Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thalassocnus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 February 2019 [1].

Thalassocnus[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a big species of marine sloth from the Miocene, and it's one of 2 ground sloth articles (the other being ground sloth) that's above C class, so I hope a future ground sloth enthusiast can use this for some other article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon, but a disclaimer; I drew the life restoration, and took the taxobox photo, so I am somewhat "involved" (which is also why I didn't do the GA review). FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thalassocnus were ground sloths that lived from the Late Miocene to the end of the Pliocene–Late Huayquerian to Early Uquian in the SALMA classification–" Why is this under "remains"? The entire first paragrapgh looks like it belongs under the beginning of Paleoecology.
the paragraph's more about which species were found where and in what formations so it should really stay where it is because that's what that section discusses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dates and ages would be expected udner palaeecology, though. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if "specimens" would be a better title than "remains".
  • The map under Paleoecology is formatted in a weird way so that the text is unpleasantly close to the image frame (compare with other images in the article). It should be possible to match this better.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Museum abbreviations are linked every time they are mentioned, but should only be so at first mention.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should state who named the species in-text.
  • "In 1968, taxonomist Robert Hoffstetter placed undescribed sloth remains into the family Megatheriidae, possibly belonging to the now-defunct subfamily Planopsinae, mainly based on similarities with the ankle bone and femur." What does this have to do with this genus? Did the remains belong to it= If so, you really need to make this clear. If the specimens were already known in the 1960s, this should be mentioned in the specimens section.
  • I think the structure of the taxonomy section could be improved. Not sure what others think but I find it unnecessary (and confusing) that you spread out the info on specimens, species, and etymology, instead of just giving it chronologically: State when the first specimens were found, when it was named, what the name means, and the on to the next species. There is no reason to have separated specimen and etymology sections as far as I can see.
  • "Thalassocnus is the only aquatic xenarthran–a group that includes sloths, anteaters, and armadillos–though the ground sloth Eionaletherium from the Miocene of Venezuela may have adapted to nearshore life." Why is this under description?
  • The paragrapgh on bone density and its function under descrition looks like it belong sunde ralaeobiology.
  • "The thick and dense bones of younger species (pachyosteosclerosis) allowed the animal to" "younger species" means more recent species here? If so, the it doesn't apply to "the animal" as a whole, which is implied here. Also, you say "early/later" species (which is better) elsewhere in the article, be consistent.
  • "The size difference in the premaxillae are reminiscent of the developed upper lips or proboscis in males of modern mammals like the elephant seal (Mirounga spp.)." So does this imply that only males had proboscises? And since the sentence is only about skull features, it may rather belong in that section.
  • "The nostrils moved from the front of the snout to the top of the snout, similar to seals." Moved seems a bit too ambiguous, maybe "relocated" would make it seem less like it was some kind of ability they had.
  • "The teeth were prism-shaped with a circular cross section, and the teeth interlocked tightly" Second "teeth" redundant.
  • Any published speculation about whether it would have had hair or not?

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "evolved several marine adaptations over the course of 4 to 6.5 million years" - I see mention of 4 million in the text, where is the 6.5 from?
forgot to take that out of the lead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is possible T. antiquus is not the ancestor of T. natans" - is there speculation on what is?
that just means that T. natans might be the beginning of the lineage instead of T. antiquus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest rephrasing to make this clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phrasing it as it is already is closer to the source material's phrasing. Should I still change it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1 formatting doesn't match other refs
that's how we cite fossilworks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIAFA requires that citations be consistently formatted within the article - while that formatting may be consistent with other articles, it isn't consistent with other citations here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2: author names and pagination don't match authoritative source
I think it does though   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't. The surnames of the last two authors are different, and the page range is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see it now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN3: source hyphenates Salas-Gismondi. Similarly FN4 and Carrillo-Briceño
I think a bot took those out, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FN4 is fixed, FN3 is still unhyphenated. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether author initials are spaced
I thought I was   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No - compare for example McDonald's initials in FN2 (spaced) vs 5 (unspaced). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How did you even see that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in which links are archived and how this is formatted
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be - how are you deciding which links get archived? Also FN21 doesn't match the formatting of the other archived links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well a bot comes in and puts in the archive link if a link suddenly goes dead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide months for journal publications - sometimes the source includes it but you don't, other times you do
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is FN8 meant to be the same as FN7?
yes, I don't know where that came from   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Glosbe a high-quality reliable source? online-latin-dictionary.com?
