." – I thought this was discredited?

I changed the wording to "cast doubt." I can't find any mention of the idea after Brinkman's paper, so it's hard to say he had the last word on the subject. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In the lead, maybe change the wording from "there is evidence" to "there may be evidence", or something like that? – Maky ^« talk » 17:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any information about the appendicular skeleton? It seems like some of the major differences between the older reconstructions and modern reconstructions have to do with how Dimetrodon carried its weight.

There's one paper that goes into detail on the arms of Dimetrodon, but it's from 1927 and there might not be much useful information to include in this article. I'm guessing a lot of the features are also seen in other early synapsids and may be out of scope for the article, but I'll read through and see. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I kept sensing that when I read the article. I couldn't tell if I was reading an article about synapsids or Dimetrodon. But that will happen when you talk about topics this closely related. Unfortunately, it makes it a challenge to sort where the information should go. I recommend compiling a list of topics for each subject and sorting the information based on how you divide that list. With topics that have to be in both, choose one article to summarize and the other to provide details. Again, use "See also..." or "Main article..." as needed. (The nice part about this is that you will also be greatly improving Synapsid in the process.) – Maky ^« talk » 17:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any specific information on the appendicular skeleton of Dimetrodon. The paper goes into detail about reconstructing muscles, but I bet that by now most of it is obsolete. I think the differences in how Dimetrodon carries itself in restorations has more to do with the modern trend of making animals look more active and less sluggish than with different anatomical interpretations. I did find some good information on the tail, though. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Source check: "Dimetrodon kempae was named on the basis of a single humerus, and may therefore be a nomen dubium indistinguishable from other species of Dimetrodon." – According to your source, it says "it may pertain to a sphenacodontid of some other genus."

Ah, I didn't notice that. I added some more information on it. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Overall, a very good, informative article. I learned a lot. Once we settle the remaining issues above, I'll be glad to pass the article. – Maky ^« talk » 01:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion for making this a good article is to split up some of the longer chapters (like the sail and the fossil species history) into smaller subchapters. As of now, much of the article comes across as a wall of text and is very hard to read. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the basic suggestion I have been waiting on. It goes a little beyond just being a wall of text, but also includes scope issues. I am giving the nominator time to resolve the issues. – Maky ^« talk » 19:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I looks like I missed some edits and replies. I will recheck the scope issue once the flagged issues in the article and on the talk page are addressed. – Maky ^« talk » 19:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been away from editing for the past few days, so sorry I couldn't address this sooner. How about just removing the section on the history of species names? Average readers probably aren't looking for this level of detail, and I can add it to a List of Dimetrodon species article that I proposed earlier. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to split up the longer sections a bit, I hope it helps. I agree the history section can go in a list of Dimetrodon species, it is rather dominating where it is. The sail section is stil on the long side, I can't really see how I should carve it up. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I'm transferring some of the information in the history section to the under-construction species article at my sandbox, so I'll do some trimming to this article soon. I'm thinking of keeping some paragraphs on fossil collectors and Cope's first descriptions since they are relevant to Dimetrodon as a whole. As for the sail section, I agree it might be on the long side, but I think if it is split it will appear very fragmented. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I think a lot of what is being discussed on the talk page will help make the finishing moves towards GA. I've been monitoring it loosely, and will try to find time to check in soon to re-evaluate. But at this point, with all the discussion going on, I wouldn't be able to pass it GA. Once things are resolved there, I will take another look. – Maky ^« talk » 15:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion on the talk page appears to have concluded 20 days ago, and the last edit to the article is over a month old. Is there any chance that this review can be revived and some action taken soon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sure. I'll try to review it again tomorrow night. There was a very long discussion on the talk page that started up just as I was about to wrap things up, and I've been waiting for an "all clear" to resume the review. – Maky ^« talk » 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

New comments

• There are some weasel words, such as "...is thought to..." or "Some recent studies argue..." that need to be addressed in the article.

I removed the first one, but the studies (Haack, 1986; Tomkins et al., 2010) are attributed later in the text. WP:WEASEL says that these phrases can be used in the lead so long as they are attributed later on. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. – Maky ^« talk » 02:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Under "Skull", I don't think the heading "General shape" is needed. Usually, I put very general information directly under a header, and then categorized extensive details under subheaders.

Removed. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• The D. grandis skull image could use a better caption. A lot of people like to include a link to the location the photo was taken, but that's what the description field is for on Commons. Anyway, that kind of stuff only advertises for the organization and doesn't provide helpful information to the reader. The sexual dimorphism comparison caption is better, but again, the location links are already given both on Commons and in the body text.

