# Talk:Apeomyoides

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apeomyoides/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 14:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I will review it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This is my first GA review. I myself have done some fixes (please revert if needed), but I'm not ready jet; so I will add some more comments tomorrow.
Comments:

Please add pictures. Since the description was published in APP, you may use the original images directly from the publication. See [1]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. I'll have to write more articles on taxa published in APP. Ucucha (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
From the introduction: Other features distinguish Apeomyoides from other apeomyines. The cheekteeth are rectangular in shape. The fourth lower premolar (p4) is larger than the molars behind it. The p4 has two roots and the lower molars have three. – this seems a bit list-like. What about adding "These include", "as well as" or similar stuff to get a bit more prose?
Hopefully a little better now. Ucucha (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Taxonomy section: First you write Apeomyoides is further part of a distinctive subgroup of eomyids known as the Apeomyinae., later you write These scientists also named a new eomyid subfamily, Apeomyinae, to house Apeomys and Megapeomys. – these to sentences may not fit together (in terms of reading experience), stringency is missing.
I think I see your point, but the two sentences have slightly different functions: one introduces the subfamily Apeomyinae, and the other gives an important piece of history (when Apeomyinae was first identified as a distinctive clade). But I'm open to rewording. Ucucha (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Further comments (not necessary for GA status):

Some details in the first paragraph of the "taxonomy" section may not be absolutely necessary for this article. What about creating an article "Apeomyinae", copying the paragraph into it, and reduce unnecessary detail in the Apeomyoides article?
Certainly this kind of information should be included in an article on the Apeomyinae, but it's good to give some context even in this article. Many of the taxa mentioned here are also discussed in a comparative context in the "Description", so it's necessary to introduce them. Ucucha (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
the total length of the preserved mandible would be a nice to have information.
Smith et al. (2006) don't give this measurement. Total mandible length isn't a very common measurement, and it can't be given for the holotype in this case anyway, because part of the back is broken. Ucucha (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
you may could add a bit more context. Are the high crowned teeth an adaptation for tough plant material, and is this the reason why these animals are considered to life in a dry habitat?
No, that's because of the locations in which European apeomyines were found. Smith et al. (2006) don't discuss function at all, and Fejfar et al. (1998) only do so in a very cursory way. I don't think there's much to add to this article, though if and when I write an article on the subfamily there would be space for more discussion. Ucucha (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The "Distribution and ecology" is a little thin. Some background about the "eastgate local fauna" would be great. Perhaps you could add that this is the first Apeomyinae from this locality and extents the known range of this group.
You're right, there are a few important points in Smith et al. (2006) that I didn't include. Otherwise, it seems the main and perhaps only source for Eastgate is Smith's PhD thesis, which I'll try to locate. Ucucha (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thats it. Thank you for that great paleontology article :) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing! Ucucha (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)