Talk:Bharattherium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I liked the name of this one...so I'll review it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Bharattherium is known from a total of eight isolated fossil teeth.. -again like the last time. An "only" in this sentence would be good, or any overarching sentence that clarified how little we know of this critter, somewhere in the lead (think - audience is lay audience and may not realise how fragmentary some remains of critters actually are).

Doesn't this sentence alone suffice for that? "is known from a total of eight teeth" makes pretty clear that we don't have much of it. Ucucha 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have read it over a few times and ruminated -I think the "a total of" actually does the same thing, and am aware of the not-goodness of adding redundant words. So okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The discovery of Lavanify and VPL/JU/NKIM/25 was announced in Nature in 1997. - sounds funny as singular, I'd make it plural (especially as the taxa are so disparate)

Done.

Also, two discoveries in consecutive sentences here - I concede alternative words are not jumping out at me, so not a deal-breaker by any means.

Reworded the first one. Ucucha 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Intertrappean Beds of Naskal, India - India is a big place, any narrowing geographically (Northern/southern/eastern/western etc.) I think helps. e.g. how close is Naskal to Gokak?

I added the states in "Range and ecology". They're pretty far apart, as the article says. Ucucha 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Are all the teeth of the four genera the same size? Which are bigger or smaller, to give us an idea of bigger or smaller animals (at all)

This is mentioned in the first paragraph of "Description": it's smaller than Gondwanatherium and Sudamerica. I found another mention of this point in Prasad et al. (2007), stating that it is the smallest known sudamericid, so I've reworded this. Of course, any such comparisons are difficult because we have little clue about gondwanathere dental formulas (so teeth of one "genus" may be smaller just because they are from a different tooth position), and because tooth size may vary independently of body size. Ucucha 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Cas. I'm thinking this article (which is headed to FAC) might need something more about biogeography (sudamericids being a Gondwanan group, found in Argentina, Antarctica, Madagascar, India, perhaps Tanzania) and perhaps about Maastrichtian mammal communities in India (which were, apparently, dominated by the eutherian Deccanolestes, with occasional appearances of weird things like Bharattherium). What do you think? Ucucha 12:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. Any context about their paleo-communities I think would really help in painting a picture for the reader. I recall we did this for some dino FAs too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Not applicable - no images

Overall:

Pass or Fail: -I think the last bit discussed above is a bonus for FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)