Indraloris has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 16, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the first two fossils of
Indraloris to be found were misidentified as a
carnivoran and a
loris, it is in fact a member of the extinct
adapiform primates? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Guettarda ( talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this. Guettarda ( talk) 22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The overall structure of the lead could use some work. At present, like most leads, it follows the structure of the article, but it should also serve as an easy-to-follow introduction to the topic, especially when it a fairly obscure topic. My suggestion would be to make the main points in the first or second sentence: not just 'fossil primate from the Miocene', but also some sense of how long ago (the "Distribution and ecology" section actually does this quite well; you might want to reproduce the structure of that section). The names of the species and the approximate size should come before the (convoluted) taxonomic history. And the possible third, unnamed species, should be linked more closely with the other two - putting the location where the material was found in between the first two species and the unnamed third breaks the flow and makes it seem like the subject is the Potwar Plateau rather than the (potential) third species.
As complicated as the taxonomy section is, it would be helpful to give the reader a roadmap up front: two recognised species, a third unnamed species is likely (and perhaps the fact that Vasishat recognises a fourth species, but other workers do not). Then tell the story of how we got here. In addition, since the last paragraph mentions the newer material found by Flynn and Morgan you might also want to mention the material (tentatively?) assigned to the third unnamed species.
There's a rather notable shift between the lead and the Description section with regards to the "large unnamed species". In the lead it's just "other material"; here it's "The unnamed large Indraloris". It might also interest some readers to say a word or two about how size is estimated (allometric equations?) Without something like that, it just seems like a wild guess. Guettarda ( talk) 04:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Indraloris has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 16, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the first two fossils of
Indraloris to be found were misidentified as a
carnivoran and a
loris, it is in fact a member of the extinct
adapiform primates? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Guettarda ( talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this. Guettarda ( talk) 22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The overall structure of the lead could use some work. At present, like most leads, it follows the structure of the article, but it should also serve as an easy-to-follow introduction to the topic, especially when it a fairly obscure topic. My suggestion would be to make the main points in the first or second sentence: not just 'fossil primate from the Miocene', but also some sense of how long ago (the "Distribution and ecology" section actually does this quite well; you might want to reproduce the structure of that section). The names of the species and the approximate size should come before the (convoluted) taxonomic history. And the possible third, unnamed species, should be linked more closely with the other two - putting the location where the material was found in between the first two species and the unnamed third breaks the flow and makes it seem like the subject is the Potwar Plateau rather than the (potential) third species.
As complicated as the taxonomy section is, it would be helpful to give the reader a roadmap up front: two recognised species, a third unnamed species is likely (and perhaps the fact that Vasishat recognises a fourth species, but other workers do not). Then tell the story of how we got here. In addition, since the last paragraph mentions the newer material found by Flynn and Morgan you might also want to mention the material (tentatively?) assigned to the third unnamed species.
There's a rather notable shift between the lead and the Description section with regards to the "large unnamed species". In the lead it's just "other material"; here it's "The unnamed large Indraloris". It might also interest some readers to say a word or two about how size is estimated (allometric equations?) Without something like that, it just seems like a wild guess. Guettarda ( talk) 04:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)