An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the
good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a
good article should be left to the first reviewer.
Short description: Extinct genus of endemic Palaeogene European artiodactyls
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Alright, I see it's complete in the size diagrams, though, what are those body dimensions based on? The Commons description doesn't make that clear, mentioning various skull material instead.
FunkMonk (
talk)
20:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
One of the old figures may look even more interesting for the infobox than the current image there.
Strangely, the plant is under the genus Cerastium[3] on Commons. Do we know if that's actually the current name, and its Wikipedia page should be moved there? Then our animal article could lose the parenthesis.
I've reviewed down to "Classification" now. There are a few things that need to be checked throughout, like how people are presented and capitalised species names.
FunkMonk (
talk)
20:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Jaws and dentition of D. cuspidatum (Fig. 2-6)" You could give the year in the caption as you do for the other historical figures.
"erected a new taxon classified to the clade called Dichodon" Seems an odd formulation. "Belonging to the/placed in the group"? Also, it seems anachronistic to use the term "clade" retroactively like this before anyone used it in this context.
" He noted that its fossils were found by Alexander Pytts Falconer from the Eocene beds of Hordle, England" Would be simple to just directly say the fossil was from there, instead of saying Owen stated it, which is quite a sidetrack.
"Dichobune for which Owen stated that its molar mounds were similar to." You already stated it resembled it, so just shorten it to "Dichobune, due to having similar molar mounds".
"naturalist Vladimir Kovalevsky", "but Hans Georg Stehlin". Give nationality as you do for other people you mention for consistency. There seems to be others as well, like " by François Jules Pictet de la Rive", check throughout. Alternatively, remove nationality for them all.
"D. Valdense, and D. Frohnstettense" Why are the species names capitalised? You seem to do this throughout.
That's how the authors who erected the taxa originally named them. It used to often be that taxa named after individuals or places had their species names uppercase until later in the 20th century.
PrimalMustelid (
talk)
22:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"and naming convention of D. Valdense" Not sure what convention would mean here. Etymology?
"that there was a small-sized species from the Swiss locality of Egerkingen, that it was smaller than D. Frohnstettense and that it would have been roughly the size of Cainotherium." This could be simpler: "that there was a small-sized species from the Swiss locality of Egerkingen, that was smaller than D. Frohnstettense and would have been roughly the size of Cainotherium. "
"because of incomplete material" Would be clearer with "because of the incompleteness of the material".
"he assigned the species name D. simplex" Could be clearer since it seems the point is that he added it to an existing genus, like: "Deciding not to establish a new genus because of incomplete material, he assigned to Dichodon as the species D. simplex".
"in 1910 suggested that Kovalevsky based the species on fossils previously described by François Jules Pictet de la Rive" But that he didn't name? Could be specified.
"and D. cervinus, the latter of which was previously erected and classified to the genus Dichobune by Owen in 1841" This is chronologically confusing: why do you only mention a species already named in 1841 down here instead of earlier when you cover Owen's other naming?
I'm following the typical taxonomic section format in which the recognition of the genus name is referenced first followed by species names and reclassification. I reference species not initially classified to a genus first only if I follow a research history format first, which I don't here. It's mainly for the sake of simplicity.
PrimalMustelid (
talk)
22:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"established the binomial name Tetraselenodon Kowalevskii based on fossils from the French department of Tarn-et-Garonne in 1886. He justified the genus by arguing that Pictet incorrectly referred it to Dichodon due to the dentition being simple-looking in form." This is somewhat confusing. Is this a new name for the taxon mentioned under "he assigned the species name D. simplex"? If so, state it, and why did he think he could just create a new name for it? And why is the specific name capitalised?
"Sudre therefore established the species D. lugdunensis." Why is this necessary when you start the sentence with "the French palaeontologist Jean Sudre erected D. lugdunensis"?
"were listed in a journal article by Jerry J. Hooker in 1986" Not sure why "in a journal article" is needed here and nowhere else, doesn't add anything.
"although he emended D. subtile to D. subtilis and D. frohnstettense to D. frohnstettensis" Did he explain why? Of course because of some incongruence, but could be specified for the reader.
"based on diagnoses of dentition" Not sure why "based on diagnoses of" is needed, here as you'd assume this would be the same for all the other species mentioned so far.
