# Talk:Mixtotherium

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mixtotherium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 01:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

So now we're here! I'll start reviewing soon, preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
At first glance there's a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[1] Note that doesn't include names linked in the cladogram.
You don't need to spell out Mixtotherium every time you mention a binomial, could be abbreviated to M. where you do (and as you have often done already).
Rename Postcranial remains to Postcranial skeleton. You don't call the other description "Skull remains" or "Dental remains".
You could add a year to the caption of the mandible drawing. I see it's already struggling to fit text, but it's also extremely narrow. Personally I'd just make a version without the text in the image and flip it so it becomes horizontal instead.
Generally not sure if the old text is needed in the illustrations, but not a big deal.
A bit unfortunate the Henri Filhol image clashes with the cladogram. Any way this could be rearranged, using a picture where he faces left and right aligning it, or making a cropped version of the version not showing almost his entire body? Also, I'm not sure how that image fits the text under classification. I'd rather use the space to show more anatomy or related genera.
I think I addressed most of the preliminary issues for now, I don't think the mentions for full species binomials for the first two image captions is an issue. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Looks good, note it will be easier to keep track on what has been done if you add your responses under the relevant points, this is also the style that will be expected at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
"he designated the new genus plus species name" Plus seems very informal, why not just the straightforward "and" or "new binomial"?
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Explain sagittal crest in parenthesis.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"meaning "mixed beast"" Do we know why?
Not any that I could find in the original source or the etymology source. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Present Jean Albert Gaudry and other people mentioned, as you do for Filhol.
Mentioned "palaeontologist" for Gaudry. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"He said that the upper incisors were missing" Who said? Also, I'm not sure you need to name who said it if it's just the facts about the condition of the specimen.
Filhol stated that. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"He said that it had a strong upper canine and upper molars" Likewise.
Replaced with "the specimen"
"he designated the genus plus species" Per above.
Corrected to "he designated another binomial name."
"Adrotherium derives in Ancient Greek" Derives from?
Corrected. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"plus θήρ (beast or wild animal)" You have already defined this in the previous paragraph.
Removed restated definition. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"The naturalist provided more detailed descriptions" Not the only naturalist you've mentioned by this point, so better to name him.
Provided his name. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"another new genus plus species name Uphelognatos quercyi" As earlier. Just say "and" or "binomial".
Done the former. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"classified to "Hyopotamus" Classified as.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
" He recognized that the species name will draw attention to" Why jump to present tense?
Corrected to past tense. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Link junior synonym.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Be consistent in whether you mention nationalities of people or not.
Specified more people's nationalities. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"He also stated that he disagreed with" Could just simplify to "He also disagreed with".
Applied emendation. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"of Adrotherium (misspelled as "Adiotherium")" Misspelled by who, and is it really that relevant to point out here in an already packed sentence?
Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"from the Jebel Qatrani Formation of Africa" That is very unspecific, name the country, Egypt.
Egypt mentioned. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"species classified to Mixtotherium" Classified in/as.
PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Chose as. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"to be from outside Europe" To be from is redundant.
Fixed the phrasing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"The species was eventually synonymized with Bothriogenys sp." How can a named species be synonymised with an unnamed species?
Well, that's what the 2010 source says, no newer source concerning the synonymy. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Link and explain natural group.
Explained a bit, not sure if it's good enough. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"during the middle Eocene with possible artiodactyl and perissodactyl dispersal routes." Link Eocene and taxon names in the caption.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
A bit puzzling you have a section called "Taxonomic disputes" when much of the text preceding it is already about taxonomic disputes? Maybe it should instead be reframed as "modern taxonomic interpretations" or similar, as that's what it seems to be about?
Changed to "Later taxonomic interpretations." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"He stated that M. cuspidatum was the type species" Why does this need to be reiterated? We know from the first paragraph that it's the type species?
Sometimes, the first species to be described won't necessarily be the type species even if it was first assigned to the correct genus. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Bold Mixtotherium cuspidatum in the cladogram.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Link sister group.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Explain selenodont.
Explained in classification. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Link and explain derived.
Tried explaining, may be a bit awkward. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"Other researchers tie them as being more closely related to" not sure "tie them as" is a proper construction, just say "consider them more closely related to"?
Replaced with suggested phrase. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Link phylogenetic analysis.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"phylogenetic analysis on the Cainotherioidea" of the is more common.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Link clade.
