Talk:Columbian mammoth/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 23:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go for this review. Overall, this article is close to passing, but I will scrutinize it as much as I can as I assume you are going to nominate this for FA when it passes. IJReid discuss 23:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm still proof reading most of the parts after Palaeobiology, so they may not be completely up to snuff yet... Probably some time tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The images could be rearranged, with an image of human interactions being moved down to the extinction section and photo's of fossils being spread out more so they don't overlap.
For some reason I thought there was a general policy that articles on extinct taxa begin with "[name] is an extinct..." although since mammoths are one of the iconic extinct groups it could get away with "[name] is a species of mammoth...". Correct me if I'm wrong.
If they interbred, their range must have overlapped. I suggest rewording, but am open to how you reword it.
How can their range have overlapped if M. columbi only lived in US to more southern, with M. prigmigenius in northern Canada. There is quite a spacial distance there.
- It is explained in the article that it may have happened when southern areas where colder, but this is not really resolved by scientists yet, and the hybrid findings are very new, so have not been properly explained. I have a source where great surprise is expressed over the findings, perhaps it should be added? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/scin.5591801217/abstract FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
What disappeared 12ka, the Clovis?
By the way, if you're wondering about the choice of restorations, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Columbian_mammoth#Restorations.3F FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- The restorations are okay, but maybe the Horsfall should be switched with the Knight, if the former is more accurate for depicting anatomy. IJReid discuss 00:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- The caption of the holotype should be corrected, space needed and brackets inside brackets can be removed.
- The last sentence before the evolution section does not make much sense. I would recommend clarifying or rewriting.
The rest of the evolution section reads very nicely, well done. IJReid discuss 00:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I've read the description, and I think it is GA or ever FA standard. IJReid discuss 01:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, if there's anything you feel should be elaborated on, or if there's something you feel is missing, please mention it. There's a lot of info that could potentially be added. Also note that some info here is identical to text at woolly mammoth, since many of the same things are true for both species. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- The sentence "Modern elephants form large herds, sometimes formed by multiple family groups, sometimes including thousands of animals migrating together" kind of has a weird structure, seems to end too soon. Could be fixed. IJReid discuss 13:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Might want to mention what matriarchal is. IJReid discuss 13:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are many times where an age in thousands of years has a period instead of a comma. Should be fixed.
- Explain "masticated".
- There are more periods instead of commas below the natural traps section.
- Co occurred should be hyphenated, I believe.
The rest of the article is greatly written. IJReid discuss 15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, feel free to nitpick more, I'm waiting for a copyedit anyway, and you know how long that cna take... I still want to add more description info, if I can find it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Final querry before passing, in the Relationships with humans and Extinction sections ages in thousands have periods instead of commas. IJReid discuss 22:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I will pass it now. Just a suggestion for later on, might want to make sizes and weights using the convert template, this should prevent unforseen OR. Also, synonyms reclassified, such as all those later placed in Parelephas, their authorities should be in brackets, makes it less confusing. IJReid discuss 04:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for pass! Actually, it appears brackets are only used when the original author is credited after a mention of a later recombination by someone else. For example it would be: Archidiskodon imperator (Falconer, 1857) Leidy, 1858, or something like that. Or Mammuthus columbi (Falconer, 1857), as in the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note, the last four synonyms need authorities. IJReid discuss 13:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, unfortunately I have no idea, as Fossilworks didn't list their authors: http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=47873 Worst case, I can just give them all (Falconer, 1857), as it is technically true. I think some of the recombinations are form the 70s and 80s, but I don't know the specific authors. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note, the last four synonyms need authorities. IJReid discuss 13:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)