Talk:Thinopus/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 12:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy to review the article.
Review[edit]
Lead section / infobox[edit]
The link to Marsh is duplicated in the infobox, the second link can be removed
- This is standard in Wikipedia life articles, need to keep it for consistency.
- Understood. AM
- This is standard in Wikipedia life articles, need to keep it for consistency.
The only fossil – ‘The single specimen’ sounds better
- changed to "only specimen", if that is ok, because I think this makes it clearer that there is only one specimen known.
- Agreed. AM
- changed to "only specimen", if that is ok, because I think this makes it clearer that there is only one specimen known.
making it the oldest evidence for tetrapods (land vertebrates) known at the time – does not appear in the main article
- added.
1 Description[edit]
Link digit (Digit (anatomy))
- done
The name of the fossil, given in the lead, also needs included in this section
- done
Why use quote marks in the "digit" impressions, when the same expression earlier in the paragraph lacks them?
- Because in the earlier instance, I state that early researchers interpreted them as such; here, we provide the description of these structures, and we know these are not digit impressions, but we also lack a better word to refer to them clearly, therefore "digit" impressions.
- Understood. AM
- Because in the earlier instance, I state that early researchers interpreted them as such; here, we provide the description of these structures, and we know these are not digit impressions, but we also lack a better word to refer to them clearly, therefore "digit" impressions.
2 History of research[edit]
There is an external link available for the fossil’s record at the Yale Museum here
- Nice thanks, added to weblinks.
The default position of images is on the right (MOS:IMAGELOCATION), particularly at the top of a section, so in this case I would move the image over.
- This is standard and in accordance with MOS:IMAGELOCATION ("Multiple images can be staggered right and left"), see recent FAs such as Duriavenator; alternating left-right placement makes a nicer layout.
- Agreed, and in this article there might be a problem with moving this image. Out of interest, User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet (from a highly experienced editor0 says "Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections." Amitchell125 (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I never heard we should not place left-aligned images at the start of subsections; why? This is not how it is done, see for example the FA candidates I already mentioned elsewhere to illustrate the other points, Seychelles parakeet and Duriavenator. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and in this article there might be a problem with moving this image. Out of interest, User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet (from a highly experienced editor0 says "Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections." Amitchell125 (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is standard and in accordance with MOS:IMAGELOCATION ("Multiple images can be staggered right and left"), see recent FAs such as Duriavenator; alternating left-right placement makes a nicer layout.
Pennsylvania, US – is US needed?
- removed.
No comma after of the Yale Museum
- corrected
in October 16, 1896 appears to be in the wrong part of the sentence
- not sure, but rearranged.
Ditto in 1917; in 1926; in 1951
- we usually formulate like this, see again Duriavenator as recent example; why is it problematic?
- The style is conversational, and so too informal here. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- We used to write like this: Author and colleagues (2007) argued that, which is the notation that you find in the literature. At some point at FAC (I can't remember which article), somebody said we should more naturally write like this: Author and colleagues, in 2007, and since then I followed this. All our recent dinosaur FAs, for example, are written using this notation. Why is it controversial, and what would you suggest instead? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. AM
- We used to write like this: Author and colleagues (2007) argued that, which is the notation that you find in the literature. At some point at FAC (I can't remember which article), somebody said we should more naturally write like this: Author and colleagues, in 2007, and since then I followed this. All our recent dinosaur FAs, for example, are written using this notation. Why is it controversial, and what would you suggest instead? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- The style is conversational, and so too informal here. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- we usually formulate like this, see again Duriavenator as recent example; why is it problematic?
Link locomotion on land (Terrestrial locomotion); zoologist (Zoology); fin
- linked the first, but I'm worried about overlinking when when linking the others
- None of the above would be considered overlinking imo, as they relate directly to the topic. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- We don't link common knowledge terms like "zoologist" or "fin". If I would do this, I would be inconsistent with most other articles. For example, Seychelles parakeet, which is currently at WP:FAC, does not link "zoologist" as well, and Duriavenator (just to stick with one example) does not even link "palaeontologist". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I get the opposite with science, history, and music articles, where similar terms would be linked. AM
- We don't link common knowledge terms like "zoologist" or "fin". If I would do this, I would be inconsistent with most other articles. For example, Seychelles parakeet, which is currently at WP:FAC, does not link "zoologist" as well, and Duriavenator (just to stick with one example) does not even link "palaeontologist". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- None of the above would be considered overlinking imo, as they relate directly to the topic. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- linked the first, but I'm worried about overlinking when when linking the others
which fell into disuse since needs copy editing
- That is a common formulation [1], and nothing better comes to mind … I will change it once I get an idea how to formulate it.
- I would have said, "now disused" or "which has fallen into disuse". AM
- That is a common formulation [1], and nothing better comes to mind … I will change it once I get an idea how to formulate it.
Avoid noted (MOS:SAID)
- It is precise in this very case though; he noted something that is still consensus today.
- Understood. AM
- It is precise in this very case though; he noted something that is still consensus today.
He consequently argued – why consequently?
- Because his argument is based on (and thus a consequence of) his observation stated in the previous sentence.
- Understood. AM
- Because his argument is based on (and thus a consequence of) his observation stated in the previous sentence.
Morton further suggested – why further?
- He makes an additional argument to back up his claim, that's why "further".
- Understood. AM
- He makes an additional argument to back up his claim, that's why "further".
