First observation, last paragraph under Paleoecology needs a citation.
Meant to be the same ref as the previous paragraph. Done.
I'd nuke the popular culture section, perhaps merge the info into the history section if we really want it. Not relevant enough to warrant an entire section consisting of a single sentence.
"The second skull belongs to a smaller individual" I'd add "second known", to make clear this early there are only two skulls.
Done.
"crushing and deformation of the fossil was reconstructed" Is this the right way to put it? Do you reconstruct deforming and crushing? Or "account for it", etc.?
Reworded.
No estimates for how long a complete individual would have been?
None in the literature that I have seen. I'll take another look.
"The smaller specimen has an incisor preserved within its nasal cavity" Perhaps make clear this is misplaced?
Done.
"The type specimen prominently preserves" What does this mean? That much of the tooth is preserved?
Referring to the size of the tooth. Reworded.
"which may have been interpreted as a groove by some authors" May have been interpreted? Either it has, or it has not?
Referring to it possibly being the same thing as the groove, which is the point of uncertainty.
" and described by Robert Broom" Was?
Reworded.
"was later found in 1966" Later seems redundant when you already say second and a later date?
Deleted.
"described by Kitching" Full name? You give it for Broom. Same for other names you mention under classification and venom.
Done.
Did a few more.
What does the genus and species name mean?
Also had trouble with the etymology. Taking another look.
"in side of the maxilla." Inside?
On the side. Corrected.
"The water level in these streams appeared to have been seasonally dependent." Appear to?
Reworded.
Anything about the vegetation and climate in its environment?
Given that it's the Karoo, I'm not optimistic that there's info on this. Taking a look.
Looking again, I think it would better to lump the descriptive info together with the tooth info in the second paragraph of the intro; articles usually never start by describing the animal, like here.
FunkMonk (
talk)
17:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Ok, done.
There is quite a bit of duplicate linking under venom and palaeoecology.
Is this with respect to links present already in other sections?
Ok, I've cleaned the links up. Please let me know if I missed anything.
Any interesting images in the original description? Appears they would be in the public domain in South Africa.
[1] Perhaps "Broom's overly reconstructed diagram of the skull" could be shown at the beginning of the venom section.
When claims are made, it would be nice with in-text attribution, so it does not look like an established fact ("Thus, the venom hypothesis is more plausible" according to...).
Added to several claims made under "Venom".
"while snakes have specialized ducts)" Why a half parenthesis here?
The cladogram labels it a member of
Moschorhininae (which currently redirects to
Moschorhinus), and Fossilworks
[2] labels it as part of
Moschorhinidae (which redirects to
Akidnognathidae), yet neither are mentioned under classification?
Expanded. The latter is synonymous with Akidnognathidae.
Considering the taxonomic histories of many other stem-mammals, it is almost strange there are no synonyms or formerly referred species? Is there really nothing else for the history section?
Changes look good, let's see if the Broom paper yields any new info, then I'll pass. Adding info from the original description will also satisfy the comprehensiveness criterion (though that may be more of a FAC thing, but you may want to go that route down the line?).
FunkMonk (
talk)
17:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Yeah, almost as if it was based on another animal... But it should be easy to fix, I'll give it a go... Perhaps also get rid of most of the hair?
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I have no idea what the source publication is, but since the caption mentions 1986, it's probably not old enough to be in the public domain. On the other hand, if it is just a reproduction of Broom's original illustration... But we can only know once you get the paper.
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Ok, since we don't know when you will get the paper, and since I already think the article meets the GA criteria, I'll just pass it now. But ping me here once the new info is incorporated!
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Bummer, I wonder what "Broom's overly reconstructed diagram of the skull" refers to then... Does the source cite a paper? Sometimes all figures from all articles in a volume are featured in the end of it... Does it refer to any plates or figures? Is there any other Broom paper it could be in? --
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Alright... Maybe something to get if you want to do something extra for potential FAC one day... I've gotten book pages from the resource request before (even an entire book PDF)...
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply