Talk:Stenoplesictis

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stenoplesictis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 16:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 23:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Taking this now. Will try to copy-edit myself through and leave comments here on the way. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• The Lead needs to be easy to read. The first sentence alone is hyper technical (e.g., aeluroid, endemic). Explain what an aeluroid is and avoid terms like "endemic", or reword like "restricted to" and link that to Endemism. Also, many wikilinks are missing.
  • Addressed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• is currently pending reassessment to another genus. – no idea what that means. "Assignment"?
  • Changed to "reassigment." PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• described a lower maxilla fossil – what is a "lower" maxilla? The lower jaw is the dentary. Also, use "fragment" instead of "fossil"?
  • Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Article body also lacks a lot of wikilinks. Please check throughout.
• describing it as belonging to an unknown mustelid genus – I think I mentioned that before in an other article: write "considering it as an unknown mustelid genus", remove the redundancies, keep it short.
  • Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Stenoplesictis, referencing it after the fossil mustelid genus Plesictis – do we know what the rest of the genus name means, and the specific name (not species name, btw)?
  • Gave explanation to the etymology. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• carnivoran that he described as being small-sized like, – like what?
  • Addressed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• German palaeontologist Norbert Schmidt-Kittler erected muhoronii based on a maxilla fragment – is "muhoronii" a taxon?
  • Fixed the species name. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• et al. – we had that discussion before as well; readers may be unfamiliar with this.
  • Alright, a compromise is that on the first mention, I'll explain that it means "and colleagues" (though I never liked that phrase to be honest). PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• In multiple places, you say that someone is "classifying" a taxon to another taxon, or that there was a "reassessment" to another taxon, which, I think, is grammatically incorrect and highly confusing. You need to use the verb "assign".
  • Implemented. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Putting "Stenoplesictis spp." in an image caption is totally unnecessary, when you can just write "species of" (and why not just mention the species shown? What is the point of a size comparison when you do not say what species are compared?).
  • Replaced with "all three Stenplesictis species. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Avoid the phrasing "as being". That is strange wording and where you use it, you can usually formulate much more concisely.
  • Replaced. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• "known from", not "known by".
  • Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• craniums – I guess that this plural is not impossible but "crania" is so much more common; I found "craniums" quite irritating.
  • I don't think it matters, but replaced since you suggested it. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• meatal fossa – this needs a link and, since the sentence cannot be understood without knowing this term, also an in-text explanation according to WP:MTAU.
  • Linked and explained a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

First (non-final) assessment: The main issue is GA criterion 1 "Well written". The prose is often not clear, not concise, and not understandable to an appropriately broad audience as demanded by the GA criteria. See examples above. Please take a look at WP:MTAU and here on how to make technical articles understandable. In particular, I would ask you to go through the article and 1) add any missing wikilinks, and then 2) briefly explain those terms that a reader has to know to understand a sentence. When done, I have another read. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Just want to let you know that I have seen the review so far and will get to it within the next few days. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood, but take your time! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• only S. muhoronii remains and is currently pending reassignment to another genus – remains what? valid?

• It appeared in Europe by the Early Oligocene along with various other carnivorans including other stenoplesictids, and lasted up to the Late Oligocene. – Why do we need to repeat that it lived in Europe? Why is it relevant what other species appeared at the same time?

• It looks like you didn't yet go through the article with WP:MTAU in mind, as suggested above. I give some more examples, also concerning grammar and prose, based on the first three sentences of "Description". But you would have to try to fix similar issues in the remainder of the article, as I cannot list everything here, it's too much.
  • Stenoplesictis is diagnosed as having a flattened upper face of the skull. – Much easier to understand and more direct would be "Stenoplesictis differs from related genera in a flattened upper face of the skull."
  • You are often not placing commas where they are needed, such as in "Its snout is not as narrow as that of another stenoplesictid Haplogale", which needs a comma before "Haplogale".
  • In terms of addition diagnoses– This doesn't make sense grammar-wise, and I'm not sure what the point is.
  • Its auditory region is differentiated from Palaeoprionodon by – "differs from xx in feature xx"; I already fixed the same issue in the lead, watch out for more cases.
  • Its auditory region is differentiated from Palaeoprionodon by its larger ectotympanic and non-ossified entotympanic that is positioned back and from Stenogale by the lack of any anteroposterior flattened underside process (or tissue projection) on the promontory of the tympanic cavity. – "positioned back"? Do you mean "positioned farther back"? What is a "tissue projection", do you mean "bony projection"?
  • The example sentence above is, I think, impossible to understand for almost all readers. To solve this and similar issues, there are several steps according to WP:MTAU.
    • First, the most simple and basic information should come first. You are starting the Description section with sentences like this. No, the difficult parts should come last. Start with introducing the general anatomy of Stenoplesictidae, and how Stenoplesictis compares in general terms.
    • Second, avoid technical terms that are not strictly needed, if this can be done without loosing too much precision. In the example sentence, you could change anteroposterior flattened underside process (or tissue projection) on the to projection on the underside of the …, getting rid of two terms. Reasoning: When the process is absent as you say, it doesn't matter whether or not it is anteroposteriroly flattened in related genera.
    • Explain terms that are important and cannot be avoided. You tried to add some explanations, but you only explained the simpler terms and not the difficult ones, and the sentence is still totally incomprehensible for a general reader. For example, "by its larger ectotympanic, the bone that holds the eardrum in place" – this is an explanation any reader can relate to somehow.
    • Link all terms. In the example sentence, entotympanic is not even linked (nor explained) even though an article exists. "Diagnosis" is another one that is not linked (but I think you don't have to use that term to begin with).

Hope this helps a bit. Let me know if you have any questions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I’ll get to this by this weekend. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Closing note: Looks like we got stuck, and since GANs shouldn't stay idle for that long, I am going to close this now. These seem to be issues that you want to fix outside of the pressure of a GAN. Obviously, there is nothing lost, as you can re-nominate any time as soon as you feel confident that the issues are gone. You can also list the article at the Palaeo article workshop, where I would be happy to provide further input. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)