Hello, I'll be reviewing this article over the next week or so. While reviewing, I'll add comments and thoughts to this page. You can track overall progress using the above template. Cheers!
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
19:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Lead section
Etymology in the first sentence is a bit much. You already go into detail in the article itself. What about "Glyptotherium (from Greek for "grooved or carved beast": γλυπτός "sculptured" and θηρίον "beast") is a..."
The sentence "The holotype (the specimen Osborn studied) included a nearly complete carapace, tail, or caudal, armor, and several additional postcranial elements that had been found in the Pliocene Blancan Beds in Llano Estacado, Texas, USA." needs a rewrite.
"Graviportal"? Can you use simpler terms in the lead section? Remember that non-biologists and people without technical backgrounds will read this article. Same with "osteoderms", although that one is more likely to be understood, and "hypsodont".
In general, the lead section needs to be a little bit simpler and easier to understand. Remember that you can go into all the nitty-gritty details in the body.
Prose
Sources
The sources are all to reputable journals—good work here! Y
There is one major issue with the sources: The page ranges cited are too massive for
verifiability. You can try utilizing a references list and then using {{
sfn}}, {{
harvnb}}, or similar for short citations indicating the pages for the individual claims.
Images
File:Glyptotheriumm.jpg is just someone's DeviantArt artistic recreation of a Glyptotherium. What qualifications does this person have to be making this image?
Copyright spot checks revealed no close paraphrasing or plagiarism. Y
Original research spot checks revealed only one very minor concern: The text "Another important find came in 1910..." claims that the find is "important", and, while I don't doubt that it is, the source does not back up this claim. It backs up everything else in the sentence. However, my inability to find the source for the importance part might simply be due to the missing individual page numbers as described above in the "Sources" section.
You could stand to explain in-text (like in parentheses) a lot of the anatomical words, like zygoma (cheekbones), trilobation (three-lobed), or caudal (tailward), just to name only a few. Otherwise, large swathes of the article or largely inaccessible to the general population
Dunkleosteus77(talk)18:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply