This article is about a big species of marine sloth from the Miocene, and it's one of 2 ground sloth articles (the other being
ground sloth) that's above C class, so I hope a future ground sloth enthusiast can use this for some other article User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
FunkMonk
I'll have a look soon, but a disclaimer; I drew the life restoration, and took the taxobox photo, so I am somewhat "involved" (which is also why I didn't do the GA review).
FunkMonk (
talk)
12:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"Thalassocnus were ground sloths that lived from the Late Miocene to the end of the Pliocene–Late Huayquerian to Early Uquian in the SALMA classification–" Why is this under "remains"? The entire first paragrapgh looks like it belongs under the beginning of Paleoecology.
I wonder if "specimens" would be a better title than "remains".
The map under Paleoecology is formatted in a weird way so that the text is unpleasantly close to the image frame (compare with other images in the article). It should be possible to match this better.
"In 1968, taxonomist Robert Hoffstetter placed undescribed sloth remains into the family Megatheriidae, possibly belonging to the now-defunct subfamily Planopsinae, mainly based on similarities with the ankle bone and femur." What does this have to do with this genus? Did the remains belong to it= If so, you really need to make this clear. If the specimens were already known in the 1960s, this should be mentioned in the specimens section.
I think the structure of the taxonomy section could be improved. Not sure what others think but I find it unnecessary (and confusing) that you spread out the info on specimens, species, and etymology, instead of just giving it chronologically: State when the first specimens were found, when it was named, what the name means, and the on to the next species. There is no reason to have separated specimen and etymology sections as far as I can see.
"Thalassocnus is the only aquatic xenarthran–a group that includes sloths, anteaters, and armadillos–though the ground sloth Eionaletherium from the Miocene of Venezuela may have adapted to nearshore life." Why is this under description?
The paragrapgh on bone density and its function under descrition looks like it belong sunde ralaeobiology.
"The thick and dense bones of younger species (pachyosteosclerosis) allowed the animal to" "younger species" means more recent species here? If so, the it doesn't apply to "the animal" as a whole, which is implied here. Also, you say "early/later" species (which is better) elsewhere in the article, be consistent.
"The size difference in the premaxillae are reminiscent of the developed upper lips or proboscis in males of modern mammals like the elephant seal (Mirounga spp.)." So does this imply that only males had proboscises? And since the sentence is only about skull features, it may rather belong in that section.
"The nostrils moved from the front of the snout to the top of the snout, similar to seals." Moved seems a bit too ambiguous, maybe "relocated" would make it seem less like it was some kind of ability they had.
"The teeth were prism-shaped with a circular cross section, and the teeth interlocked tightly" Second "teeth" redundant.
Any published speculation about whether it would have had hair or not?
Source review - spotchecks not done
"evolved several marine adaptations over the course of 4 to 6.5 million years" - I see mention of 4 million in the text, where is the 6.5 from?
WP:WIAFA requires that citations be consistently formatted within the article - while that formatting may be consistent with other articles, it isn't consistent with other citations here.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Doesn't seem to be - how are you deciding which links get archived? Also FN21 doesn't match the formatting of the other archived links.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
For both FNs 9 and 10, simply showing that these words exist and are translated in this way, isn't sufficient to source that that's the etymology of the genus name. Similarly for FNs 11 and 12. It's not clear as presented which of the other sources if any do support the etymology
If you'd like to start a discussion about this issue there, feel free. However, it presents an issue in this specific article which will impede its ability to meet the FA criteria.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
You condensed it now. I think it is better this way as it is more balanced. However, it would be good to know which species where discovered in Chile. Also consider adding type localities for all species. If possible, some general information on additional specimens would still be good (e.g., which species are well-represented by complete finds, which ones only by fragmentary ones). --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
08:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Type localities are already given in the first paragraph, and possibly all species were found in the Chilean formations because there're some remains that don't have a definitive species designation, but narrowed down to two or three possible candidates User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)reply
and yuacensis in honor of the locality the species was found in, Yuaca.[2] – would be worth pointing out that "Yuaca" is a village.
T. antiquus was described from MUSM 228 in 2003 comprising a skull, jaw, and most of the body, though the body is badly damaged. – The skull is included in the body. Do you mean postcranium?
and the sloths were subsequently put into the new subfamily Thalassocninae. – subsequently means "in a later paper", but no new date is given.
