I was actually kinda looking to write this one but I guess you beat me to it. Overall, I think the main issues are some paragraphs are unreferenced, wordiness, and to a lesser degree vagueness or seemingly incomplete thoughts User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Thylacinus cynocephalus: I don't think you understand what I'm saying (mainly because you're not doing it). So I make a bullet point about what you need to do. Once you have done that, tell me you did it by directly responding to every comment, or at the very least, put a bullet point saying you've responded to all the above. As far as I can tell, you've stopped responding and I'm about ready to fail it for inactivity User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
A general drive-by comment, the lead section is way too short, it should summarise the article, not it's just a few sentences. THe article certainly needs expansion if it is going to FAC some day, there is a lot of info left out.
FunkMonk (
talk)
03:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Replace news sources and museum websites with whatever journal publication they're citing. For example, the BBC will be citing a journal article, so cite the journal article instead of the BBC User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk15:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The first paragraph of doesn't really talk about evolution, and the first sentence is kind of unnecessarily complicated with terms like "derived" which isn't really used to say any important phylogenetic information which is really the only context it should be used in. What you could say is something more direct like "The wooly rhinoceros is the most derived of its genus" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I think the 2nd paragraph needs a little bit more explanation. Were the ancestors tropical or adapted to the alpine climates of the Himalayas? Were the Himalayas alpine yet? How does its evolution in humid areas speak to its absence in the Miocene?
The parts about Stephanorhinus could probably be condensed into a single sentence so it's easier to catch onto your train of thought. Something like "A 1.77 million year old Stephanorhinus hemitoechus rhino mummy may represent the ancestral stock/whatever you were getting at to Coelodonta". Also, I'm not really understanding how Stephanorhinus was identified as the ancestral stock because they seemed to have lived contemporaneously User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The third par doesn't have a source, and it could be heavily condensed. Something like, "The wooly rhino is thought to descend from either the Eurasian C. tologoijensis or the Tibetan C. thibetana. It evolved at the end of the Early Pleistocene nearly 300 kya, and spread into northern and western Europe." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
"A 1.77 million year old Stephanorhinus hemitoechus rhino mummy may also represent a sister group to Coelodonta" you didn't word this right. Why is only Stephanorhinus hemitoechus the sister group? What about other Stephanorhinus? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The closest extinct relative to the woolly rhinoceros is Elasmotherium, which appeared on the evolutionary arena before the genus Coelodonta" no it didn't if the wooly rhinoceros came about 3.6 mya, and there doesn't seem to be consensus on Elasmotherium's affinities User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The closest extinct relative to the woolly rhinoceros is Elasmotherium. These two lines were divided in the first half of the Miocene." This is only 1 viewpoint of rhino evolution. There're other hypotheses. Go find them User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk15:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
You use a lot of big words unnecessarily like "extant" instead of "living" or "modern day"; "deciduous teeth" instead of "baby teeth" or "milk teeth"; "dental arch" instead of just not putting it in there at all; and "inginual region" instead of "groin". Also, are you sure it had nipples in the groin? It's not sourced either User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Unique to the woolly rhinoceros was the adhesion of the forward rounded nasal bone with the premaxilla" I'm pretty sure all rhinos have round noses so you don't need that part, so you can say it as "Unique to this rhino, the nasal bones were fused to the premaxillae" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
No. You can condense the entire first paragraph into 1 or 2 or 3 sentences with a lot less words. "The front horn reached a considerable size. Its length reached a meter or more" these 2 statements are redundant. Why do you mention the Kolyma specimen? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk17:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The back horn was shorter, no more than half a meter (1.64 ft), at about 15 centimetres (5.9 in) long" is this the absolute biggest and smallest lengths or the absolute biggest recorded and the average size? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk17:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The rhino's long fur coat was reddish-brown and sometimes had a yellowish tint" how do we know this with such certainty? Are we using cave paintings or mummies? The same goes for everything else in that paragraph User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The second premolar was shaped in an especially gracile manner" I feel like the source just said this more or less verbatim and you more or less copy/pasted it in. If you don't understand something, then odds are the general reader won't understand, so what you need to do is understand it, and rewrite so it's easier to understand User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"The preserved wear indicates that they were used for combat, probably including intraspecific combat as recorded in cave paintings, as well as for moving snow to uncover vegetation during winter" The preserved wear cannot tell you what they were used for, it can only tell you that they were used for something. So, you can say "Woolly rhinos may have used their horns for..." but can't say this. Also this info belongs in Paleobiology User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
What exactly is the point of the 2nd paragraph? Why do you zero in on the English Channel specifically? Why do you mention the mammoth and Elasmotherium here? The 3rd paragraph could easily be condensed User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk01:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Typically in articles about extinct creatures, there's a section entitled "Paleobiology" which talks about the animals' behavior and diet and predators, and "Paleoecology" which talks about the environment the animal lived in and other animals it lived with User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk01:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Some scientists maintained the belief that the horns were the claws of giant birds, and were even classified under the name Gryphus antiquitatis" why do you say "Some scientists" when you're only citing Waldheim? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)reply
This review is on its away to reaching the 2nd month mark, and we've made very little headway. The article is still not very up to GA standards. Even with all the small grammar and style comments above, this article doesn't cover all relevant aspects of the woolly rhino. You should definitely include more sources and use only academic journal and book sources, and while you're expanding, make sure to avoid page filler and unnecessary wording and padding. Good luck User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)