Wikipedia:Peer review/Mammal/archive3

Mammal[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm trying to get this article to FA, but I'm worried that I might've missed some key points or some sections are poorly worded. Comments anyone?

Thanks, User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that you could add some information on the excretory system, like in bird, reptile, insect, ect. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think the only thing you can do now is find a copyeditor, otherwise it looks good to me. LittleJerry (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and perhaps you can add a bit on vocal anatomy, I have a paper right here. LittleJerry (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's review[edit]

Let me start by saying that, as one of the people that got Bird through FA, I admire your effort. I also don't envy you. If my review seems a little brutal, take it in the spirit of saving you agony during the FAC process. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High level[edit]

This still has a way to go before it's FA. It's very good, but for a FA on a crucial subject it isn't complete yet and has some structural issues.

The lead needs some heavy rewriting. The lead should summarise the article, and in my opinion roughly follow the articles structure. This at present does neither. It misses out whole subjects covered by the main article or breezes over them too quickly (behaviour, but gets bogged down in some details too. It is both overly detailed and not detailed enough. I'll go through some of the issues below.
There are some crucial subjects missing. Breeding is a sub-subject of social behaviour (it shouldn't be) and at present is just mating systems, which is one aspect of breeding behaviour, and doesn't cover parental care at all. Territoriality is missing. Distribution, habitat use , migration (all possibly linked) and ecological role are all missing.

added parental care, and territoriality has a (small) paragraph in the Social structure section below the one on fission-fusion societies User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structural issues aren't as bad, I'd argue that locomotion is probably best linked to anatomy.

moved User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reviewing the sections below. Again, I think this is good, really good. Hopefully we can make it better :) Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - might it be better to have a separate article with all the different examinations of the arrangement of the mammals from the classification system, and then summarise that article here? There's a lot of lists and references to high order taxa that won't mean much to many people. Perhaps a discussion for the talk page or wikiproject.

I think you're talking about the Mammal classification article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The sister group of mammals may be the extinct Haldanodon. - too detailed for lead, meaningless to most people (including me, and I'm interested)

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mammals consist of the Yinotheria including monotrema and the Theriiformes including the theria. I've never heard of any of these terms (except for monotremes). Rather jargony, Maybe Living mammals are divided into the Yinotheria (platypus and echidnas) and Theriiformes (all other mammals)

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three largest orders in number of species Why introduce the six biggest orders, and then lay them out three at a time? At most just list the biggest or the two biggest. Also...
are Rodentia: mice, rats, porcupines, beavers, capybaras and other gnawing mammals; Chiroptera: bats; and Soricomorpha: shrews, moles and solenodons. Really getting too much detail here. If you do want to have this The largest orders are the rodents, bats and Soricomorpha (shrews and allies). Remember, lead space is precious, and this is verbatim repeated in the main article.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mammal Species of the World, 5,416 species were known in 2006. These were grouped in 1,229 genera, 153 families and 29 orders. In 2008 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) completed a five-year, 1,700-scientist Global Mammal Assessment for its IUCN Red List, which counted 5,488 species. Again, getting bogged down in details. There are around 5450 species of mammal, depending on which authority is cited or something like that. Who says exactly how many is for the article.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In some classifications, extant mammals are divided into two subclasses: the Prototheria, that is, the order Monotremata; and the Theria, or the infraclasses Metatheria and Eutheria. The marsupials constitute the crown group of the Metatheria, and include all living metatherians as well as many extinct ones; the placentals are the crown group of the Eutheria. Having broadly divided extant mammals in the first paragraph you're doing it again in the middle of this one, and doing it slightly differently? I'm reasonably familiar with classification systems but not an expert in high level mammalian classification and I'm baffled.

moved User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning The early synapsid mammalian ancestors - is a good paragraph that explains jargon concepts well, but it's out of order. Synapsids are introduced in the first paragraph, forgotten about and pop up again here.

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then it jumps to relationship with humans without summarising a lot of the article, and leaving out threats and conservation too.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of images in the taxobox is poor too. It's hard to work out what many of them are, especially the poor thing in a cage.

increased the size User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And... this is just me, but is it worth noting that humans are mammals somewhere? Maybe it's just me ;)

Classification[edit]

Coming back to Rodentia: mice, rats, porcupines, beavers, capybaras and other gnawing mammals; Chiroptera: bats; and Soricomorpha: shrews, moles and solenodons the explanation through examples are rather odd. Why great apes and monkeys and not lemurs and gibbons? Why cats and seals but not badgers or hyaenas? Most of these probably are familiar enough that you don't need random examples. May be worth having numbers though (x-ish many rodents for example).

fixed? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In definition, you present two definitions without indicating if others exist, or which is more widely accepted. The paper is influential, does that make it the default definition?

there are two well supported definitions User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy and systematics[edit]

I feel this section might bet better named Evolution of mammals or Evolution Since it is about the class' evolutionary history.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think evolution from amniotes shouldn't be longer than rise of the mammals. Perhaps more information about early groups, when families and orders arose, and where? Perhaps the isolated evolution of South America, or extinct orders like the creodonts.

creodonts don't seem all too important since they're just the ancestors of pangolins with sharp teeth

They are? I... missed that. Interesting. It was just an example though. Take Litopterna instead. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recalibrations of genetic and morphological diversity rates have suggested a terminal Maastrichtian origin for placentals, - perhaps insert (late cretaceous) in there to clarify?

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy and morphology[edit]

Nearly all mammal groups possess an epipubic bone, the exception being modern placentals. - Nearly all extant mammal groups are placentals, so you should be more specific about which groups you are referring to.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little in this section about the mammalian skeleton. The ear-bones is only mentioned in the lead and is missing from the distinguishing features section too.

that's probably the only thing in common between mammals regarding bones. Marine mammals have very different bones than, say, arboreal mammals (and marine mammals also have different bones between each other too). Bipedal humans have a different skeletal anatomy than bipedal kangaroos, which have a different skeletal structure from cheetahs which have a different skeletal structure than lions (the bones are lighter), and so on User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the mammalian skeleton advanced in a number of ways from the reptilian ancestors. This site lists some of those advances. Moreover, as with sensory adaptations below, the variation within the class is not really a reason to avoid discussing; after all locomotion varies massively throughout the mammals and it is covered in some depth here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also not present are the nervous-system and sensory system (scent, sight etc)

senses all vary a lot between species (like with sight, some mammals have night-vision, others have bad vision, and some don't even have eyes) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. This isn't an article about everything that all mammals are the same on, its an article about mammals. Compare and contrast some examples to show the variation.Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coloration - Hair/fur is an important specialty of the mammals. The only gets short thrift in the main biological systems and then gets a longer section on the role of colour in the lives of mammals. I would suggest renaming this section hair or fur and expanding on its other functions and characteristics - warmth, protection (spines), touch sense, communication (body langauge, sexual displays); as well as ideas like down fur versus guard hair

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotion[edit]

Perhaps some mention of bipedalism versus quadrupedalism?

added a couple sentences User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brachiation is mentioned but not explained

explained in parentheses User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In aerial, Bats are the only mammals that can truly fly. which is true, but flight is not the only type of motion used in the air.

gliding is covered in Arboreal User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]