Done (sorry that I'm getting repetitive). PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
That's normal for such replies. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"tree used for the journal and a" Used for the article/paper, journal is too wide.
Corrected. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"The phylogenetic tree used for the journal and another published work about the cainotherioids is outlined below" I'm not sure what this means. The same cladogram was published in two journals, or it's a mix of two cladograms?
Published in the same two journals. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, could this be rephrased somehow? Hard to follow. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Already had, didn't I? PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"created a phylogenetic analysis in his academic thesis " Included or conducted for would make more sense.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems you've chosen UK English (based on the use of palaeo), which makes sense because it's a European taxon, but then you also say "Paleogene". Should be consistent throughout, check for US spellings other places.
Corrected for "Palaeogene." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"Possibly according to Sudre in 1972" This phrasing makes it seem like this was possibly stated by Sudre.
Left that on accident earlier, fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"may have occupied folivorous diets" I don't think you can "occupy a diet", but you can have one.
Replaced with "had."
"is a mystery because of the overall lack of evidence." This very precise phrasing could need in-text author attribution.
Replaced with "is poorly known because of the overall lack of evidence." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"Notably, mixtotheriids share similar cranial morphologies to two" Share with.
Corrected. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Link adapine. Why say adapid in the next sentence and not just say adapine again?
Changed for consistency. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"have possibly occupied arboreal habits " Likewise, I don't think you can occupy a habit.
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"Lophiodon sp. skeleton" Not sure why we need the sp. here, as the image is just to illustrate the genus anyway.
Changed to just "Lophiodon." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Probably no need to list the museum for non-Mixtotherium taxa either, as those are not the subject of this article, so it doesn't add any relevant information (and you didn't add it for Cainotherium anyway).
I don't see how specifying the extant hyrax species is a problem. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This is about listing museum names in captions, right now it's inconsistent either way, and I'm not sure it's necessary for taxa other than the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I've seen most other GA or FA articles list museums in captions outside of the lede image, so I'm not sure why it'd be a problem here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but I'm strictly talking about the images that don't show Mixtotherium itself. Either way, you have to be consistent, and the Cainotherium skeleton doesn't have the museum listed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Mentioned the museum that hosted the Cainotherium skeleton. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"Mixtotherium is characterized as" By?
Fixed according to suggestion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
A lot of technical terms under description that could need parenthetical explanations, also as to their locations.
I feel like including a lot of parenthetical explanations might inflate the text... maybe you can point out which particular terms need explanations? PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
It will inflate the text, but it will also surely be asked for at FAC, so it's pretty much required. I can point out some in the first paragraph, the you'll get the drift. See my current FAC Nasutoceratops for how much explanation that would be expected under description. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I think I addressed the issues mentioned here, let me if I missed any. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"The orbits for the eyes" I don't think this makes clear to most readers that it's the eye sockets. I'd just say "the orbits (eye sockets)".
Specified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"toward the back of the occipital ridge" Could state where on the skull this is.
Mentioned that it's at the skull's back. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"The frontal bones of" Likewise.
I feel like "frontal" would be obvious, but specified anyways. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"situated toward the center area of the skull's face" This is a bit hard to follow. You just mean they're directed forwards? Or close to then midline?
Changed to "directed forwards to." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"while the postorbital bar is incomplete" I assume this just mean that even in life, it didn't connect? Now it could read as if it is a preservation issue.
Changed to "did not connect." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Probably avoid anatomical direction terms like "lateral" and replace with common terms where possible.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"and the squamosal bone is" Location could be explained.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"The tympanic part of the temporal bone" Explain location.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"that covers it in the skull of the mixtotheriid" Convoluted, you could just say Mixtotherium and spare some letters.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"The horizontal back portion of the mandible, or the ramus" I think ramus would also (if not mainly) refer to the upwards projecting part.
Meant to say mandibular corpus. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Present Colette Dechaseaux".
Specified that she's a palaeoneurologist. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Link and explain occlusion.
Put "(full contact)." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
You should switch the order of the two paragraphs under "Body mass"; now you start by saying this or that species is smaller or larger, with no reference to individual sizes. Better to get some masses listed so the reader has a point of references before reading about their relative sizes.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Are there no length or height estimates?
No, not realistic for a taxon generally lacking in postcranial skeletons. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
" only from astragali and a calcaneus" State where these bones are in the body.