An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the
good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a
good article should be left to the first reviewer.
Short description: Extinct genus of endemic Palaeogene European artiodactyls
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Alright, I see it's complete in the size diagrams, though, what are those body dimensions based on? The Commons description doesn't make that clear, mentioning various skull material instead.
FunkMonk (
talk)
20:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
One of the old figures may look even more interesting for the infobox than the current image there.
Strangely, the plant is under the genus Cerastium[3] on Commons. Do we know if that's actually the current name, and its Wikipedia page should be moved there? Then our animal article could lose the parenthesis.
I've reviewed down to "Classification" now. There are a few things that need to be checked throughout, like how people are presented and capitalised species names.
FunkMonk (
talk)
20:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Jaws and dentition of D. cuspidatum (Fig. 2-6)" You could give the year in the caption as you do for the other historical figures.
"erected a new taxon classified to the clade called Dichodon" Seems an odd formulation. "Belonging to the/placed in the group"? Also, it seems anachronistic to use the term "clade" retroactively like this before anyone used it in this context.
" He noted that its fossils were found by Alexander Pytts Falconer from the Eocene beds of Hordle, England" Would be simple to just directly say the fossil was from there, instead of saying Owen stated it, which is quite a sidetrack.
"Dichobune for which Owen stated that its molar mounds were similar to." You already stated it resembled it, so just shorten it to "Dichobune, due to having similar molar mounds".
"naturalist Vladimir Kovalevsky", "but Hans Georg Stehlin". Give nationality as you do for other people you mention for consistency. There seems to be others as well, like " by François Jules Pictet de la Rive", check throughout. Alternatively, remove nationality for them all.
"D. Valdense, and D. Frohnstettense" Why are the species names capitalised? You seem to do this throughout.
That's how the authors who erected the taxa originally named them. It used to often be that taxa named after individuals or places had their species names uppercase until later in the 20th century.
PrimalMustelid (
talk)
22:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"and naming convention of D. Valdense" Not sure what convention would mean here. Etymology?
"that there was a small-sized species from the Swiss locality of Egerkingen, that it was smaller than D. Frohnstettense and that it would have been roughly the size of Cainotherium." This could be simpler: "that there was a small-sized species from the Swiss locality of Egerkingen, that was smaller than D. Frohnstettense and would have been roughly the size of Cainotherium. "
"because of incomplete material" Would be clearer with "because of the incompleteness of the material".
"he assigned the species name D. simplex" Could be clearer since it seems the point is that he added it to an existing genus, like: "Deciding not to establish a new genus because of incomplete material, he assigned to Dichodon as the species D. simplex".
"in 1910 suggested that Kovalevsky based the species on fossils previously described by François Jules Pictet de la Rive" But that he didn't name? Could be specified.
"and D. cervinus, the latter of which was previously erected and classified to the genus Dichobune by Owen in 1841" This is chronologically confusing: why do you only mention a species already named in 1841 down here instead of earlier when you cover Owen's other naming?
I'm following the typical taxonomic section format in which the recognition of the genus name is referenced first followed by species names and reclassification. I reference species not initially classified to a genus first only if I follow a research history format first, which I don't here. It's mainly for the sake of simplicity.
PrimalMustelid (
talk)
22:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"established the binomial name Tetraselenodon Kowalevskii based on fossils from the French department of Tarn-et-Garonne in 1886. He justified the genus by arguing that Pictet incorrectly referred it to Dichodon due to the dentition being simple-looking in form." This is somewhat confusing. Is this a new name for the taxon mentioned under "he assigned the species name D. simplex"? If so, state it, and why did he think he could just create a new name for it? And why is the specific name capitalised?
"Sudre therefore established the species D. lugdunensis." Why is this necessary when you start the sentence with "the French palaeontologist Jean Sudre erected D. lugdunensis"?
"were listed in a journal article by Jerry J. Hooker in 1986" Not sure why "in a journal article" is needed here and nowhere else, doesn't add anything.
"although he emended D. subtile to D. subtilis and D. frohnstettense to D. frohnstettensis" Did he explain why? Of course because of some incongruence, but could be specified for the reader.
"based on diagnoses of dentition" Not sure why "based on diagnoses of" is needed, here as you'd assume this would be the same for all the other species mentioned so far.