This article is about the largest marsupial ever, and the first Australian fossil mammal ever described, an elephantine wombat which lumbered across the continent until 40,000 years ago. This would be only the 3rd marsupial FA, after
Tasmanian tiger and
Tasmanian devil, and the 1st prehistoric marsupial
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Hm, looks like it hasn't, I've added it now and I'll remove the image from the article in the meantime
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
File:Diprotodon_molars.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Diprotodon_femur_interior.jpg, File:Diprotodon_femur_exterior.jpg
That version has conflicting information. To what does the CC license apply, versus the PD status?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 01:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
it looks like it first came to Commons via Flickr (hence the CC) but the image itself comes from a publication which has entered PD
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 01:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
File:Fire-stick-_Lycett.webp: when and where was this first published?
File:Bunyip_1890_(cropped).jpg: which of the Australian rationales is believed to apply, and what is the status of this work in the US?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 01:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
In 1830, bushman George Ranken – What does "bushman" mean here? Wiktionary tells me "A person who lives in the bush, especially a member of a community orfo ethnic group who lives in the bush". That would suggest to me that he was an Aboriginal Australian; is that the case?
The source uses the word "bushmen" prefacing George Ranken, but in a footnote it clarifies he got to Australia in 1821, so maybe "colonist"?
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Better I think, yes. "Bushmen" is simply misleading. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 19:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
there were no serious scientists in Australia – I fear that "serious" is judgemental and inappropriate. There was a "formal expedition" that excavated the remains, so on what basis can we claim these were not "serious" scientists? This is thin ice in my opinion.
The source says "...the lack of scientific expertise in the Australian community at the time..." and then introduces Owen. Maybe, "At the time these massive fossils were discovered, in the early years of colonial expansion, few minds were turned towards purely scientific careers"? Though this may be stretching the source
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I would stick to the source as close as possible; maybe just "Australia lacked scientific expertise" or something similar. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 19:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I would avoid too many of the same words like "lack" due to close paraphrasing.
LittleJerry (
talk) 18:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Mitchell published the correspondence in his journal.[3] – that would be volume 1, right? But you are citing volume 2.
The letter is in volume 2, volume 1 only has a footnote
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 03:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
attracted quite an audience – maybe too colloquial? "attracted a large audience"?
Also, adult Diprotodon specimens come in two distinct size ranges; … – this part seems to be a bit out-of-place. You discuss species, then size ranges, and then species again. Do species first, and then have a paragraph on the size ranges?
the size variation was one of the "subtle anatomical variations", they're all part of the same thought
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Cladograms: On my screen the cladograms are one above the other, not left or right as indicated in the text.
yeah Wikipedia just made desktop view like mobile view, fixed
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
better adapted to the spreading dry and open landscapes – steep claim I would say: Can we argue that a species was poorly adapted to its environment? Where is that covered in the source?
it says diprotodontids are the most diverse group of vombatomorphs ever, and "While many vombatomorphian families... were extinct by early Miocene times, diprotodontids were one of the few to increase in diversity throughout the Cenozoic, appearing to benefit from the opening up of Australia's forests"
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
than other vombatiformes; and attained a – I think the ; needs to be removed or replaced with a comma
By the Late Miocene, diprotodontians became the most common marsupial order in fossil sites, a dominance which endures to the present day; at this point, the most prolific diprotodontians were diprotodontids and kangaroos. – I can't follow. How can a dominance in fossil sites endures to the present day (fossils do not form from one day to the next)? Is "at this point" referring to the "present day"?
diprotodontians are still the most abundant marsupial order
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
In 1977, Archer suggested that Diprotodon directly evolved from the smaller Euryzygoma, – Most of the "Evolution" section is not directly about Diprotodon but provides context. This sentence, however, might be the most important information that directly concerns Diprotodon of the whole section; yet I fear it gets a bit lost, being attached to a longer paragraph like this.
The Phylogeny section seems to miss an important information: What are the closest relatives of Diprotodon? Do scientists agree on the sister taxon or do different hypotheses exist? Were these closely related forms very similar in morphology and size to Diprotodon?
The only diprotodontid I see anyone trying in some way to relate to Diprotodon is Euryzygoma mentioned in Evolution, but you can see in the Beck 2020 cladogram that they decided not to group them as sister taxa with no explanation, so I'm not sure what to do here. It's probably because the diprotodontid fossil record is pretty fragmentary
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The description is easy to follow and accessible. However, it only compares Diprotodon with modern marsupials, but does not stay how to distinguish it from its closest relatives. What were the diagnostic features? If you think this is too technical, consider adding just a sentence to the "Phylogeny" section giving some examples to provide an idea how paleontologist diagnose this taxon.
