# Talk:Saadanius

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saadanius/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ucucha 06:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a frontal sinus? (Lead)
Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure this is accurate; frontal sinuses are indeed air spaces, but air filtration is not a common theory. If by "filtration" you mean warming inhaled air, then maybe. The purpose of sinuses in the bones are still a mystery.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.24.58 (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 

I've removed the function from the description. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps list the associated fauna (the elephants etc.)?
Done. I hope it reads okay.  – VisionHolder « talk » 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
What is a sagittal crest?
Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The description goes into some more detail on anatomy than this article does. What is there is enough to make the article broad, as the GA criteria require, but I think there is still room for expansion.
Yes, the academic article contains a lot of specific details about cranial and dental morphology, and I was thinking about adding them.  But as people have pointed out already on this GAC, apparently the article is "too technical" as it is.  Somehow I don't see them being too excited to learn that the species had a "splanchnocranium set below the neurocranium", a "spacious, bifid incisive fossa", or a low "nasoalveolar clivus".  (I can't even tell you what half of this means.)  At this point, I don't think I'm going to take this article to FAC, mostly because I don't want to constantly maintain it as new publications emerge. Also, it is already going to take a lot of work to make this article generally understandable.  Is it broad enough for GA?  I think so.  It hits on all the major points of the article and the news articles that followed it.  However, if you still want to see a detailed description, I will need help translating it into anything meaningful.  The most I'll be able to do is copy and paste for large chunks of it.  Anyway, just let me know what you think and I'll start making fixes when I wake up tomorrow.  It's been a long day. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems there is some conflict between comprehensiveness and understandability. As I said already, I agree that more on description is probably not needed for this to pass as a GA. (And I don't know primate anatomy too well either.) Ucucha 06:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
If I do add the description details, it probably won't be until after the ITN headline retires.  At this point, the article is getting far too much attention from people who would normally never even bother to look it up or follow a link to it.  Once it goes back to obscurity, attracting mostly specialists and advanced students, a small section listing the specific details of its description might not cause much of a fuss. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha 06:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead contains some details that are not in the body, like the mention of the University of Michigan and the "careful comparison". Ucucha 08:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This should be fixed now. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
As a nonspecialist with a long-time interest in paleontology and paleoanthropology, I think it's a mistake to call this a "good article" without major revision.  I have several kinds of dissatisfaction.

The entire article is written not to a general educated audience but only to specialists.  It is full of very technical terminology, such as "catarrhine", without explanation.  Here is a sample of what is missing, taken (with tiny modifications) from the WP main page, "In the News," 2010 July 16 21:27 E.T.:  "Saadanius hijazensis is a fossillised primate closely related to the common ancestor of the Old World monkeys and apes."  This would make the basis of an opening sentence, rather like this: "Saadanius is a genus of extinct primates, closely related to the common ancestor of the Old World monkeys and apes.  One species of the genus has been found: Saadanius hijazensis, a fossillised primate which lived around 29 and 28 mya  (million years ago)." (and cite the discovery announcement).  Then some more details of an introductory nature about the fossil.
Thank you for the specific suggestion for the lead sentence.  I have made adjustments, which I hope you will find satisfactory.  As for the entire article being not being written for a general audience, the important thing is that the lead and introductory paragraphs be generally understood, per WP:NOT PAPER:
"Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text."
Please continue to offer feedback and help me ensure that the lead and initial material properly prepares the reader for the more advanced material to follow. I do value your feedback. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being so open to suggestions!  (Not only mine.)  Let me write a few sentences here.  The WP guidelines quoted seem to suggest that the whole article should be accessible to the educated lay audience.  I wouldn't be nearly that strict, but there should be an effort to do so, which may well be impossible.  I write math articles, and it is impossible.  You have the advantage that a general reader may well be interested in this topic, and the corresponding duty to try harder for accessibility, but obviously, that can only go so far.
As to specifics.  The introduction is much better.  I still would like "extinct", yes it's implicit but no, the general reader needs all the help s/he can get when in an unfamiliar context.  I especially like the last sentence, which tells us why Saadanius is important.  More of that would be a big help!
Briefly perusing the article, I noticed another place where plain English would be feasible and useful.
"Comparative anatomy and cladistic analysis indicate that Saadanius is more closely related to the last common ancestor of crown  catarrhines than any other known fossil catarrhines, placing the common ancestry of Catarrhini in Arabia and Africa. Other stem catarrhines..."
Here are some problems I have:  What is a "crown catarrhine"?  A "stem catarrhine"?  I feel sure plain language here is not hard to supply and would make it much easier for nonspecialists.
"propliopithecoids, such as Aegyptopithecus, and pliopithecoids, such as Pliopithecus."
Again, tell the layperson what this means.  It would take more sentence but it would reach 1000 times the audience, so it's worth while.  I wish I could help, but I have no idea what this extract is saying. Zaslav (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I also suggest that saying of the genus "This fossil catarrhine, known only from a single partial skull" is not the best way to put it, when it is actually the sole species that is known.  First, introduce the species, then give the discovery and characteristics of that species.
I have attempted to re-word this. Please let me know if it sounds better.  I agree that the ordering was not ideal. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It certainly is better! Zaslav (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the appropriate artice title is Saadanius hijazensis.  Nothing is known of the genus except through this one species; thus, the article is necessarily about that species and nothing else.
I disagree per my support of Ucucha's comments below. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was not informed, and now I am.  Okay!  In any case, the content is the important part. Zaslav (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I could do a little bit of the necessary editing but I don't know enough to do a good job, so I'm reluctant to start.  I hope someone will take these suggestions seriously, and thank you. Zaslav (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your input is valuable here; I am a paleontologist myself, so I don't easily see the problems you see.
I must agree emphatically.  Writing technical math articles, I just can't see it as a nonmathematician would.  The articles I've written wouldn't interest the general reader, but I understand the difficulty.  Thanks again for working so hard on improvements. Zaslav (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, however, with the points about the species, genus, etcetera: this articles is effectively about a single fossil that has been recognized as its own species, genus, and even family and superfamily. It's meaningless (except for a few technical points of nomenclature) to discuss this as different things: until more material is discovered, they're the same subject. We usually place articles about genera with one species at the genus name, because it is the simplest way and it's also what the literature mostly does. The paper describing Saadanius, for example, mostly refers to the new taxon as "Saadanius" in running text. Ucucha 06:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
To give more examples of existing Wiki articles that follow this naming convention: Darwinius, Babakotia (and a host of other subfossil lemurs), and Sahelanthropus, Kenyanthropus, Ardipithecus (among many others). – VisionHolder « talk » 14:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, see above. Zaslav (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll put this on hold until the article is off ITN and has regained the necessary stability. In the meantime, we can discuss things here. Ucucha 06:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.  In the meantime, I'll continue to work off the comments I receive, both from you and others. Thanks for taking up this review so quickly! – VisionHolder « talk » 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