why wouldn't it be? It seems like a pretty legit website   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think makes them seem "legit"? See this page for some guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's an https site and a decently renowned translator   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For both FNs 9 and 10, simply showing that these words exist and are translated in this way, isn't sufficient to source that that's the etymology of the genus name. Similarly for FNs 11 and 12. It's not clear as presented which of the other sources if any do support the etymology
that sounds like an issue for WikiProject Paleontology to handle because I can assure you this is not the only article that does this and it is not a rare occurrence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to start a discussion about this issue there, feel free. However, it presents an issue in this specific article which will impede its ability to meet the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I started a discussion, so we'll see where that goes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN18: treatment of "de" names doesn't match other refs
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One fixed, one not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suck at I Spy. Where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you use sentence or title case for article titles
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still more to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN20 is missing genus italicization
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN16: |PMC= duplicates |url=. Same with FN18, FN21, FN30
they don't though   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They do though. It's the same link. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
none of those have a url parameter specified. If you're referring to the hyperlinked titles, filling in the pmc parameter does that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN21 is missing quite a few authors - if they're omitted purposely some indication of this should be given. Same with FN25
Generally if there're a lot we stop at just 4 but I've gone back and added all of them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN25 is missing page range
it says 543   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source says more. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only citing 543   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN27: second author doesn't match source
but it does though   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now FN26. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see I missed the "r"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN28: last author doesn't match authoritative source
but it does   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now FN27. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The last author listed on the source is Jorge Domingo Carrillo Briceño, therefore the inline should read "Briceño, J. D. C." which it does   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN29: authors don't match source
but they do
Now FN28. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So then who're the authors?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN30: first author doesn't match source
oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • Bahía Inglesa, Coquimbo, and Horcón Formations – Formations must be in lower case here.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. natans–– with a near-complete skeleton – please use the proper Dash#Em_dash, and it should not have a space behind it.
that wasn't there a couple days ago   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remains section could do with a copy edit.
  • Another specimen, a partial skeleton, was described in 2002, MNHN SAS 734, also from the Montemar Horizon. – one example, this needs to be rearranged.
  • nearly-complete – why the hyphen?
Because every time I tried to read it my brain wouldn't connect the two words so I put in a hyphen mainly for my sake   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in honor of the locality – I thought you can only honor persons?
I did not know that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article you linked for "locality" does not contain what you were looking for.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the plural of "femur" is "femora", not "femurs".
I've heard it both ways, but I changed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the remains section comes across as an exhaustive account of known specimens, but it does not mention all specimens.
Do you think the second and third paragraphs of Remains should be deleted? It does seem rather messy and trivial at times to try to mention all, so should I just leave it at holotypes?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You condensed it now. I think it is better this way as it is more balanced. However, it would be good to know which species where discovered in Chile. Also consider adding type localities for all species. If possible, some general information on additional specimens would still be good (e.g., which species are well-represented by complete finds, which ones only by fragmentary ones). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Type localities are already given in the first paragraph, and possibly all species were found in the Chilean formations because there're some remains that don't have a definitive species designation, but narrowed down to two or three possible candidates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and yuacensis in honor of the locality the species was found in, Yuaca.[2] – would be worth pointing out that "Yuaca" is a village.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • also from the Montemar Horizon. – the "also" would only make sense if the Montemar Horizon would have been mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • T. carolomartini from a skull, SMNK PAL 3814, and hands, SMNK PAL 3814, was also described in 2002 – why "also"? Which one is the holotype?
it gives both as the type specimen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. antiquus was described from MUSM 228 in 2003 comprising a skull, jaw, and most of the body, though the body is badly damaged. – The skull is included in the body. Do you mean postcranium?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the sloths were subsequently put into the new subfamily Thalassocninae. – subsequently means "in a later paper", but no new date is given.
  • Thalassocnus were ground sloths that lived from the Late Miocene to the end of the Pliocene–Late Huayquerian to Early Uquian in the SALMA classification–and all five species were discovered in different horizons of the Pisco Formation in Peru. T antiquus was discovered in the Aguada de Lomas Horizon in 7 or 8 million year old strata; T. natans (the type species) from the Montemar Horizon lived around 6 million years ago (mya); T. littoralis from the Sud-Sacaco Horizon lived around 5 mya; T. carolomartini from the Sacaco Horizon lived between 3 and 4 mya; and T. yaucensis from the Yuaca Horizon lived 3 to 1.5 mya.[2] – Source [2] is given for all of this, but there are newer sources from 2017 available that give updated dates (e.g. the 2017 paper you cited).
  • and UNMSM 223, a right femur, was moved from T. natans to T. littoralis in 2005.[4] – here you provide excessive detail while other species, including the type species, were only briefly discussed.
  • why not incorporate the recent review in the book "The Rise of Marine Mammals" by Berta, 2017? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it's very generalist so if I try to stick it anywhere, I'd have to create different and much less detailed sentences before carrying on to the details (creating a redundancy)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to just stick with the holotype specimens for each species in the Remains section. The entire thing was just too messy and excessive. Could you look at it again?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check (Taxonomy section only)[edit]
  • with a near-complete skeleton, MUSM 433, – which source is saying "near-complete"? The first description states the opposite: partial skeleton.
I don't know why I wrote that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and UNMSM 223, a right femur, was moved from T. natans to T. littoralis in 2005.[4] – can't find this in the source.
I very distinctly remember writing that but I think too much shuffling happened. I'll try to find the right one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Horcón Formation specimen SGO.PV 21545, a foot discovered in 2011, – only two phalanges, not a whole foot, according to the source.