Owen didn't specifically give a list of diagnostic features as he was describing the entire skeleton, he just started going off with comparisons (which I guess is kinda the same thing). Price seems to give a lengthy description of the topography of each tooth, which I guess would also be diagnostics, but I think far too specific
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
than Murray's guesstimate – again, I think "guesstimate" is judgmental and has to be avoided. Just say "estimate". Instead of writing "more analytical approach", I would go for "more sophisticated approach".
Using Burness's methods, Diprotodon is 25% larger than expected – expected by whom? Murray's estimate? If so, write "than previously assumed"? --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 16:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
No, but it's not important enough actually to explain it, so I just removed it
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll try to get to these comments over the weekend
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 00:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Adult Diprotodon skeletons can measure 160–180 cm (5 ft 3 in – 5 ft 11 in) at the shoulders, and 275–340 cm (9–11 ft) from head to tail. – this is slightly mis-representing the source, which is clearly about size in life, not the size of mounted skeletons.
Still, the low seasonal δ13C values (its carbon isotope ratio remained about the same in both winter and summer, so it ate the same proportion of C3 and C4 plants regardless of their seasonal abundance) indicate that Diprotodon was a selective eater, at least more so than the modern wombat. – I think this needs clarification and has several issues. First, where is "its" referring to, to the delta-13-C? If so, how can it be both "low seasonal" and "about the same in both winter and summer"? And why does this indicate it was a selective feeder? Lastly, the addition in the brackets is better placed in a separate sentence; this sentence is too long and confusing as is.
These fossilised herds – this does not seem to be covered by the sources? Diprotodon graveyards could have accumulated over time (therefore comprising members of multiple herds). A single herd (as implied in "fossilised herds") can only be demonstrated when there is exceptional evidence; does such evidence exist?
In a few places, the source says things like "As the [Bacchus Marsh] assemblage is thought to represent individuals trapped in muds of a drying marsh, it is possible that a single herd was sampled"
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 19:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
OK, but then we need to add the word "possible" ("possible fossilized herds"), it is very important. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll to to give it a look soon.
FunkMonk (
talk) 19:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"At the time these massive fossils were discovered, it was generally guessed that the fossil assemblage represents rhinos" Jarring and unecessary change in tense, say "represented".
"They were not formally described until Mitchell, while in England publishing his journal, brought them to his former colleague, English naturalist Richard Owen, in 1837." Very choppy sentence structure.
"and the acceptance of its apparent replacement "australis" has historically varied widely." Youn should make clear that this is the universally accepted name today.
Would be good to show some of the first known fossils in the history section.
Yeah, now that desktop view displays like mobile now, there's a lot more space for images
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 23:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"still classified the molars from Wellington as "M. australis"." The last binomial you mentioned included Deinotherium, so spell out if this binomial uses Mastodon.
"He also continued to describe Diprotodon as likely elephantine.[6] In 1847, a nearly complete skull and skeleton was recovered from the Darling Downs, which confirmed this characterisation.[8]" This reads as if he thought the complete skull confirmed the elephant classification, which seems improbable.
First mention in the article body is "Fossils were first noticed here by an aboriginal stockman", which is unlinked.
FunkMonk (
talk) 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"Fossils were first noticed here by an aboriginal stockman working on a sheep property just east." When?
"In addition to D. optatum and "D. australis", several other species were erected " But as you explain it, these two were not intended as different species, but names for the same, so it's somewhat misleading. Just mention the valid name.
An image like this of a fossil in situ
[2] would be interesting in the history section.
The title "In culture" is very vague and inclusive, and would attract all sorts of trivia. Something like "Cultural significance" would be better for weeding out unimportant info.
Seems like it's made by a palaeontologist
[4], so should be safe.
FunkMonk (
talk) 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
You could avoid the giant white space created by the two cladograms by placing them side by side like in for example
Elasmosaurus.
"probably a response to the lower quality plant foods available in a drying climate, requiring them to consume much more." But couldn't this also have the opposite effect?
"and are thus far more likely to fossilise and be discovered than those other megafauna" Perhaps pipelink
preservation bias.
"Diprotodon skull reconstructions showing the cranial bones (left) and the frontal sinuses (right)" Could be specified that the right image is based on CT scans.
"The occipital bone, the back of the skull" Could be a vaguer "at the back of the skull", as there are other bones in the general area.
Perhaps place the size section first in the description section, as this is usually dealt with first.