Amend visit in Yale to 'visit to Yale University' (linked), to improve the prose
- done
Amend the earliest fish coprolite ichnotaxon named to something like ‘the earliest example of a coprolite from a named fish ichnotaxon’ to improve the prose
- No that would be incorrect, it is not a coprolite from a named fish ichnotaxon, it is the name for a fish coprolite.
- Understood. AM
- OK, my point is that named is incorrectly placed at the end of the sentence. Please copy edit the text.
- But I don't see why this should not be correct. It needs to be at the end, otherwise "earliest" would imply the geologically oldest. Adjusted a bit still, hope its better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- No that would be incorrect, it is not a coprolite from a named fish ichnotaxon, it is the name for a fish coprolite.
The caption could be made more succinct by replacing This interpretation with 'It’
- I like to keep it, to point to the fact that this is it is only one interpretation among several. I removed the first "interpretation" instead.
- Understood. AM
- I like to keep it, to point to the fact that this is it is only one interpretation among several. I removed the first "interpretation" instead.
Consider splitting the second paragraph at American physician Dudley J. Morton, in 1926 (as Dudley was working a quarter of a century later than Beecher and Marsh)
- Done.
American zoologist and paleontologist William King Gregory, in 1951, instead interpreted the complex impression as that of the front fin of the lobe-finned fish Eusthenopteron. - doesn’t fit chronologically with the rest of the section. Were the two theories running concurrently, and if so, for how long?
- Good catch! Rearranged.
Marsh interpreted the impressions as the footprints of an amphibian, with the complex, two or three-toed impression pertaining to a left hind foot and the partial impression to a probable fore foot. - It seems as if this is an editorial comment based on Marsh (1896), a primary source (see WP:PSTS). Is a better secondary source not available?
- Our paleo articles are almost completely based on primary sources (Sources 2–7 are all primary). These are the only we have. This is why we use author attribution ("Marsh interpreted …"), to not declare his interpretation as fact.
- Understood, but I suspect that many GA reviewers would struggle to agree that what you have said here agrees with the guidance at WP:RS. AM
- Our paleo articles are almost completely based on primary sources (Sources 2–7 are all primary). These are the only we have. This is why we use author attribution ("Marsh interpreted …"), to not declare his interpretation as fact.
3 Stratigraphy and paleoenvironment[edit]
Readers might appreciate an explanation for the term Chemung Formation, perhaps in a separate note.
- added.
fallen in disuse since – since when?
- Hard to say, people simply stop using this name. A don't have a source that gives a date.
- Thanks. AM
- Hard to say, people simply stop using this name. A don't have a source that gives a date.
Avoid today (MOS:RELTIME)
- Hmm the danger that this will be outdated anytime soon is pretty low, though. I use "today" to make clear I'm not talking about the history 100 years ago anymore. If you have a better suggestion that keeps this clarity, let me know.
- . The section's structure is our problem. Sentence 1 - Beecher (19th century), sentence 2 - Lucas (2015), sentence 3 - Beecher, sentence 4 - other description. Solution - move the stuff about Beecher into the History of research section, and the text taken from Lucas into the Description section (perhaps with a sub-section title). The today problem no longer exists. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would really prefer to have the stratigraphy stuff together in one section, and I think it helps the reader a lot as well. I now found another solution to avoid the "today". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- . The section's structure is our problem. Sentence 1 - Beecher (19th century), sentence 2 - Lucas (2015), sentence 3 - Beecher, sentence 4 - other description. Solution - move the stuff about Beecher into the History of research section, and the text taken from Lucas into the Description section (perhaps with a sub-section title). The today problem no longer exists. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm the danger that this will be outdated anytime soon is pretty low, though. I use "today" to make clear I'm not talking about the history 100 years ago anymore. If you have a better suggestion that keeps this clarity, let me know.
is Frasnian in age – I would give an indication of the age in years here, as some readers may not be familiar with the term Frasnian
- Added.
It should be clearer that the last sentence provides evidence of the environment the fossil was once part of.
- tried.
4 References[edit]
WP:CITEHOW provides further information about how this section could be improved, but it’s not a GA requirement (whereas MOS:FNNR is). In particular,
I would add a retrieval date for ref 1 (and amend the title to ‘Thinopus antiquus Marsh 1896’, as given on the webpage)
- Not needed here, because it is a paper that is never changed after publication.
- OK (as a minor point not required for GA it can ignored), but I'm unclear how 'http://www.fossilworks.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=393969' is not a web page, it merely refers to a paper. AM
- Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't even notice that webpage citation; somebody else added it in some time ago and I didn't notice. We don't need that at all, so I removed it.
- OK (as a minor point not required for GA it can ignored), but I'm unclear how 'http://www.fossilworks.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=393969' is not a web page, it merely refers to a paper. AM
- Not needed here, because it is a paper that is never changed after publication.
Ref 2 has the DOI number accidently given twice
- fixed.
I’m unclear about ref 6 (Gregory). There is a url available here, volume 1 of Gregory’s book. Is this the reference you have cited? If so, the citation needs to be amended
- Oops, thanks, corrected.
Consider using this source, which has some text but more usefully a decent image
- Thanks, added!
I found this to be an informative (if very obscure) little article, more comments to come once I've re-checked the references. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
On hold[edit]
No further comments. I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 19 January to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! I think I have addressed all of the above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Passing[edit]
Good work, passing now. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)