GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 11:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's dea with clarity issues first:
COMMENT 2. Thanks for that, you have just added to the article - I was not aware that Merriam had it all sorted in 1912. William Harris | talk 08:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 3. Perhaps we just run with "synonym" and leave the complexity of "subjective synonym" out of it altogether. William Harris | talk 08:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 4. I concur and shall remove it from this paragraph, plus we catch up with Aenocyon dirus nebrascensis under Evolution. (The statement was connected with the taxobox listing at some stage in the past but not any more.) William Harris | talk 08:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 8. An excellent criticism, hopefully now addressed, with extra material added to the article. William Harris | talk 11:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 5: I suggest that Aenocyon dirus has been introduced - "In 1918, Merriam studied these fossils and proposed consolidating their names under the separate genus Aenocyon (from Aenos:terrible and cyon:wolf) to become Aenocyon dirus, however not everyone agreed with this wolf departing from genus Canis." Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarified that not everyone accepted C. dirus and that some were happy with Merriam's 1918 designation? I have added onto the end "...and the opinion of paleontologists remained divided." Regarding the complicated sentence, I have made an amendment. William Harris | talk 09:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
"Irvingtonian" and "Rancholabrean" are presumably geological divisions, but they're not well-known ones, so need defined.
COMMENT 6: Now removed altogether. The inclusion of North American Land Mammal Ages in a number of sections only complicated the article. William Harris | talk 09:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 9: Agreed (however it was the same citation), now fixed with one mention. William Harris | talk 11:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 10: Now fixed. It refers to the ranges of these taxa - dirus did not enter the territory that gave rise to Canis gezi and Canis nehringi i.e. Argentina. William Harris | talk 11:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 11: Agreed, now reduced to one simplified paragraph and further detail can be found on the links to C. gezi and C. nehringi. The section was designed to address the North America/South American origin of dirus controversy. William Harris | talk 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 7: Now defined under Taxonomy section. William Harris | talk 09:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 12: Paragraph now relocated as a lead-in to section "Behaviour". William Harris | talk 20:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 14: Now relocated again, this time under Diet - as a lead-in to the tar pits and what we found about their prey from these. William Harris | talk 10:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I can keep going, but the problems keep being the same issues: This article's organization makes it much harder to follow than it needs to be. Find a logical structure, organise everything to that structure, use topic sentences to help focus the reader before going into complex, detailed descriptions; define terms; and remember that things can be moved to more appropriate articles, so you can simplify discussions here, but keep the research.
I'll continue this after lunch, but I think this is going to require some rewrites to get up to Good article status, due primarily to disorganization. The actual research is good, references look fine, and the breadth of coverage seems decent. I mean, it's hard to judge that perfectly without doing all the research again, but it doesn't have obvious missing material, save that it would be nice to have some genetic studies if they exist (there's neanderthal data, so dire wolves are in the range that they could be analysed, it's whether they have been).
As it stands, this fails the GA requirements. But there is some excellent research in here. It just needs some reworking. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Second review, and this is looking good. I'll take notes here, but if they're as minor as they're looking at first glance, I'll just leave them to be fixed after.
I went ahead and fixed some minor issues myself. See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dire_wolf&type=revision&diff=759583470&oldid=759389892 to review them.
I think the remaining issues are minor, and can be fixed on the way to FA. ✓ Pass. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 11:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's dea with clarity issues first:
COMMENT 2. Thanks for that, you have just added to the article - I was not aware that Merriam had it all sorted in 1912. William Harris | talk 08:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 3. Perhaps we just run with "synonym" and leave the complexity of "subjective synonym" out of it altogether. William Harris | talk 08:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 4. I concur and shall remove it from this paragraph, plus we catch up with Aenocyon dirus nebrascensis under Evolution. (The statement was connected with the taxobox listing at some stage in the past but not any more.) William Harris | talk 08:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 8. An excellent criticism, hopefully now addressed, with extra material added to the article. William Harris | talk 11:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 5: I suggest that Aenocyon dirus has been introduced - "In 1918, Merriam studied these fossils and proposed consolidating their names under the separate genus Aenocyon (from Aenos:terrible and cyon:wolf) to become Aenocyon dirus, however not everyone agreed with this wolf departing from genus Canis." Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarified that not everyone accepted C. dirus and that some were happy with Merriam's 1918 designation? I have added onto the end "...and the opinion of paleontologists remained divided." Regarding the complicated sentence, I have made an amendment. William Harris | talk 09:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
"Irvingtonian" and "Rancholabrean" are presumably geological divisions, but they're not well-known ones, so need defined.
COMMENT 6: Now removed altogether. The inclusion of North American Land Mammal Ages in a number of sections only complicated the article. William Harris | talk 09:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 9: Agreed (however it was the same citation), now fixed with one mention. William Harris | talk 11:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 10: Now fixed. It refers to the ranges of these taxa - dirus did not enter the territory that gave rise to Canis gezi and Canis nehringi i.e. Argentina. William Harris | talk 11:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 11: Agreed, now reduced to one simplified paragraph and further detail can be found on the links to C. gezi and C. nehringi. The section was designed to address the North America/South American origin of dirus controversy. William Harris | talk 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 7: Now defined under Taxonomy section. William Harris | talk 09:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 12: Paragraph now relocated as a lead-in to section "Behaviour". William Harris | talk 20:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT 14: Now relocated again, this time under Diet - as a lead-in to the tar pits and what we found about their prey from these. William Harris | talk 10:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I can keep going, but the problems keep being the same issues: This article's organization makes it much harder to follow than it needs to be. Find a logical structure, organise everything to that structure, use topic sentences to help focus the reader before going into complex, detailed descriptions; define terms; and remember that things can be moved to more appropriate articles, so you can simplify discussions here, but keep the research.
I'll continue this after lunch, but I think this is going to require some rewrites to get up to Good article status, due primarily to disorganization. The actual research is good, references look fine, and the breadth of coverage seems decent. I mean, it's hard to judge that perfectly without doing all the research again, but it doesn't have obvious missing material, save that it would be nice to have some genetic studies if they exist (there's neanderthal data, so dire wolves are in the range that they could be analysed, it's whether they have been).
As it stands, this fails the GA requirements. But there is some excellent research in here. It just needs some reworking. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Second review, and this is looking good. I'll take notes here, but if they're as minor as they're looking at first glance, I'll just leave them to be fixed after.
I went ahead and fixed some minor issues myself. See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dire_wolf&type=revision&diff=759583470&oldid=759389892 to review them.
I think the remaining issues are minor, and can be fixed on the way to FA. ✓ Pass. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)