Talk:Toothcomb/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jackhynes (talk · contribs) 13:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking through the article now for copyedit issues. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few (hopefully) uncontroversial changes to the article, and I've presented these issues below which you are free to disagree with :) Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The toothcomb is kept clean by either the tongue or, in the case of lemuriforms, a sublingua, or specialized "under-tongue"." If it's the tongue, should it be the sublingua? Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The sublingua extends below the tip of the tongue and is tipped with keratinized" Repeating tip/tipped? Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"All six teeth are longer, straighter, and also form a more continous apical ridge." Remove the also? Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead of individual incisors and canine teeth being finely spaced to act as the teeth of a comb" Act like the teeth of a comb? Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"but only two of its lower three pairs of lower incisors" Lower used twice? Or are there lower pairs of lower incisors? Jack (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph of the grooming section there is mention of doubt that was cast on the function of the toothcomb. Is this necessary to mention? From the reference, one paper refutes its use as a grooming apparatus with little evidence, contrary to most if not all papers before and after. Jack (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to, but my most recent secondary source (Cuozzo & Yamashita 2006) explicitly states that neither side has definitive evidence to win the debate. I personally disagree, but given that I try to weigh my secondary sources over my primary sources, I feel I'm left with little choice based on my understanding of WP:NPOV. Your thoughts? – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple sources mention this then it seems correct to mention. Jack (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Among non-primates, the extinct Chriacus exhibits.." What was Chriacus and why is it being compared to a colugo? Jack (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chriacus was a type of arctocyonid from the Eocene, red-linked above. I was trying to squeeze in this one tiny detail about their dental arrangement while comparing them with the colugo dentition. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"..including Djebelemur and Anchomomys, have been found in Africa and date to 50 to 48 mya.." Date from? Jack (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

contemporaneous Amazing word that I've never heard before :) Jack (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source uses it, but no synonyms came to mind. (At the time I wrote it, my brain was nearly shot.) The word is used to refers things that coexist as the same time. If you want, I can reword it. But once you start dealing with the fossil record and phylogenetics, that beautiful work gets put to a lot of use. :-) – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done for copy-editing and wording, and I've had a quick look through the references too for formatting (there is one dead link). After you've responded to my points I'm happy to pass this. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the speedy review and copyedit! If there is more I need to fix, just let me know. – Maky ^« talk » 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole process is made so much easier when the quality of your work is so high, so thanks for that! I'm passing the article now, in continuing to FA status I would recommend honing the prose in the Evolution section, specifically the Original function of the lemuriform toothcomb subsection, which didn't read as smoothly as it could. Otherwise, excellent work! Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the suggestion. FAC is indeed the next stop. – Maky ^« talk » 03:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: UtherSRG (talk · contribs) 13:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few edits as well, although I didn't think to save them for here. And sorry about the edit conflicts, Jack. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reviews and copyedits, guys. That was fast! I will try to address the points above when I get home this afternoon. – Maky ^« talk » 17:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]