Thalassocnus were ground sloths that lived from the Late Miocene to the end of the Pliocene–Late Huayquerian to Early Uquian in the SALMA classification–and all five species were discovered in different horizons of the Pisco Formation in Peru. T antiquus was discovered in the Aguada de Lomas Horizon in 7 or 8 million year old strata; T. natans (the type species) from the Montemar Horizon lived around 6 million years ago (mya); T. littoralis from the Sud-Sacaco Horizon lived around 5 mya; T. carolomartini from the Sacaco Horizon lived between 3 and 4 mya; and T. yaucensis from the Yuaca Horizon lived 3 to 1.5 mya.[2] – Source [2] is given for all of this, but there are newer sources from 2017 available that give updated dates (e.g. the 2017 paper you cited).
and UNMSM 223, a right femur, was moved from T. natans to T. littoralis in 2005.[4] – here you provide excessive detail while other species, including the type species, were only briefly discussed.
So far, I only went through the "Taxonomy" section. There appear to be too many issues with sourcing, prose, and focus (it partly reads as an incomplete accumulation of details rather than a comprehensive review); I therefore tend to oppose for now. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reading on – first sentence in "Description": though the ground sloth Eionaletherium from the Miocene of Venezuela may have adapted to nearshore life. – First, "nearshore life" is vague and can mean anything. The question is to what degree it was aquatic or not. Second, the cited source discusses the possibility of it being aquatic, but provides evidence against it. It basically says there is no evidence for an aquatic lifestyle except for the sediments it was found in. To say "may have adapted to nearshore life" does therefore not reflect the source. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
08:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The skulls show disparity in general size, slenderness of teeth, and slightly shorter premaxillae – shorter than what? Not clear what this is referring to, does not fit to the remainder of the sentence.
Is it better now?
males of more recent mammals like the elephant seal (Mirounga spp.) – That is a living species, not a "more recent" one. Remove the "more".
The later Thalassocnus species had enlarged premaxillae and thus had a wider and more elongated snout. – Can't find it in the provided source (#16). It only says more elongated, but not wider?
The teeth show a change of function from cutting food to grinding food. – Unclear. A change from the front teeth to the back teeth? From juveniles to adults? From early species to later species?
The dense bones of younger species (pachyosteosclerosis) – this is not precise, pachyosteosclerosis its not only about density but also about thickness. You mingle these two separate things together.
T. antiquus had a bone density comparable to terrestrial ground sloths. In later species, the bone grew to be so thick that the medullary cavity – see above, thickness and density are two different things.
Likewise, the limbs made the heaviest contribution to overall skeletal weight. This condition has only been seen in ancient archaeocete whales with reduced limbs – Again, I can't find this in the sources (the claim that archaeocetes are the only other secondary aquatic mammals where limbs make the heaviest contribution to weight).
I only read on to the "skull" section. I really do not want to be responsible for any archival, but the article just does not feel ready. There are numerous prose issues. The article is very short considering the huge amount of interesting material that was published. Most of all, however, I often cannot find the info in the cited sources (see above for examples). Because of the latter reason, I can only keep opposing. This appears to be a general issue with the article that is not as easy to fix. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
14:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Coordinator comment: I'm inclined to archive this as it has been open nearly a month and we have an oppose.
Jens Lallensack do you think this is doable within the timeframe of FAC, or would you recommend withdrawing it?
Sarastro (
talk)
23:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
It might be better if you could have a quick look as soon as possible
FunkMonk as I would like an idea if this is achievable quickly (i.e. within a few days maximum) or if it would be better to archive this now; you and
Jens Lallensack could still look at the article but away from the pressures of FAC.
Sarastro (
talk)
13:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not past the taxonomy section, but I see some structural issues that irk me. If there is really a lot of info that has been left out as Jens implies, I think it could need some more work and a peer review. The taxonomy section is already very vague about some details (were specimens already known in the 1960s, why not state it outright?).
FunkMonk (
talk)
10:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Really interesting stuff. Could you include (text will be fine - love the image!) some comparison of size with other members of the sloth family? These seem huge to me, but I have no idea how big they are relative to the rest of the family. --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned!11:39, 20 February 2019 (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.