Put "both foot bones forming the tarsus." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Explain "cf."
Implemented "(cf. meaning uncertain species identification)." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"possibly belong to Mixtotherium is described as" Was.
Fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"by small diastemata" Explain (gaps).
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"are elongated plus have" And instead of plus. Less letters and less informal.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Explain bunoselodont.
Added "or bunodont (having rounded cusps) and selenodont." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"They also appear subtriangular or subtrapezoidal" Could just sat "almost" or "roughly" instead of "sub", which would be incomprehensible for most readers.
Changed to "roughly triangular or roughly trapezoidal." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"Their conical paraconule cusps are reduced and are part of the preprotocrista crest. The protoconules are weak, and the parastyle plus mesostyle cusps appear labially round. M1–M2 usually exhibit back-sided cingulids that are round lingually and extend to the back of the entoconid cusp. The transverse third lobe of the M3 is compressed." This entire run would be hard to understand for most readers, could need some explanations.
I tried elaborating slightly more on definitions, but I can't really simplify cusp definitions unfortunately, this is inevitably one of the more advanced areas of anatomy. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Link endocast.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"The original-sized virtual plaster model" I'm not sure what this means. Is it a 3D scan of the old plaster model, or a new one based on the skull itself?
Changed wording slightly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Link olfactory bulbs at first mention.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"from other endemic artiodactyls" Why mention endemic here? And endemic to what?
Changed to "contemporary." PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"In a more complete model of the brain cast" What is this new model? The 2021 one? Then just say that to avoid confusion.
Changed up the sentence slightly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"half of the olfactory bulbs meet with each other, in which the bulbs then diverge 90°" In which refers to what? Maybe say "meet with each other from where they diverge" or similar.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm worried if the Endocast anatomy section is too detailed compared to even the adjacent sections, and wonder whether all that text is really needed, as it will be incomprehensible to 90% of readers (and even many paleontologists not specialised in brain anatomy, I'd assume). Perhaps cut it down to the essentials, such as the parts that distinguish this genus or are relevant for classification and comparison, and not general descriptions?
I'm not really in favor of that, the endocast sources by Dechaseaux are largely inaccessible, so I think it's handy to the very few paleoneurologists who cannot normally obtain the source. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I can imagine this will be brought up at FAC, but I guess now you're prepared. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Link omnivorous omnivorous.
Omnivorous is a commonly known term. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd entirely agree, and a link sure couldn't hurt. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright fine, linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Link Grande Coupure.
Done. It really needs its own article someday. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"late Eocene (MP17 - MP20)" Explain what the numbers in the parenthesis mean. Important, as you return to that kind of labels later in the text.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs under Palaeoecology have no context for how they're related to the subject if the article. Could start right of with stating when and where Mixtotherium lived in a sentence, then go into the nitty gritty about what happened during these times.
Personally, I think offering pre-evolutionary context first then explaining an individual taxon's appearance is more ideal, I did add "in the western European fossil record," however. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"have yielded remains of the Gastornithidae and Palaeognathae" State that these are bird groups.
Specified "bird clades." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Link faunal turnover.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Do no modern researchers consider some of the species to belong to distinct genera?
Not currently, no. Henri Filhol already attempted to establish two additional genera that ended up being synonymized. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Are there no cladograms that show more of its species and how they're interrelated?
No, individual species cladograms in relation to the whole genus are very uncommon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"Known taxonomically as mixtotheriids or mixtotheres" Not sure what is meant by "Known taxonomically", as you just said they belong to Mixtotheriidae, which is the actual taxonomic name. Those latter terms are informal/common variations, so you could say "informally/commonly known as mixtotheriids or mixtotheres".
Replaced with "informally." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Link genus and type species in intro.
Done as usual. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"the artiodactyls were endemic" Too unspecific, "these artiodactyls" instead.
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"went extinct by the late Eocene, although why it specifically went extinct is not clear." The bolded part is unnecessary.
Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Do we have etymologies for some of the specific names?
Not that I can find no. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
When you get a restoration, remember to include what sources it was based on in the Commons description, I see it's lacking from the Anoplotherium[2], for example, but it is often asked for at FAC. Pinging Triloboii for this.
That should be it, I think this would make it rather close to FAC quality overall, though beware that they are much more critical of wording and formatting than me there. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)