I removed the link to the museum for the skull, but not for the sexually dimorphic skeletons because I think the institution names are necessary for identifying the specific skeletons already mentioned in the text (I could find their specimen numbers if you'd prefer). Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also the location in the taxobox, which seems a little too much, IMO. Again, it comes across as advertising, and I've seen many attempts to replace images in articles with the sole purpose of noting the image location (e.g. a particular zoo). That's why I'm a little touchy about it. As for the comparison, my opinion isn't as strong. It could stay as is, if you like. Otherwise, I would personally do as you suggest—mention the specimen numbers in the body, and then reference the specimen numbers in the caption instead of the locations. It's up to you. – Maky ^« talk » 02:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I managed to find specimen numbers for two of the skeletons (one of which now happens to be in Denver, not Harvard) and replaced the Field Museum photo since that skeleton doesn't seem to be the same as the one referenced in the source. I can't find the specimen number for the Michigan skeleton. Ideally I could replace it with a photo of the Denver skeleton, but the only images I could find of it on Flickr ([1][2][3][4][5]) don't have suitable licenses for upload to Commons. Maybe the caption could just say "the left skeleton may represent the male type and the right skeleton may represent the female type." What do you think? Smokeybjb (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Damn... I'm sorry to see a good image get replaced by a poor-quality one (with bad reflections). Otherwise, yes, I would go with that simpler caption. – Maky ^« talk » 22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I went to the AMNH a few months ago and took a picture of the skeleton - not as good in quality as the Field Museum photo, but better than the one currently in the article. I'll upload it. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please either link or briefly explain "caniniforms".

Done. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Link first mention of transitional.

Done. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a reason for the forced line break before the "Sail" section? IMO, it creates unnecessary white space.

Removed. It might have been added to prevent sandwiching of the "Sail" section between the two pictures, but the page looks fine without it on my screen. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO, that kind of stuff is so situational (based on browser, resolution, browser width, etc.) that I don't see why it matters. As long as we test things out as best we can, that's all we can do. It looks fine to me. – Maky ^« talk » 02:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• The caption for the old restoration should probably explicitly state that it is no longer considered accurate and explain a tiny bit more about the short tail inaccuracy.

Done. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect! – Maky ^« talk » 02:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Link first instance of "sexual selection".

Done. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Under "Species", I almost feel like the table belongs in the list article and that a brief summary and shorter lists are needed in this section. Your thoughts?

I'm not sure. It would be hard to summarize the species without getting into the history of their naming, which was why I moved the descriptions to a new species article. I think the table is a good way of seeing at a glance which species are currently included in the genus, and which are no longer recognized. The table would be redundant in the species article, since all the information it contains is already expressed in words. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me think about this while you address the lingering caption issue above. From my experience, list articles usually involve tables (with an informational lead at the top), while articles usually have text and maybe a small table or bulleted list. My gut tells me that this article should have a bullet list with a very brief summary of what is in the list article, and that the table belongs with the list. For GA, I may just let this go. If the article were to go to FAC, I would expect some discussion on this point. – Maky ^« talk » 02:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to let this issue pass, though I will not strike it. Again, if this article goes to FAC, I feel it should be revisited with a more careful reading of WP:TABLE. (It may be fine... but it depends on how things are interpreted, I think.) But for GAN, I think it's fine. – Maky ^« talk » 22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Link first mention of Red beds.

Done. However, the Red beds article isn't about the Texas and Oklahoma Red Beds in particular. Maybe a red link to Red Beds of Texas and Oklahoma (or some other name of that sort) would be better? Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry... I thought it was the appropriate article because I didn't look closely. The red link is fine. Hopefully someone creates the article. Maybe create a stub since you have a source that mentions it? (That would be "extra credit", IMO.)  ;-) – Maky ^« talk » 02:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Link first mention of description.

Done. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• In the lead, I would suggest noting that it was primarily found in North America and only recently discovered in Europe. It might even be good to list which states/regions have the richest Dimetrodon finds.

Done. I also added a mention of the Red Beds. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the subheading "Paleoenvironment" is needed under "Paleoecology"—the material seems general enough for that section.

Removed. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article looks much better and feels much more like an article about Dimetrodon than it does an article about synapsids and the history of their study. Once these issues are resolved, I feel comfortable passing the article. – Maky ^« talk » 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I've been away from editing for a while with real life chores and forgot about this review! I'll get started on addressing your new comments today, and hopefully we can wrap this up. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:27, 30 October 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):

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:

Thanks for the review! Sorry for slowing the process down with my absence these past few weeks. I really appreciate all the help you've given. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)