Coordinator comment - With standing opposition, not much movement in recent times, and not much expression of support, I'm going to archive this so issues can be handled outside of FAC. You may renominate after the standard two-week period. --
Laser brain(talk)16:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a big species of marine sloth from the Miocene, and it's one of 2 ground sloth articles (the other being
ground sloth) that's above C class, so I hope a future ground sloth enthusiast can use this for some other article User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
FunkMonk
I'll have a look soon, but a disclaimer; I drew the life restoration, and took the taxobox photo, so I am somewhat "involved" (which is also why I didn't do the GA review).
FunkMonk (
talk)
12:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"Thalassocnus were ground sloths that lived from the Late Miocene to the end of the Pliocene–Late Huayquerian to Early Uquian in the SALMA classification–" Why is this under "remains"? The entire first paragrapgh looks like it belongs under the beginning of Paleoecology.
I wonder if "specimens" would be a better title than "remains".
The map under Paleoecology is formatted in a weird way so that the text is unpleasantly close to the image frame (compare with other images in the article). It should be possible to match this better.
"In 1968, taxonomist Robert Hoffstetter placed undescribed sloth remains into the family Megatheriidae, possibly belonging to the now-defunct subfamily Planopsinae, mainly based on similarities with the ankle bone and femur." What does this have to do with this genus? Did the remains belong to it= If so, you really need to make this clear. If the specimens were already known in the 1960s, this should be mentioned in the specimens section.
I think the structure of the taxonomy section could be improved. Not sure what others think but I find it unnecessary (and confusing) that you spread out the info on specimens, species, and etymology, instead of just giving it chronologically: State when the first specimens were found, when it was named, what the name means, and the on to the next species. There is no reason to have separated specimen and etymology sections as far as I can see.
"Thalassocnus is the only aquatic xenarthran–a group that includes sloths, anteaters, and armadillos–though the ground sloth Eionaletherium from the Miocene of Venezuela may have adapted to nearshore life." Why is this under description?
The paragrapgh on bone density and its function under descrition looks like it belong sunde ralaeobiology.
"The thick and dense bones of younger species (pachyosteosclerosis) allowed the animal to" "younger species" means more recent species here? If so, the it doesn't apply to "the animal" as a whole, which is implied here. Also, you say "early/later" species (which is better) elsewhere in the article, be consistent.
"The size difference in the premaxillae are reminiscent of the developed upper lips or proboscis in males of modern mammals like the elephant seal (Mirounga spp.)." So does this imply that only males had proboscises? And since the sentence is only about skull features, it may rather belong in that section.
"The nostrils moved from the front of the snout to the top of the snout, similar to seals." Moved seems a bit too ambiguous, maybe "relocated" would make it seem less like it was some kind of ability they had.
"The teeth were prism-shaped with a circular cross section, and the teeth interlocked tightly" Second "teeth" redundant.
Any published speculation about whether it would have had hair or not?
Source review - spotchecks not done
"evolved several marine adaptations over the course of 4 to 6.5 million years" - I see mention of 4 million in the text, where is the 6.5 from?
WP:WIAFA requires that citations be consistently formatted within the article - while that formatting may be consistent with other articles, it isn't consistent with other citations here.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Doesn't seem to be - how are you deciding which links get archived? Also FN21 doesn't match the formatting of the other archived links.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
For both FNs 9 and 10, simply showing that these words exist and are translated in this way, isn't sufficient to source that that's the etymology of the genus name. Similarly for FNs 11 and 12. It's not clear as presented which of the other sources if any do support the etymology
If you'd like to start a discussion about this issue there, feel free. However, it presents an issue in this specific article which will impede its ability to meet the FA criteria.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
You condensed it now. I think it is better this way as it is more balanced. However, it would be good to know which species where discovered in Chile. Also consider adding type localities for all species. If possible, some general information on additional specimens would still be good (e.g., which species are well-represented by complete finds, which ones only by fragmentary ones). --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
08:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Type localities are already given in the first paragraph, and possibly all species were found in the Chilean formations because there're some remains that don't have a definitive species designation, but narrowed down to two or three possible candidates User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)reply
and yuacensis in honor of the locality the species was found in, Yuaca.[2] – would be worth pointing out that "Yuaca" is a village.
T. antiquus was described from MUSM 228 in 2003 comprising a skull, jaw, and most of the body, though the body is badly damaged. – The skull is included in the body. Do you mean postcranium?
and the sloths were subsequently put into the new subfamily Thalassocninae. – subsequently means "in a later paper", but no new date is given.
