# Talk:Trapalcotherium

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trapalcotherium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get stuck into this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But don't get stuck in gondwanathere teeth; they could probably handle pretty abrasive food. Ucucha 11:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Right, where was I?
okay, I think "of the family Ferugliotheriidae" is probably a little better than "Ferugliotheriid" in the first line. To me the latter wording implies a familiarity with the term (which I suspect 99% of readers won't have). Also, the family redirects to the genus Ferugliotherium currently which says it is the only genus in the family (???)
Reworded. Yes, I hadn't touched that article yet (I intend to make a featured topic on gondwanatheres); I've made a quick stub on the family now.
The tooth is from the probably Maastrichtian Allen Formation (??) --> " The tooth is probably from the Maastrichtian Allen Formation" - actually I would try and append this sentence onto the one before it. There a quite alot of teeth in the introduction it would be good to reduce. (PS: I can do this if you want)
Actually, it's certainly from the Allen F., but it's not quite certain that it is Maastrichtian. Clarified now. I think the sentence would get a little unwieldy merged, but I swapped out "The tooth".
As a one line at the end of the introduction, I think it is worth noting the family's relations are unclear or t has no close relations with any living species (??)
Done.
..a group of primitive mammals.... - I think if you add the one adjective "enigmatic" here, it says in one word that we know little about the group. I immediately clicked on the bluelink thinking "what the hell are they?" only to find another enigmatic group only known by teeth. "little-known" would be just as good.
I don't think "enigmatic" is a fit description for the dryolestoids, unless you consider any group of Mesozoic mammals "enigmatic". It is slightly weird that they first appeared in the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous of Laurasia, then disappear for a while only to reappear to dominate Late Cretaceous mammal faunas in Argentina, but such things happen.
would be great to get some sort of illustration for the Description section (sigh)
It's a pretty boring tooth, but it's worth a try to get an image released. Ucucha 21:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise looking good Good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just 1 source, 4 meager refs and this length as a "good article"? Then hundreds of "good articles" are now just Starts or C's. This is not enough, there needs to be more weight to an article to become a good article, other sources needed. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa: They are not GA requirements. You could argue broadness, but will have to demonstrate what is missing. AIRcorn (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed the maintenance tags, since they are not actionable. As with many animal species, this animal is only known from very limited material and discussed by very few sources—on a quick check, I could not find any post-2009 sources that do more than list the name.
I don't particularly care about whether this article remains listed as a good article, but I'd rather nobody add maintenance tags without an actionable explanation of how to fix the issues identified. Ucucha (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I agree with your actions. AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)