With the contrast and lighting fixed, this museum mount
[5] would arguably be better in the Vertebrae section than the old 1910 image. I can try to fix it up.
I've now improved the contrast.
FunkMonk (
talk) 09:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I found this photo
[6] of a skull that was unlabelled on Commons, it has an interesting history, having been found due to floods in 2011
[7], so could perhaps go under "Fossil evidence". Also shows a part of the skull otherwise not illustrated.
"relevant to closing the jaw" Sounds rather vague, as it had all sorts of other functions. Why not "used for closing the jaw"?
"thickening as it approaches the body of the mandible (where the teeth are)" Never heard this terminology, seems to be humanocentric? Just say
dentary bone?
"are coated in cementum like kangaroos." Like in kangaroos. Otherwise it sounds like kangaroos are coated in cementum...
Support Comments from Jim
I think in the lead, just Richard Owen, without the title, he was knighted for many more years
Jimfbleak -
talk to me? 11:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
....in weight. Females were much smaller than males. It supported...—perhaps ....in weight; females were much smaller than males. It supported... to keep subject of "it" clear.
Diprotodontoidea family tree according to Australian palaeontologists Karen H. Black and Brian Mackness, 1999 (left),[27] and Vombatiformes family tree according to Beck et al. 2020 (right):[22]Diprotodontoidea family tree according to Australian palaeontologists Karen H. Black and Brian Mackness, 1999 (left),[27] and Vombatiformes family tree according to Beck et al. 2020 (right):[22] —This verbless sentence appears to be acting as a heading, so either needs formatting as such or made into a sentence eg The Diprotodontoidea family tree according to Australian palaeontologists Karen H. Black and Brian Mackness, 1999 (left),[27] and the Vombatiformes family tree according to Beck et al. 2020 (right):[22] are shown below.
In large kangaroos, females usually reach sexual maturity and enter oestrus soon after weaning, and males need double the time. — needs tweaking, males don't reach oestrus
I realise that the nomination is attracting some attention, but it has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it makes significant progress towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 16:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The nomination has now been open for well over five weeks and seems no closer to a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next couple of days it will be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 21:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I presume this is written in AusEng? If so, take my spelling and hyphen comments as being from a position of complete ignorance! Having said that, three of the following four are likely to be wrong, with one possible:
In Size: "ahve": have and "cartilagenous": cartilaginous?
More to come, likely tomorrow. Cheers -
SchroCat (
talk) 16:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Research history
"colonist George Ranken": "colonist" is an odd description that doesn’t aid understanding (his nationality doesn't affect what he did). Is there a better descriptor? Farmer?
The source only describes him as a bushman or a colonist, and someone above commented that bushman is vague
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
This describes him as a farmer. It also gives information about what he did with the fossils he found, which could be included. -
SchroCat (
talk) 21:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I added he was a farmer but the part of handing them off to the University of Edinburgh while in England is already in the text (he more specifically gave them to Owen who was alma mater there)
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"generally guessed that the": "generally thought that the"
"They were not formally described until Mitchell, while in England publishing his journal, brought them in 1837 to his former colleague, English naturalist Richard Owen.": a bit garbled and a bit too much unnecessarily detail. Maybe "They were not formally described until Mitchell brought them to his former colleague, English naturalist Richard Owen."
This has been changed, but is more unclear than it was before.
SchroCat (
talk) 22:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
it's more confusing with the clause "while in England publishing his journal" appendaged onto the end?
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"In 1838, while studying a piece of a right mandible with an incisor, Owen compared the tooth to that of a wombat and a hippo, and designated it as a new genus in a letter to Mitchell, as Diprotodon": again, a little cumbersome with the letter factoid in the middle. There are two options here:
"In 1838, while studying a piece of a right mandible with an incisor, Owen compared the tooth to that of a wombat and a hippo; he wrote to Mitchell and designated it as a new genus: Diprotodon"; or
"In 1838, while studying a piece of a right mandible with an incisor, Owen compared the tooth to that of a wombat and a hippo, and designated it as the new genus Diprotodon". You can change the next line to say that when Mitchell was told, he included it in the journal
I prefer "the one time" so it's clear it's talking about the aforementioned usage, otherwise it sounds like an introduction
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
You have "Darling Downs" and "the Darling Downs": is the definite article needed?
"Diprotodon individuals over a few acres, and more were uncovered": this sentence covers 80 years and is a bit surprising (we were looking at Hurst's activities at the beginning!). Maybe a full stop after acres and continue from "More were uncovered..."