Thalassocnus were ground sloths that lived from the Late Miocene to the end of the Pliocene–Late Huayquerian to Early Uquian in the SALMA classification–and all five species were discovered in different horizons of the Pisco Formation in Peru. T antiquus was discovered in the Aguada de Lomas Horizon in 7 or 8 million year old strata; T. natans (the type species) from the Montemar Horizon lived around 6 million years ago (mya); T. littoralis from the Sud-Sacaco Horizon lived around 5 mya; T. carolomartini from the Sacaco Horizon lived between 3 and 4 mya; and T. yaucensis from the Yuaca Horizon lived 3 to 1.5 mya.[2] – Source [2] is given for all of this, but there are newer sources from 2017 available that give updated dates (e.g. the 2017 paper you cited).
and UNMSM 223, a right femur, was moved from T. natans to T. littoralis in 2005.[4] – here you provide excessive detail while other species, including the type species, were only briefly discussed.
So far, I only went through the "Taxonomy" section. There appear to be too many issues with sourcing, prose, and focus (it partly reads as an incomplete accumulation of details rather than a comprehensive review); I therefore tend to oppose for now. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reading on – first sentence in "Description": though the ground sloth Eionaletherium from the Miocene of Venezuela may have adapted to nearshore life. – First, "nearshore life" is vague and can mean anything. The question is to what degree it was aquatic or not. Second, the cited source discusses the possibility of it being aquatic, but provides evidence against it. It basically says there is no evidence for an aquatic lifestyle except for the sediments it was found in. To say "may have adapted to nearshore life" does therefore not reflect the source. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
08:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The skulls show disparity in general size, slenderness of teeth, and slightly shorter premaxillae – shorter than what? Not clear what this is referring to, does not fit to the remainder of the sentence.
Is it better now?
males of more recent mammals like the elephant seal (Mirounga spp.) – That is a living species, not a "more recent" one. Remove the "more".
The later Thalassocnus species had enlarged premaxillae and thus had a wider and more elongated snout. – Can't find it in the provided source (#16). It only says more elongated, but not wider?
The teeth show a change of function from cutting food to grinding food. – Unclear. A change from the front teeth to the back teeth? From juveniles to adults? From early species to later species?
The dense bones of younger species (pachyosteosclerosis) – this is not precise, pachyosteosclerosis its not only about density but also about thickness. You mingle these two separate things together.
T. antiquus had a bone density comparable to terrestrial ground sloths. In later species, the bone grew to be so thick that the medullary cavity – see above, thickness and density are two different things.
Likewise, the limbs made the heaviest contribution to overall skeletal weight. This condition has only been seen in ancient archaeocete whales with reduced limbs – Again, I can't find this in the sources (the claim that archaeocetes are the only other secondary aquatic mammals where limbs make the heaviest contribution to weight).
I only read on to the "skull" section. I really do not want to be responsible for any archival, but the article just does not feel ready. There are numerous prose issues. The article is very short considering the huge amount of interesting material that was published. Most of all, however, I often cannot find the info in the cited sources (see above for examples). Because of the latter reason, I can only keep opposing. This appears to be a general issue with the article that is not as easy to fix. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
14:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Coordinator comment: I'm inclined to archive this as it has been open nearly a month and we have an oppose.
Jens Lallensack do you think this is doable within the timeframe of FAC, or would you recommend withdrawing it?
Sarastro (
talk)
23:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
It might be better if you could have a quick look as soon as possible
FunkMonk as I would like an idea if this is achievable quickly (i.e. within a few days maximum) or if it would be better to archive this now; you and
Jens Lallensack could still look at the article but away from the pressures of FAC.
Sarastro (
talk)
13:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not past the taxonomy section, but I see some structural issues that irk me. If there is really a lot of info that has been left out as Jens implies, I think it could need some more work and a peer review. The taxonomy section is already very vague about some details (were specimens already known in the 1960s, why not state it outright?).
FunkMonk (
talk)
10:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Really interesting stuff. Could you include (text will be fine - love the image!) some comparison of size with other members of the sloth family? These seem huge to me, but I have no idea how big they are relative to the rest of the family. --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned!11:39, 20 February 2019 (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.
Coordinator comment - With standing opposition, not much movement in recent times, and not much expression of support, I'm going to archive this so issues can be handled outside of FAC. You may renominate after the standard two-week period. --
Laser brain(talk)16:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.