### Off topic?
I would suggest that a technique that dates rocks by measuring the Earth's magnetic field recorded in the minerals or sediments should not be included in this article. It is a description of a method that has _not_ been used on specimenns of this genus. Better then to quantify how much accuracy could be gained by using the best method that is now available. --Ettrig (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; if the article says that paleomagnetism has not been used, it should also clarify what paleomagnetism is, and the fact that the deposits have not been dated paleomagnetically is certainly relevant. Ucucha 12:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree and disagree. paleomagnetism probably needs an explanation when used. Therefore it should be used only when there is a good motivation for this use. That motivation is not given in the the article. So the solution should be to not mention it at all. Currently the article states explicitly that paleomagnetism gives no information about the subject of the article. This is the same as stating explicitly that it doesn't belong to the article. There is an enormous amount of information that we can provide in Wikipedia about the world. We should not spend time and space on what information we cannot provide. Put in another way: the sentence we are discussing is a suggestion for further research. Wikipedia is limited to displaying established knowledge and should not discuss what research should be performed. maybe there is a need to specify more precisely what the accuracy of the times span given is. --Ettrig (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In this specific case, the Nature source states that "Yet [the date] "should still be treated as preliminary", says [prominent paleontologist Erik] Seiffert, until follow-up studies using palaeomagnetism can confirm the age of the rocks in which the fossil rested." The reported dates for the specimen are uncertain and need paleomagnetic confirmation; to report the dates without that caveat would be misleading. Ucucha 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, the important aspect here is to convey that we are not sure that the stated time period is the correct one. We have already agreed that paleomagnetism probably needs an explanation, so that word does not help. I would say that neither does the explanation now given. The normal reader cannot be expected to be able to deduce that paleomagnetism could provide a more accurate dating. And again, if she did, she would have been served a suggestion for further research. The reader is drowned here in technicalities (dating methods) but is not given the intended message (we are unsure of the figures we are providing). --Ettrig (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for missing out of this debate.  I will do my best to address Ettrig's concern when I handle the other GAC comments, either late tonight when I get home from work, or tomorrow morning when I wake up.  Please be patient and I'll get to it as soon as I can. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The dating issue has been addressed, and I even noted the "tentative" nature of the current date in the lead.  Let me know if there is anything else that you find. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do think this is better. Must admit I am learning as we discuss. The present version hints that the only used dating method is not among the better methods available. Can we assume that the normal reader knows about the merits and drawbacks of different dating methods? Maybe it should be made explicit that the method used is considered rather unreliable? --Ettrig (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The issue of reliability isn't as black-and-white as it sounds.  Many fossils have been dated this way, and depending on the associated species used, it can range from being fairly accurate to only giving broad ballpark estimates.  Given that the journal article gave a narrow date of 29–28 mya, I'd have to say that they feel very comfortable with the date.  To quote the source:
"Chronostratigraphy of the middle Shumaysi Formation is refined by biochronological analysis of its mammalian assemblage. The fauna includes paenungulates and anthracotheriid artiodactyls with closely related counterparts in the upper part of the Jebel Qatrani Formation sequence of Fayum, Egypt. These taxa are less advanced than comparable animals at the late Oligocene sites of Chilga in Ethiopia and Lothidok in Kenya. They are accompanied by primitive gomphotheres and mammutids reminiscent of proboscideans found at Chilga and Lothidok but never documented in the rich fauna of the Fayum. Together, the assemblage can be temporally interpolated best between the Jebel Qatrani and Chilga Formations, making it 29–28 Myr old."
Given the source, I'm not sure if we can say much else without a lengthy explanation and details about other nearby fossil sites.  If you have some suggestions, I'm open to hear them. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Saadanius is from the middle part of the Shumaysi Formation, a rock unit in western Saudi Arabia. According to Zalmout et al. (2010), radiometric dating (i.e., isotope ratios, similar to C-14 dating but with different isotopes) has established that the upper part of that formation is 26–21 Ma old. The middle part is necessarily older. They date in the basis of comparisons of the mammal fauna with other African faunas of similar ages, as detailed in Visionholder's quote above. That is biostratigraphy, which isn't always the most reliable method, especially at longer distances. (In Europe, for example, the MN zonation is used—a system that assigns fossil faunas to zones on the basis of resemblance to "reference localities", particular well-known fossil sites. However, these zones may be off for hundreds of thousands of years across different parts of Europe.) In this case, the dating is based on a very limited fauna (the Supplementary Materials list eight teeth that are apparently the "most informative" for dating purposes). The evidence that the Saadanius fauna is older than Chilga appears to rest on the size of the hyrax, embrithopod, and anthracothere teeth—not very convincing. On the other hand, the Saadanius fauna contains teeth of mammutid and gomphothere proboscideans, which are absent in Jebel Qatrani and present in younger deposits: good evidence that this fauna postdates Jebel Qatrani. (And now this is certainly getting off topic—but I hope it helps.) Ucucha 17:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
After reading these comments, I agree with Ettrig.  It seems clear to me that discussing dating methods in this article is not useful.  It's obviously not the place for technical discussions of accuracy.  Since all we have so far is an estimate, that's what should be said; it's a good idea to state the method by which the estimate was obtained but not necessary to be detailed.  Once experts have more definite things to say about the date, then it's time to say more in the article. Zaslav (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


