# Talk:Temnospondyli

This review is transcluded from Talk:Temnospondyli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yankeesrule3 (talk • contribs • count) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This is my first Good Article review, so please offer me advice. I will do one level 2 section per day. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Only needs some minor fixes in tense, not enough by itself to fail article.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Lead
Seems to be a good summary of the article.


### Description
Needs to stay consistently in the same tense, but other than that it is good.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesrule3 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC) 

Thanks for taking the review. The lead describes what is currently known about temnospondyls in the present tense, what they were like when alive in the past tense, and how they have been viewed historically in the past tense. I don't see how I could keep the same tense when different times are being discussed. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I thought you were talking about the lead! Fixed the tenses. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


### History of Study
Seems good, no obvious problems.


### Evolutionary History
Again, seems good, no obvious problems.


### Classification
Could use some cleanup, but not appalling by any means.


### Paleobiology
Seems good. No problems, except for some minor tense errors, although not bad like the description section was.
I will take a day or two to finish, but I think that this will pass, unless I find something very appalling. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Both types are mentioned, but only rhachitomous vertebrae get a defining description. The corresponding description for stereospondylous vertebrae has been inadvertently omitted.--Wetman (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

They are described in the sentence, "In stereospondylous vertebrae the pleurocentra have been lost entirely, with the intercentra enlarged as the main body of the vertebrae." If you want, I can add more information. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the taxobox image wrong in that it shows Eryops with five instead of four fingers? FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh, you're right, I never noticed that. Is that skeleton a cast? The hands must have been reconstructed, since I don't think any Eryops specimens preserve them completely. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's just a cast, I saw it in Paris once. We have more pictures of it on Commons, and other casts have the same problem.[1] So they should perhaps not be used? FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The only good skeleton that seems to show four fingers is this one, which I put in the taxobox. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I put that in the Eryops article some time back as well. Includes the tadpole, which is kind of neat, heh... FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Temnospondyli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324051815/http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2034/Pages%20561-573.pdf to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2034/Pages%20561-573.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719145945/http://www.envs.emory.edu/faculty/MARTIN/ResearchDocs/Dinosaur_burrows_2009.pdf to http://www.envs.emory.edu/faculty/MARTIN/ResearchDocs/Dinosaur_burrows_2009.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716055808/http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2023/Pages%20125-141.pdf to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2023/Pages%20125-141.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.burkemuseum.org/pub/Sidor_et_al_2005.pdfPermian
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726155140/http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/988.pdf to http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/988.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726153331/http://www.hmnh.org/archives/2008/12/28/the-flip-up-skull-of-gerrothorax/ to http://www.hmnh.org/archives/2008/12/28/the-flip-up-skull-of-gerrothorax/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The article as it stands now reads "Using fossil evidence, there are three main theories for the origin of modern amphibians."
I wonder if the right word would be "hypothesis", not "theory". my understanding is that theories are broader and more thoroughly evidenced than hypotheses, the latter often described as tentative. The simple fact that there are currently three "theories" about the origin of amphibians implies that the subject has not yet been studied to the point that we have a single, widely accepteed explanation.

However, I'm unwilling to change the article on Wikipedia just on the basis of a few web pages and my own understanding.
Floozybackloves (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


### Temnospondyli
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the majority of researchers working on the subject accept the 'Lissamphibia from Temnospondyli'-hypothesis in 2025?
And if so, why isn't wikipedia reflecting that (for example, in the 'Temnospondyli' article infobox the duration of the clade over time up to today is only depicted in gray to reflect the supposed uncertainty as to whether Lissamphibia are Temnospondyli or not)? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)