I saw "pes" and moved on I think, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I only went through the "Taxonomy" section. There appear to be too many issues with sourcing, prose, and focus (it partly reads as an incomplete accumulation of details rather than a comprehensive review); I therefore tend to oppose for now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading on – first sentence in "Description": though the ground sloth Eionaletherium from the Miocene of Venezuela may have adapted to nearshore life. – First, "nearshore life" is vague and can mean anything. The question is to what degree it was aquatic or not. Second, the cited source discusses the possibility of it being aquatic, but provides evidence against it. It basically says there is no evidence for an aquatic lifestyle except for the sediments it was found in. To say "may have adapted to nearshore life" does therefore not reflect the source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It says "E. tanycnemius may have independently evolved the ability to live in a near shore aquatic environment," and then it goes on and on about the femur and stuff which I've put in the Eionaletherium article where it belongs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you placed this out of context. This citation is not a conclusion, this is the introduction of a discussion (which you left out). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second round[edit]
  • though the two T. carolomartini specimens may represent one individual – why have "though" here?
changed to "and"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seashore"; the species name caralomartini is named in – suggest a full stop here, this long sentence is convoluted.
  • mainly based on similarities with the ankle bone. maybe "similarities in the ankle bones"?
it's a single ankle bone   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • however the femur-to-body ratio differs from species to species. – does not attach well to the sentence.
is it better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skulls show disparity in general size, slenderness of teeth, and slightly shorter premaxillae – shorter than what? Not clear what this is referring to, does not fit to the remainder of the sentence.
Is it better now?
  • males of more recent mammals like the elephant seal (Mirounga spp.) – That is a living species, not a "more recent" one. Remove the "more".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The later Thalassocnus species had enlarged premaxillae and thus had a wider and more elongated snout. – Can't find it in the provided source (#16). It only says more elongated, but not wider?
removed wider   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • indicated by the large size of the infraorbital foramen which supplies blood vessels – again, where is this in source #16?
I very specifically remember reading that but I think maybe too much shuffling happened, so I'll have to find it again
  • were farther inside the head. – you mean "located farther backwards"?
No, it's the internal nostrils so it's where the nasal cavity meets the throat   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • had a predisposition to dense bones and developed it – "it" seems to refer to "dense bones", but the former is singular and the latter plural.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The masseter muscle on the skull was probably main muscle – missing a "the"
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a form of dentine that allows blood. – Unclear to me, allows blood to do what?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The positioning of the teeth and the chewing pattern of earlier species sharpened their teeth. – convoluted wording.
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The teeth show a change of function from cutting food to grinding food. – Unclear. A change from the front teeth to the back teeth? From juveniles to adults? From early species to later species?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dense bones of younger species (pachyosteosclerosis) – this is not precise, pachyosteosclerosis its not only about density but also about thickness. You mingle these two separate things together.
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • however the femur-to-body ratio differs from species to species – this needs explanation. Why is it important that the femur-to-body ratio differs?
I take it to mean "so these estimates may not be completely accurate" but it doesn't specifically say that so that's what I'm left with   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. antiquus had a bone density comparable to terrestrial ground sloths. In later species, the bone grew to be so thick that the medullary cavity – see above, thickness and density are two different things.
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, the limbs made the heaviest contribution to overall skeletal weight. This condition has only been seen in ancient archaeocete whales with reduced limbs – Again, I can't find this in the sources (the claim that archaeocetes are the only other secondary aquatic mammals where limbs make the heaviest contribution to weight).
looks like I misread that, it only says "Such advanced osteosclerosis in hindlimbs was previously documented in ‘archaeocetes’ (early cetaceans)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only read on to the "skull" section. I really do not want to be responsible for any archival, but the article just does not feel ready. There are numerous prose issues. The article is very short considering the huge amount of interesting material that was published. Most of all, however, I often cannot find the info in the cited sources (see above for examples). Because of the latter reason, I can only keep opposing. This appears to be a general issue with the article that is not as easy to fix. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator comment: I'm inclined to archive this as it has been open nearly a month and we have an oppose. Jens Lallensack do you think this is doable within the timeframe of FAC, or would you recommend withdrawing it? Sarastro (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. It's not a long or complicated article, should be doable. Will have a new look later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also return soon, maybe once Jens has had a new look. FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better if you could have a quick look as soon as possible FunkMonk as I would like an idea if this is achievable quickly (i.e. within a few days maximum) or if it would be better to archive this now; you and Jens Lallensack could still look at the article but away from the pressures of FAC. Sarastro (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do over the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not past the taxonomy section, but I see some structural issues that irk me. If there is really a lot of info that has been left out as Jens implies, I think it could need some more work and a peer review. The taxonomy section is already very vague about some details (were specimens already known in the 1960s, why not state it outright?). FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really interesting stuff. Could you include (text will be fine - love the image!) some comparison of size with other members of the sloth family? These seem huge to me, but I have no idea how big they are relative to the rest of the family. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - With standing opposition, not much movement in recent times, and not much expression of support, I'm going to archive this so issues can be handled outside of FAC. You may renominate after the standard two-week period. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2019 (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/Thalassocnus/archive1&oldid=885103660"