Talk:Mixtotherium

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by PrimalMustelid (talk). Self-nominated at 00:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mixtotherium; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

It isn't actually uncommon for scientific names to mix Greek and Latin meanings in scientific names. How about:
ALT1 ... that the scientific name of the extinct genus Mixtotherium means "mixed beast"?
With that said, if the reviewer thinks the original hook is better, I won't object. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, the hook is less effective. While it can work, I'm thinking that instead, I should focus on convergent evolution along with the name etymology. In addition to usage of the original source for the etymology, I'm thinking:
ALT2 ... that the scientific name of the extinct genus Mixtotherium, meaning "mixed beast," has traits of both extinct primates and hyraxes? Source: A List of the Genera and Families of Mammals https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/83341#page/436/mode/1up Source: Brain damage: the endocranial cast of Mixtotherium cuspidatum (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) from the Victor Brun Museum (Montauban, France) https://hal.science/hal-03464281/
I'll let you and anyone else decide which ultimately works best. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This good article about a strange beast is DYK-eligible. Well-sourced, neutral, and my copyvio checks came out clean. While ALT0 may not be interesting to subject matter experts, it probably would be to our general audience, but I think ALT2 is the best of the bunch. But I'll leave that up to the prep builder, as all three are sourced, neutral, and interesting – and I imagine choosing a hook is one of the fun parts of the job. Good to go! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 01:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • So now we're here! I'll start reviewing soon, preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance there's a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[1] Note that doesn't include names linked in the cladogram.
  • You don't need to spell out Mixtotherium every time you mention a binomial, could be abbreviated to M. where you do (and as you have often done already).
  • Rename Postcranial remains to Postcranial skeleton. You don't call the other description "Skull remains" or "Dental remains".
  • You could add a year to the caption of the mandible drawing. I see it's already struggling to fit text, but it's also extremely narrow. Personally I'd just make a version without the text in the image and flip it so it becomes horizontal instead.
  • Generally not sure if the old text is needed in the illustrations, but not a big deal.
  • A bit unfortunate the Henri Filhol image clashes with the cladogram. Any way this could be rearranged, using a picture where he faces left and right aligning it, or making a cropped version of the version not showing almost his entire body? Also, I'm not sure how that image fits the text under classification. I'd rather use the space to show more anatomy or related genera.
Looks good, note it will be easier to keep track on what has been done if you add your responses under the relevant points, this is also the style that will be expected at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He said that it had a strong upper canine and upper molars" Likewise.
    • Replaced with "the specimen"
  • "he designated the genus plus species" Per above.
    • Corrected to "he designated another binomial name."
  • "species classified to Mixtotherium" Classified in/as.

PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Chose as. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The species was eventually synonymized with Bothriogenys sp." How can a named species be synonymised with an unnamed species?
  • A bit puzzling you have a section called "Taxonomic disputes" when much of the text preceding it is already about taxonomic disputes? Maybe it should instead be reframed as "modern taxonomic interpretations" or similar, as that's what it seems to be about?
  • "He stated that M. cuspidatum was the type species" Why does this need to be reiterated? We know from the first paragraph that it's the type species?
  • "Other researchers tie them as being more closely related to" not sure "tie them as" is a proper construction, just say "consider them more closely related to"?
That's normal for such replies. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The phylogenetic tree used for the journal and another published work about the cainotherioids is outlined below" I'm not sure what this means. The same cladogram was published in two journals, or it's a mix of two cladograms?
Ok, could this be rephrased somehow? Hard to follow. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already had, didn't I? PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you've chosen UK English (based on the use of palaeo), which makes sense because it's a European taxon, but then you also say "Paleogene". Should be consistent throughout, check for US spellings other places.
  • "may have occupied folivorous diets" I don't think you can "occupy a diet", but you can have one.
    • Replaced with "had."
  • "is a mystery because of the overall lack of evidence." This very precise phrasing could need in-text author attribution.
  • Probably no need to list the museum for non-Mixtotherium taxa either, as those are not the subject of this article, so it doesn't add any relevant information (and you didn't add it for Cainotherium anyway).
This is about listing museum names in captions, right now it's inconsistent either way, and I'm not sure it's necessary for taxa other than the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen most other GA or FA articles list museums in captions outside of the lede image, so I'm not sure why it'd be a problem here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I'm strictly talking about the images that don't show Mixtotherium itself. Either way, you have to be consistent, and the Cainotherium skeleton doesn't have the museum listed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned the museum that hosted the Cainotherium skeleton. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of technical terms under description that could need parenthetical explanations, also as to their locations.
It will inflate the text, but it will also surely be asked for at FAC, so it's pretty much required. I can point out some in the first paragraph, the you'll get the drift. See my current FAC Nasutoceratops for how much explanation that would be expected under description. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should switch the order of the two paragraphs under "Body mass"; now you start by saying this or that species is smaller or larger, with no reference to individual sizes. Better to get some masses listed so the reader has a point of references before reading about their relative sizes.
  • "They also appear subtriangular or subtrapezoidal" Could just sat "almost" or "roughly" instead of "sub", which would be incomprehensible for most readers.
  • "Their conical paraconule cusps are reduced and are part of the preprotocrista crest. The protoconules are weak, and the parastyle plus mesostyle cusps appear labially round. M1–M2 usually exhibit back-sided cingulids that are round lingually and extend to the back of the entoconid cusp. The transverse third lobe of the M3 is compressed." This entire run would be hard to understand for most readers, could need some explanations.
  • I'm worried if the Endocast anatomy section is too detailed compared to even the adjacent sections, and wonder whether all that text is really needed, as it will be incomprehensible to 90% of readers (and even many paleontologists not specialised in brain anatomy, I'd assume). Perhaps cut it down to the essentials, such as the parts that distinguish this genus or are relevant for classification and comparison, and not general descriptions?
I can imagine this will be brought up at FAC, but I guess now you're prepared. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd entirely agree, and a link sure couldn't hurt. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright fine, linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs under Palaeoecology have no context for how they're related to the subject if the article. Could start right of with stating when and where Mixtotherium lived in a sentence, then go into the nitty gritty about what happened during these times.
  • Do no modern researchers consider some of the species to belong to distinct genera?
  • "Known taxonomically as mixtotheriids or mixtotheres" Not sure what is meant by "Known taxonomically", as you just said they belong to Mixtotheriidae, which is the actual taxonomic name. Those latter terms are informal/common variations, so you could say "informally/commonly known as mixtotheriids or mixtotheres".
  • When you get a restoration, remember to include what sources it was based on in the Commons description, I see it's lacking from the Anoplotherium[2], for example, but it is often asked for at FAC. Pinging Triloboii for this.
  • That should be it, I think this would make it rather close to FAC quality overall, though beware that they are much more critical of wording and formatting than me there. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Mixtotherium"