Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and
understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- Technical jargon should be either wikilinked (if a page exists), defined in line, or defined parenthetically (a few words will do). Wikipedia is for a general reader, not a paleontological one. Examples of words/phrases I have in mind: euhypsodont, typotherian, temporal fossa, hypotympanic, ectoloph, prism diameter, outer enamel service, enamel dentine junction, protolophs, That's not a comprehensive list, there are a bunch more - if you aren't sure which might be too jargony let me know and I'll list the rest. If you find it's impossible to work definitions of some these words into the prose smoothly, that's an indication that the section might be too detailed and you could remove some of these details altogether.
- Where they are kept, these details need to be put in context. I can read a whole paragraph or two on Protypotherium's molars, but what does it mean? What does it imply about their diet/lifestyle/etc, according to our reliable sources? Readers should be educated, not bewildered. For example, "The
Hunter-Schreger bands are thin (20–50 μm thick) and oblique" is fine from a readability standpoint but lacks context. What do thin bands mean? What does their obliqueness indicate?
- If you have questions about these comments, just let me know!
—Ganesha811 (
talk)
18:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
|
|
1b. it complies with the
Manual of Style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation.
|
- Pass, no issues (added formatting to External link Commons template).
|
2.
Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline.
|
|
|
2b.
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
- Pass, exclusively reliable academic sources in peer-reviewed journals. None of the journals appear to be problematic (pay to publish, etc etc).
|
|
2c. it contains
no original research.
|
|
|
2d. it contains no
copyright violations or
plagiarism.
|
|
3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
3a. it addresses the
main aspects of the topic.
|
- The lead is too short for the article's length and too focused on where fossils have been found. Incorporate some description of the animal (in mostly non-technical language) and mention when it was first described, roughly how many species in the genus, paleobiology, etc. It's at 78 words - you can take it up to around 175-200, I'd say, before it gets to be too long.
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style).
|
- There are a few other minor issues that we can deal with later, but the main issue is that the 'Paleoenvironment' section is much too detailed. Remember that a Wikipedia page is a summary and does not need to be a complete listing of all species found nearby. For a non-paleontologist, it just blurs into a mass of unmemorable names. Pick out a few examples and have more text describing if there is anything notable or unusual about Protypotherium's paleoenvironment. The second-to-last paragraph (The Collón Curá...drying effect on continents) is good - the rest should be similar to that. I don't mind a few taxa being mentioned, but extensive inline lists of taxa should be trimmed away. Similarly, a little more summarization would be of benefit to the first paragraph, describing locations where fossils have been found. That section could actually be made its own subsection, which might be a little clearer to the reader. Let me know if you have any questions about this.
|
|
4.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
- No issues with general NPOV or political neutrality, any issues with archaeological neutrality that may appear can be dealt with elsewhere. Pass.
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute.
|
- No outstanding issues on talk, no edit warring, no ongoing expansion. Pass.
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
|
|
6a. media are
tagged with their
copyright statuses, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content.
|
|
|
6b. media are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions.
|
- To me, File:Protypotherium australe - National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo - DSC07782.JPG looks like a better infobox image than the current choice, since it's head-on and slightly less blurry-looking.
- Alternately, File:Protypotherium australe.jpg (the reconstruction) can be swapped in, if it's still considered scientifically accurate.
- I'm sorry to say, since it's your own work, but I'm not sure File:Protypotherium praerutilum.png adds much to the article given that we have 3+ other examples of Protypotherium jaws/teeth etc. Can be removed.
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
|