### Back to review
Someone put in a template for the age range of this animal. Apart from producing the phrase "between 29 to 28" and linking "mya" to "year", which I can't see the use of, it links to a page that declares Saadanius lived in the Archean, which seems less than useful.
I was waiting for you to say something about this.  I noticed it was restored after you removed it the first time, and I didn't want to start an edit war over it.  I agree, it adds little or no value, so I referenced the GAC when I removed it. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd also suggest removing the link for "mya", since the article already specifies it means "million years ago", and the linked article doesn't say anything more than that. Ucucha 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The article says it was found in Al Hijaz Province of Saudi Arabia. This agrees with the source, but according to our article, Al Hijaz is a region, not a province. The site is probably in Makkah Province, but it may be better to just avoid mentioning the province.
Good catch!  Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Was Zalmout searching the area for whales in the belief that it was Cretaceous? I looked at the source, which closely supports the wording here, but I highly doubt he would be looking for Cretaceous whales.
Good question... I'll have to look into this when I get home from work. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have attempted to clarify the issue.  Let me know what you think. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Ucucha 16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the piece of context the UMich release gives—that Zalmout is a postdoc of Gingerich—is essential; the article now makes it sound like he sent the photo to a random paleontologist.
That's a good suggestion, but I'm having a hard time wording it properly.  Do you have any suggestions? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added something, but it may be too detailed now. Ucucha 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Mention that the publication was in Nature?
Done. – VisionHolder « talk »
I'm not sure what piping "stem group" to "crown group" is meant to imply; they're distinct concepts.
I'm piping it because Stem group redirects to Crown group (unfortunately). – VisionHolder « talk » 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
In that case, it's better to link to the redirect (as I've done now), so that the link still works when someone writes a separate article on stem group. Ucucha 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
"During the time it would have lived, the Red Sea had not yet formed, and new plant and animal species would have been arriving from nearby Eurasia as the landmasses came together."—this doesn't entirely make sense; you're probably referring to Afro-Arabia and Eurasia coming together.
I've attempted to fix this.  Let me know if it sounds better. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha 19:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I am now passing the article as a GA, as all my concerns have been addressed and I think it meets the GA criteria. I think other people's concerns above have also been addressed, but they can of course always provide suggestions for further improvement on the talk page. Ucucha 16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the protocol for time symbols? Shouldn't we use the more official "Ma ago"? Frankjohnson123 (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Ma ago" is a form I've never seen; it would usually just be "Ma". But I think both mya and Ma are acceptable forms; they're unambiguous and reasonably well-understood. Ucucha 06:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I hate to be a party pooper but I don't recall hearing of "Ma" in all my readings about paleontology (very little of it in technical articles.  I got used to "mya" eventually.  I'd say that if you want to reach non-specialist readers, define your terms, and don't put in variants, but avoid too many specialized terms.  Every one that isn't essential is a small but cumulative barrier to the non-experts.
Besides, the "official" scientific abbreviations, IMHO, get sillier every time they change them.  For instance, "sec" to "s".  If you want to reduce information content, eliminating too much redundancy is one way.  (Rant.) Zaslav (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


### Saadanius