Talk:Temnospondyli

Temnospondyli has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 28, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
February 9, 2023	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Palaeontology High‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance

	Temnospondyli is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Yankeesrule3 (talk • contribs • count) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first Good Article review, so please offer me advice. I will do one level 2 section per day. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Only needs some minor fixes in tense, not enough by itself to fail article.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Lead[edit]

Seems to be a good summary of the article.

Description[edit]

Needs to stay consistently in the same tense, but other than that it is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesrule3 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the review. The lead describes what is currently known about temnospondyls in the present tense, what they were like when alive in the past tense, and how they have been viewed historically in the past tense. I don't see how I could keep the same tense when different times are being discussed. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I thought you were talking about the lead! Fixed the tenses. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Study[edit]

Seems good, no obvious problems.

Evolutionary History[edit]

Again, seems good, no obvious problems.

Classification[edit]

Could use some cleanup, but not appalling by any means.

Paleobiology[edit]

Seems good. No problems, except for some minor tense errors, although not bad like the description section was.

I will take a day or two to finish, but I think that this will pass, unless I find something very appalling. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stereospondylous and rhachitomous vertebrae[edit]

Both types are mentioned, but only rhachitomous vertebrae get a defining description. The corresponding description for stereospondylous vertebrae has been inadvertently omitted.--Wetman (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are described in the sentence, "In stereospondylous vertebrae the pleurocentra have been lost entirely, with the intercentra enlarged as the main body of the vertebrae." If you want, I can add more information. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eryops fingers[edit]

Isn't the taxobox image wrong in that it shows Eryops with five instead of four fingers? FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, you're right, I never noticed that. Is that skeleton a cast? The hands must have been reconstructed, since I don't think any Eryops specimens preserve them completely. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a cast, I saw it in Paris once. We have more pictures of it on Commons, and other casts have the same problem.[1] So they should perhaps not be used? FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only good skeleton that seems to show four fingers is this one, which I put in the taxobox. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put that in the Eryops article some time back as well. Includes the tadpole, which is kind of neat, heh... FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Temnospondyli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theory or hypothesis???[edit]

The article as it stands now reads "Using fossil evidence, there are three main theories for the origin of modern amphibians."

I wonder if the right word would be "hypothesis", not "theory". my understanding is that theories are broader and more thoroughly evidenced than hypotheses, the latter often described as tentative. The simple fact that there are currently three "theories" about the origin of amphibians implies that the subject has not yet been studied to the point that we have a single, widely accepteed explanation.

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

However, I'm unwilling to change the article on Wikipedia just on the basis of a few web pages and my own understanding.

Floozybackloves (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Temnospondyli[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: With some improvements made, I join the ranks of the weak keepers, and form a clear consensus to keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2011 listing. There are no general references but a large amount of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few places with paragraphs ending without references, but I'm not sure what "no general references" means. I believe the GA nominator, Smokeybjb, is inactive, but perhaps someone else from the paleo project can step in. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General references are when multiple paragraphs are cited to one citation. No general references means that there is none of those meaning the article is likely uncited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About general references: WP:GA? specifies that not all statements require inline citations. You're allowed to have a list of citations at the end of the article. De facto for WP:GAN, we do seem to demand inline citations for most statements. Femke (alt) (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure I understand the issue; is it that citations are bundled together at the end of paragraphs? That few citations are used more than once? Either way, I haven't encountered such styles to be a problem even at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, no general references isn't a problem. There are just a few uncited passages (e.g. the paragraph ending "Embolomeres are now identified as reptiliomorphs distantly related to temnospondyls", or the " simplified taxonomy of temnospondyls showing currently recognized groups", and a couple of others). Should be easy to fix, if you can find suitable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Koskinonodon, who recently (~one year ago) expanded the article massively and may have comments. Personally, I would hardly characterize the amount of uncited material as "large", and the overall article quality is actually somewhat above average for palaeontology GAs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then hopefully it's easy to fix, Lythronaxargestes; which other GAs did you have in mind ;) ?. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To that, I'd suggest that WP:Some stuff exists for a reason... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some uncited passages are now cited. I think compliance with WP:V is compromised by WP:overcitation in places. Mostly in Temnospondyli#Cranium. Some paragraphs are too long to comfortably read for non-academically schooled people (1a). Overall, I would ask for more work in this state for a pass in GAN, but would not want to delist either. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep the article looks good, though I would say it has too many citations, like [22][23][24][25][26][27] or [40][41][42][43][44][45], but it's not an obstacle for GA. Another problem is that class tree in Classification looks extremely ugly and unreadable on mobile, would suggest some change to it but I honestly don't know how to fix that. Artem.G (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] ttp://www.fmschools.org/highschool.cfm?subpage=3765

[2] ttps://lifehacker.com/the-difference-between-a-fact-hypothesis-theory-and-1732904200

[3] ttps://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

[1]

[2]

[3]