"Multiple herds of these animals at different times probably got stuck in the mud during their crossing while the water was low during dry seasons". Again this is a bit bumpy to read through and if we're reporting something in WP's voice, "probably" shouldn't be included. Hypotheticals should always be attributed. Possible rewording could look something like "Bloggs considers it likely that several herds of Diprotodon crossed the (river or lake) while the water was low during dry season and became stuck in the mud"
You can't use definitive wording in these kinds of matters, because it's not like we have witnesses to the event. And, if I do "Bloggs says xyz" then it sounds like Bloggs came up with the idea and he's the only one really saying it
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
This is a problem (still). Naming someone who has said something doesn’t mean they were the first. _
SchroCat (
talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I found the first guy who said it, so attributed
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"several other species were erected": erected? Identified, maybe? If this is technical use it fails
WP:JARGON, if it isn't, then it's not in the OED!
It's not jargon and it's never been an issue before, and I wouldn't use the word identify because it sounds like a real and valid discovery, which clearly it wasn't because the names are no longer used
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
It’s not in the dictionary as a meaning that is clear here. -
SchroCat (
talk) 22:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
erect as in the sense to set up or establish
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"Also, adult Diprotodon specimens": never start a sentence with "Also" on WP – it just looks like something that's been forgotten and added in later. The sentence and the one that follows seem to be unconnected to the opening sentence of the paragraph and the final one. (ie, you mention the other species, then talk about the differing/non-differing sizes, then move onto the other species again. It's a bit of a confusing paragraph – at least for a non-specialist like me.
added "Among the variations was size difference"
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"Australian palaeontologists": aside from repeating Australia from three words previously, their nationality is unimportant as far as this article goes. Just "Palaeontologists" will suffice
Including nationality when introducing a person is pretty standard (or at least commonplace) on the paleo side of Wiki, such as in
Oxalaia,
Cimoliopterus,
Paranthodon, etc.
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Nationality isn’t important: the names and findings are. -
SchroCat (
talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Personally I like reading the nationality to see how multinational (or not) research on the subject is, and it's a harmless, unobtrusive addition
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 23:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I, as a reader, don’t feel it’s unobtrusive. The constant repetition of nationality makes me wonder if there is a reason: are American palaeontologists better or worse at some aspects than French or Australian ones? Do British or German ones have an advantage or disadvantage? There are about fourteen references before the family tree: for the general reader this looks like the nationality actually matters somehow ... but it really doesn’t. It’s a distraction that doesn’t add anything for the general (or specialist) reader. -
SchroCat (
talk) 23:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It's more like scientists from these places seem to be taking more of an interest in this topic, you're reading way too far into this if you think the average reader is interpreting the small mention of nationality as racist or whatever it is you're implying
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 01:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No, I’m not implying anything of the sort. I have given the reasons quite clearly. -
SchroCat (
talk) 06:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Bullet list: "erected", as before; nationalities, as before
"Australian palaeontologist Gilbert": nationality as before
Done to the end of Research history. I have concerns on the text with this article and we're only at the end of the first section. It's a bit bumpy to read through – not just the scientific information, which often causes problems in flowing prose, but in the history and description, where I keep tripping over awkward constructions and odd phrasing or word choice. –
SchroCat (
talk) 15:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I've gone through one of the lower sections and see other problems in the prose which I think should be cleared up before coming to FAC. I'm reluctantly going to oppose this (something I dislike doing), but my recommendation is that you withdraw this nom and go through PR to get the prose issues sorted before returning. -
SchroCat (
talk) 17:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Most of your comments are purely stylistic so I ask you to reconsider
Dunkleosteus77(talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
No, these are not stylistic, and neither are many of my other concerns. Saying that something passed elsewhere isn’t a defence. Neither is claiming these are ‘just’ stylistic. Just glancing down the page the following caught my eye “They [the sinuses] may have also helped dissipate stresses produced by biting more efficiently across the skull”: reading literally, this is saying by the efficient way the sinuses bit across the skull, they dissipated stress. There are several such points where a reader will both trip up on and be confused by the prose. You don’t have to take my comments or my oppose on board (these are just my opinion, after all), but I’m not inclined to withdraw the oppose. -
SchroCat (
talk) 22:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Just clarifying, my oppose isn’t on stylistic grounds, but on
FAC criteria 1.a: “well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard”. -
SchroCat (
talk) 23:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It might, but this has been open a long time and, as Gog noted earlier, is still not approaching consensus to promote. I'm afraid it's time to archive this and work on improvements outside the FAC process. A visit to PR before another try here also seems worthwhile. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 12:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
Ian Rose (
talk) 12:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.