# Talk:Anoplotherium

@PrimalMustelid: I don't think I currently have the time to review this, but I like to leave a comment here about article size. For a genus article, this seems to be way to long (9785 words of readable prose). Please be aware of the huge disadvantages of large article sizes for readers (and also reviewers), and editors who need to maintain the article in the future. I recommend to drastically cut it down. With this I do not mean to remove sections; rather I suggest to present the existing information in a more concise way, while avoiding unnecessary detail, and just focusing on the main points you like to convey. I am aware that article size is not a GA criterion, but we have the criterion "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." For example, you are providing a list of foods of the alligatoroid Diplocynodon; such things are not pertinent to this article. This is just my opinion, but if you are interested in working on this issue and need help, let me know. Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I've tried cutting down on the article slightly, so for now it's 9,618 words. However, I'm having relative difficulty in what else I should cut out or simplify, so I'd be interested in your further opinions. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack I suppose I should tag you, so here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Sure, let's pick one paragraph and discuss it in detail:
The form of the brain is naturally narrow and elongated. The parts of the cerebral hemisphere concerned with the sense of smell are well-developed as evident by the enlarged olfactory bulbs and other areas associated with the sense of smell and the small size of the neocortex. The lateral view of the endocast shows that the cerebellum and cerebrum are at high positions relative to the overall brain, considered a primitive trait compared to modern ungulates that have brain hemispheres located above the cerebellum. Palmer noticed that the brain was similar in general form, parts, and furrows to Orycteropus, which includes the modern aardvark (Orycteropus afer). The highly-developed cerebrum that enables a strong sense of smell from Anoplotherium is more similar in brain development to aardvarks than artiodactyls, therefore making it macrosmatic (derived in sense of smell). Additionally, the olfactory bulbs are thick, and the olfactory tubercles take the form of smooth circular elevations that are curved more backwards than the aardvark and are easily noticeable.[60] In both Anoplotherium and Diplobune, the rhinal fissure divides the brain hemisphere horizontally and equally in half. The cerebellar vermis of the cerebellum is divided almost equally by the primary fissure of cerebellum (or "fissura prima"). In another endocast for Anoplotherium, the olfactory bulbs compose 7.5% of the total volume of the brain, above average for olfactory bulbs of both extinct and extant artiodactyls.

Apart from length, the flow does not seem optimal. You first talk about the sense of smell, then about the position of the cerebellum and cerebrum, and then about smell again. Then you talk about the cerebellar vermis, and then about smell again. What we need is a clear structure, a red thread to guide the reader, discussing the stuff step by step. Maybe first start with the general shape, then discuss the olfactory functions.
You use many redundant "bloat" words that can be removed without problem. For example, instead of The form of the brain is naturally narrow and elongated, you can just say "The brain was narrow and elongated".
Then, you have redundancy in the text. For example: 1) as evident by the enlarged olfactory bulbs; 2) Additionally, the olfactory bulbs are thick; 3) the olfactory bulbs compose 7.5% of the total volume of the brain. You repeat essentially the same information three times! Just combine these, e.g. "The olfactory bulbs were large, making of 7.5% of the total volume of the brain in one specimen". You save many words.
You also have redundancy within single sentences. E.g.
The parts of the cerebral hemisphere concerned with the sense of smell are well-developed as evident by the enlarged olfactory bulbs and other areas associated with the sense of smell and the small size of the neocortex. – Note that in this single sentence, you have "concerned with the sense of smell" and "associated with the sense of smell". This is poor wording. Why not: "The sense of smell was well-developed, as indicated by the enlarged olfactory bulbs and the small size of the neocortex". In this suggestion, I removed "other areas associated with the sense of smell" because it is unspecific and does not say much to start with.
the olfactory bulbs compose 7.5% of the total volume of the brain, above average for olfactory bulbs – you can just remove the second instance of "olfactory bulbs".
Next, you have some detail that might not be very relevant to the reader. Always ask: Does the reader have to know this in order to understand the important key take-aways? Examples:
The lateral view of the endocast shows that (could be removed);
Palmer noticed that the brain was similar in general form, parts, and furrows to Orycteropus, which includes the modern aardvark (Orycteropus afer) (could be simplified to "Palmer noticed that the brain was similar to the modern aardvark (Orycteropus afer)" without loosing important information).
is more similar in brain development to aardvarks (remove "in brain development", I do not understand what that means anyways)
Not in this example paragraph, but elsewhere: When looking for unnecessary detail that does not help the reader to understand the main points, the first I would cut down are measurements. While some measurements are important, remember that this is data, not information from which a reader may learn anything. We don't need to (and should not) provide all those measurements provided in the papers. We should summarize the main findings of the paper in a comprehensible but concise way.
I hope this helps so far, and that it is clearer what I'm getting at! Let me know if you have any questions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll copy-edit the Description section based on your advices and will let you know when I'm finished then. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack Did some quick copy-editing down to 9,133 words (description and paaleobiology sections), not sure that I can simplify much more since the article depends heavily on comparative anatomy. What are your quick thoughts? PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
That looks good, and definitely goes into the right direction (not only regarding prose size, but also regarding GA criterion 1 "well written"). Another advice I can give: Provide the most important information first. Example:
In terms of the tarsal bones, Anoplotherium, based on hind foot bone evidence from the National Museum of Natural History, France (GY 166, GY 162, GY 165) has a navicular bone, three cuneiform bones, and a cuboid bone. In A. commune, the digit II bone, ectocuneiform (outermost of the three cuneiform bones), and mesocuneiform (middle cuneiform bone), while present, are small, suggesting two fingers in its hind limbs similar to its front limbs.
You put emphasis here on quite unimportant information. Instead I suggest: The tarsus consists of the navicular, three cueniform bones, and a cuboid bone, as shown by specimens from the Natural History Museum in France. The foot probably consisted of two toes, as indicated by the relatively small outermost and middle cuneiform bones in A. commune.
Now you have the emphasis on the information that really matters. I would even remove the French museum stuff and the mention of "A. commune", I don't think that is needed. (also note that the term "finger" is only for the manus, and "toe" only for the pes; the general term is "digit"). Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Done, I'll keep that in mind as I work on more articles in the near future. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Great, I am glad that was helpful. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
You might want to consider making requests of the Guild of Copy Editors. I think it would be good for both your completed articles and yourself. Merry Christmas, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)