Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ambondro mahabo/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:10, 11 September 2010 [1].

Ambondro mahabo

edit

Ambondro mahabo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ucucha 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 170-million-year-old broken piece of jaw. It is a highly interesting piece of jaw, because the teeth are the oldest with the modern grinding-and-shearing mammalian tooth pattern, and its 1999 discovery set the stage for one of the major controversies of mammalian paleontology. I hope I covered that controversy neutrally and comprehensively. The article benefited from a thorough GA review by Sasata and André Wyss was kind enough to donate an image. Ucucha 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments & support - High quality as usual and a bit challenging due to technical terms but intriguing to follow. Some comments:
    • "The scientific name derives from the village of Ambondromahabo, close to which the fossil was found. It was found in the Bathonian" - Is a rewording possible here?
      • Reworded.
    • "It is in the collection of the University of Antananarivo as specimen UA 10602" - A &nbsp; maybe in UA 10602? It breaks in my settings.
      • Done.
    • I couldn't fully understand the dental technical terms until I saw the picture in [Rougier et al., 2007, p.13] additional explanatory text would certainly not help as the terms are too many but such a labeled picture certainly would --Egmontaz♤ talk 07:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're probably right; unfortunately, we don't have occlusal views of australosphenidan teeth on Wikipedia (which is what we'll need for this), and rice rat teeth are too different. I've tried drawing a diagram myself, but it's worthless. Still thinking of a way to solve this. Ucucha 09:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps have a look around for a suitable picture elsewhere (perhaps even the one in that paper) and contact the author? J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Images published in journals have had their copyright transferred to the journal publisher; the authors cannot release the images for our use. (Sorry for not responding here earlier.) Ucucha 01:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've now drawn a diagram of an australosphenidan tooth and included it in the article to replace the Megalomys. Ucucha 02:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Any reason why refs 1 and 2 are not combined? Otherwise all sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly more precise like this—ref. 2 cites quite a few things, and all are exclusively on p. 58. Thanks for the check. Ucucha 13:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Very nice... especially with the illustrations. Just a few comments.

  • The first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Description" section (starting "The front half of the...") seems a little odd with the double parentheses. Maybe use a colon instead of the first (outer) set?
    • Yes, that's better.
  • "Consequently, they proposed that tribosphenic mammals did not, as was the prevailing view, appear..." – again, it sounds a little odd. Maybe try: "Consequently, they contradicted the prevailing view that tribosphenic mammals evolved on the northern continents (Laurasia), instead proposing that they evolved in the south (Gondwana)."
    • I don't quite like the word "contradicted" here, so I used a different rewording.
  • The illustration of the rat molar is helpful, but the caption, in my opinion, doesn't really explain its presence. I can see some people asking: "Why is there a rodent molar in this article?" I know it sounds silly, but I think the caption need to more explicitly state that it is to help readers understand the terminology. It might even help to remove the reference to the rodent and describe it simply as a sample tribosphenic molar.
    • Well, rodent teeth aren't exactly tribosphenic (therians are primitively tribosphenic, but many groups have more specialized teeth that lost the original tribosphenic design). I have reworded the caption to make its purpose clearer. I did keep the portion saying it is Megalomys, if only to clarify that it is not Ambondro. Ucucha 01:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looked good to my eyes. As you know, I'm not expert on craniodental anatomy, so this was a bit over my head. But for the most part, it seemed to make sense and seemed to be thorough and neutral. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 01:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Commemt as with some previous articles, there are technical terms that are re-linked/unlnked and unexplained, eg The cristid obliqua connects to the hypoconid. The smaller hypoconulid cusp is present, lingual to the hypoconid, The bolded words appear to be unexplained and unlinked. Please check the text, especially in the description section to make sure that technical terms are not unintelligible to the lay reader Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think all those words are clear from context or explained earlier (for example, the hypoconid is explained the sentence before the one you cite). Ucucha 10:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a few edits, and now can't see any terms that are not explained on first use. Ucucha 01:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review: Images look good. The taxobox image, File:Ambondro lingual.jpg has an OTRS pending, but I trust Ucucha and I have no doubt that it will be processed without issue in due time. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I just replaced one image. Ucucha 02:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No change in opinion. Images are fine. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose. While impressed by this excellent piece of scholarship, its language is pushing the limits of accessability to a lay reader. I more or less followed it, but then again, I did palaeontology at university (albeit some decades past :-)). I'd like to hear the view of other editors re accessability and WIAFA criterion 1a ("its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"). hamiltonstone (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few more changes. I'm not sure what else can be done, though; this is a very technical subject, and I've already gone through it and rewritten large swathes of it several times. Ucucha 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some specifics:

  • Nice to hear that! Thanks for your comments; I've responded below.
  • Lead: "the basic arrangement also present in marsupial and placental mammals" - the basic arrangement of what? I take it one means "of teeth in the jaw" or "of molars", but it should be spelt out.
  • Clarified; it's about molars (usually at least, premolars sometimes get molar-like).
  • Lead: "with putatively tribosphenic teeth". This is, pardon the pun, a bit of a mouthful. Is it at least possible to use a more everyday word than putatively?
  • I think it fits the meaning best. Perhaps "supposedly" would work, but it has negative connotations.
  • Description: In the first para, we are told there are three teeth, and two are named m1 and m2. Yet the second para begins "The front half of the m1–2", as though this was a single object (with a newly-introduced abbreviation). Surely the "front half" of two distinct teeth is simply m1?
  • Sorry, that is paleontologese for "m1 and m2". Clarified.
  • Description: "At the back of the trigonid, the distal metacristid, a crest" would be more readable to a lay person if it read along the lines of "At the back of the trigonid, a crest (called the distal metacristid)"
  • I considered this when I wrote it, but it would then read "a crest ... is located at a relatively labial position"; the point of the sentence is that it is this specific crest, the distal metacristid, that is at this relatively labial position.
  • I tried a different rewording here; see what you think. Ucucha 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: "at a relatively labial position" - should this be "in a relatively labial position"?
  • Perhaps; "at" sounds better to me, but I may well be wrong.
  • Description: "contains a well-developed cusp, the hypoconid, on the labial side" and "The smaller hypoconulid cusp is present, lingual to the hypoconid" - examples where i would favour just dropping the technically precise language, regardless of the fact that "labial" and "lingual" have been previously explained. It is instances such as this that make it read too much like a paleontological reference and not enough like an everyperson's encyclopedia. Try "The smaller hypoconulid cusp is present, on the inner side from the hypoconid" etc. Ditto "Further lingual from the hypoconulid".
  • Removed "labial" and "lingual" here.
  • Got rid of some more instances of "labial" and "lingual". Ucucha 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: "Flynn and colleagues identified wear facets five and six lingual to the distal metacristid–cristid obliqua" - this is probably the densest technical language of the section and needs reworking. Also, while "protoconid" has previously been linked, we don't know what a "protocone" is.
  • Not sure what else can be done here; this particular sentence may still be technical, but the entire sentence before it is devoted to explaining what wear facets are. Ucucha 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terminological question: why the apparent linguistic/terminological variation between "protocone" and "paraconid" (rather than paracone) and what is the difference between a hypoconulid cusp and a hypocone? Etc.
  • In general, terms for lower molar features get -id added relative to corresponding upper molar features. Thus, a protocone is a cusp on the upper molars, and a protoconid is on the lowers. The hypocone is never mentioned, but the hypoconid and the hypoconulid are distinct cusps of the talonid, as shown in the diagram and in the description. I slightly clarified the sentence on wear facets. Ucucha 01:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interpretation: because the nature of tribosphenic teeth is so critical to this subject, the explanation of what they are is important. That should include an explanation of what is meant by "occluding".
  • Rephrased that. The article already explains what "tribosphenic" is.
  • Interpretation: I was sure that "and Cretaceous through living monotremes" was some sort of typo. Eventually I ?realised that it meant "monotremes from the Cretaceous through to the present", and i suggest the language be changed to something less formal. Unless it really is a typo, for "Cretaceous, though living, monotremes".
  • Reworded.
  • Interpretation: "anterolabial corner". Plain English please. "Rear outer" perhaps?!
  • Outer front.
  • Interpretation: "This change resulted from several changes to the data matrix Luo et al. used, particularly in the states for monotremes." Genuinely have no idea what this means, specifically arising (I assume) from particular technical meaning of the term "states" in this context. Also, the passive voice means it isn't clear whether it was Woodburne et all who made the "changes to the data matrix".
  • Reworded.
  • There are some difficulties in following the "Interpretation" (most of which I doubt arise from the writing of the WP article!). It would help if the article text was explicitly cross-referenced to the cladogram at the right. However, one of the confusing features of that item is that the upper clad. shows Australosphenida and Boreosphenida, whereas the bottom lacks these. Is one supposed to infer that the very short base line for the Woodburne et all clad. represents Australosphenida (which is what I did) and that they were leaving out the Boreosphenida altogether? Can someone look at this?
  • The point is that Woodburne did not find support for the Boreosphenida–Australosphenida hypothesis. I reworded the piece about Woodburne in the text to clarify that and added explicit references to the cladograms. Ucucha 01:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article though! hamiltonstone (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Getting better - still pretty technical. Why "Flynn and colleagues" but "Luo et al"? I also would expect "et al" to be italicised. Can you consider reversing the position of the two cladograms to match the order in which they are referred to in text? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the one in-text instance of "et al." (which doesn't need italics—it rarely gets them in the paleontological literature). I put the Rougier et al. cladogram at the top because it is essentially similar to cladograms proposed earlier by Luo et al. (2001; 2002), but includes more australosphenidans and therefore gives a more complete picture of the immediate relationships of Ambondro. Ucucha 11:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting closer. I think my remaining objection is to the passage "Flynn and colleagues identified wear facets five and six at the distal metacristid–cristid obliqua and in front of the hypoconulid, within the talonid basin". This is not aided by the fact that Figure 2 illustrates neither the distal metacristid or the cristid obliqua, and that "obliqua" is not defined (I am assuming that is because it is a compound noun, not a word with a separate definition?) Can I get some additional information (here, not in the article): the article refers to a standard numbering system for wear facets. Am I right in inferring that numbers 5 and 6 in other animals are by definition caused by a protocone? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All concerns addressed - very positive collaboration, thanks Ucucha. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ambondro_mahabo/archive1&oldid=1144463459"