I might as well uphold my tradition of a review for every nomination, in which case I'll take this one on. On first read the article seems a little shy on some information, but I'm not surprised given the probable lack of papers on a taxon known from a few teeth. I'll continue adding more as I go along. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}16:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Taxonomy:
Either some linking to the locations (Chorora Village, Beticha) or some rough approximations of the location (eg. southern Ethiopia) would be appreciated, otherwise the only location information easily identified is the country.
Explanation of what CHO-BT stands for would be good
They are redundant enough that both "derived" should not be included since it is never brought up later in the text. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}03:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It should either be incorporated into the sentence "... are derived as they have unique specializations ..." or removed, as it disrupts sentence flow and is not an explanation of what unique specializations mean. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}16:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Being derived is a relative term, compared to gorillas Chororap is not derived. Having unique features makes it derived compared to their common ancestor, which is not what the comparisons are to. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
"Because the Chororapithecus teeth have several specializations not shared with those of gorillas (they exhibit a
derived condition compared to the presumed last common ancestor), they did not consider it as ancestral to the gorilla." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There is some conflict between the lead and the taxonomy here. The lead says Chororap. is the only fossils of a great ape lineage, but taxonomy says it is the only Miocene fossil, but also that Nakalip. is as well.
Because they didn't firmly say "We classify Nakalipithecus in Gorillini", they simply said it's a possibility, whereas with Chororapithecus, the discoverers said "We classify it in Gorillini, though it is a possibility it is not" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Maybe then add the modifications of the phylogeny where nakalipi is either outside or within gorillini to make it clearer its position is less certain. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}19:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The first sentence of age discussion seems a bit choppy, perhaps split between the original and later interpretation like "... and the discoverers then concluded that the gorilla–human last common ancestor (LCA) existed about 12 mya.[1] The [teeth/deposit] was subsequently re-dated to about 8 mya by [authors], which, if Chororapithecus is indeed a stem gorilla ..."
This
paper discusses hominin evolution, and puts forward how previous studies require Chororapithecus to be a hominin to match their proposed MRCA
That's basically the function of "it is possible that Chororapithecus and gorillas instead convergently evolved the same teeth due to a similar diet" and "if Chororapithecus is indeed a stem gorilla". If it isn't a gorillin, then it wouldn't be a crown hominine User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It is also
suggested that Chororapithecus having lateral cusps is the primitive feature for Homininae and also suggests the genus is a stem-hominine instead of a gorillin
A statement giving the uncertainty of it being a gorillin would be nice, since the papers I found above seem to state the teeth actually differ more than they are similar.IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}19:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Looking in Suwa ea 2015, it includes all the ecological information you could need, more about specific fauna from the same locality, from elsewhere in the formation, relative ages, habitat types, and "first sub-saharan mammals from 7-9ma"
Anything about the environment would be good, and the statement about being the first discovery of sub-saharan mammals from the late miocene would be worthwhile adding to the history section. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}23:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The bracketed phrase still messes with the flow of the sentence, it should either be incorporated into the prose or removed. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}05:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If information on the describers is available, etymology and some more background could be added to the lead, and the taxonomic aspects could be split into their own paragraph
I'll let the "derived" discussion stay above, but that one
Information on the describers should be given at the beginning of the taxonomy/history section, Suwa and two other authors have articles so they should be relevant enough to be mentioned in context
Ah looking at it I can see it is set to the width 25em. I would reduce it to 20em so there isn't as much separation of columns while preserving the look on mobile and other setups. Now optional. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
"Optional" I would personally think splitting the Taxonomy into a History and a Taxonomy section would be better, as then the information about discovery, what fossils, authors etc can be separated from age and classification more cleanly
"Optional" An image of Afar Region, Ethiopia should be added to Paleobiology to add a rough environmental context and illustrate the article more