# Talk:Plagiolophus (mammal)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Plagiolophus (mammal)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 01:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like I created this article, so I might as well review it. Will get to it soonish, some preliminary points below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
First off, looks like the first part of the article has a good deal of unnecessary duplinks.
Removed the duplinks. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to show this[1] old restoration in the article for this and the other taxa depicted, perhaps if we can find a higher res version.
Squeezed into first section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
I've updated it to the high res version and removed some of the first and creases of the image. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
There's a lot of other nice, high res images in that source, if any are needed:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Should Fraasiolophus also be listed as a genus synonym?
I'm not really sure if subgenera are counted as synonyms. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
"P. minor dentition, Natural History Museum, London" Upper or lower?
I would guess lower, but this image and its description don't have enough information on it. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
"recognized a third species Palaeotherium minus" needs comma before and after the name, or add "the" in front of "third species".
Added commas. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Link gypsum.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"originally found by the French naturalist Auguste Nicholas de Saint-Genis. According to Cuvier, the quarry workers previously thought the skeleton to be of a ram, and it was presented as such in public newspapers" Do we know when?
I don't think so sadly, and I doubt that I'd be able to dig through French newspapers to confirm this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"but that postcranial fossils" We know by here that they're fossils, so perhaps say "elements".
Emended. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"In 1812, Cuvier published published his drawing of a skeletal reconstruction" Double published, and do we know he drew them himself?
Fixed, and I think sources do say that Cuvier probably drew them himself. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"had stockier limb bone builds" Limbed?
Revised. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"as part of the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs sculptures of the Crystal Palace Park, 2009" instead of the year the photo was taken, I think the year the sculptures were unveiled is more relevant.
Just deleted the year. Trying to squeeze in more info into the image is disrupting the formatting of the subheader unfortunately. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
For context, add publication dates in captions of other old illustrations?
Added in dates.
You're inconsistent in whether you present the nationality/occupations of people mentioned as "the" or not.
I'm a little confused. Can you explain the issue? PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
For example you start out with "French naturalist Georges Cuvier", and later you have just "by Alexander Pytts Falconer". You should stick to one style throughout, present them or don't. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
"Later 19th century research history" I think the naming of the new genus should be worked into the section title, as that's probably the most significant event. See for example Cimolioipterus.
Added "naming" to the section title. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"The genus name derives in Ancient Greek from πλαγιοϛ ("oblique") and λοφος ("crest") meaning "oblique crest"." Do we know what this is in reference to? Could be mentioned there.
Not sure, couldn't find any reference, especially since early taxonomists did not typically explain the etymology and derivations of genus or species names. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"deciduous and permanent dental sets" link these.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"and erected the species Paloplotherium annectens" Seems a bit odd to mention the naming of the genus at the beginning of the paragraph, but the species only at the end of it. Would logically go together.
Shifted. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"παλαιός ("ancient"), ὅπλον ("arms"), and θήρ ("wild beast") meaning "ancient armed beast"." What does this refer to?
Again, I wish I knew about the explanations behind the genus names, but no source explains them. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"Horses and other equids are commonly defined as the closest relatives of palaeotheres and are typically grouped within the superfamily Equoidea" Wouldn't it make sense to show a wild form instead of a domesticated one whose morphology has been altered by humans?
I don't think it matters since an equid is an equid regardless of breeding. It's not like it changed the genus, and even the species case for domesticated animals is considered a subjective matter in taxonomy. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"Fraas had studied fossils of palaeotheres from Frohnstetten" You only link palaeotheres as a group all the way down here, should be much earlier.
Changed links. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Link synonym.
Linked at first mention. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"stating that its size based on fossil material would have" based on fossil material goes without saying?
Removed the obvious part. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"Estimated Plagiolophus species size comparisons based on known fossil specimens" I'd either give all the names and their respective colour in the caption or enlarge the thumb so it can be read.
Increased the image size a bit to make it more readable. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"and restorations of Montmartre fossil mammals" Link life restoration.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"Restoration of Lophiodon, which coexisted with Plagiolophus in the middle to late Eocene" Eocene is linked already in the caption of an image right above.
Removed link. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"Restoration of Ronzotherium, a rhinocerotid genus that arrived in western Europe by the Grande Coupure" Link Grande Coupure.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I see there are still a good deal of unused available images on Commons, and personally I'd try to work them into the huge empty stretches under classification/List of lineages and palaeobiology, perhaps you disagree. But I think it makes it more interesting to read than just a big wall of text.
Great, I'll get to this within a few days once I finish writing a quick article for a monotypic genus. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Added a limb bone image of paleobiology if it helps. I don't think there's enough space in classification for additional images. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I mean the for example the huge stretch of white space next to the cladogram. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
"The year after in 1902" You don't need both "year after" and "1902".
Removed "the year after." PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Link monograph.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
"with official fossil descriptions to replace the previous species name" I'm not sure what this means. Official as opposed to what? And how could it just replace previous ones, unless they were invalidly published (in that case that needs to be specified)?
Rewrote the sentence to make it clearer. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"In 1917, Depéret]]" Looks like a half removed link.
Removed the brackets. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"annectens mut. Oweni" You need to explain what mut. means.
I'm not too sure how to define it honestly, it's a relic in taxonomy that I assume means mutation, but I need a better understanding to define it somehow. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
It's crucial to explain any such uncommon terms. Will ask at Discord. FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
"(also recognizing it by the name" You never add the closing part of the parenthesis.
Closed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"of the United Kingdom" I think you can abbreviate to UK throughout.
Abbreviated in most instances. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Link subgenus.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"until more complete material assigned to the species was found." Assignable. Not assigned already when it's found, someone would have to do it.
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
How do we know the features listed as male or female really reflect dimorphism? It's just stated as fact here with no explanation.
Specified that it's based on modern analogues if that helps. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Could we get some specifics on this under description? What features? FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
"which was assigned a left maxilla with partial dentition from Robiac for a holotype specimen" That's a pretty convoluted statement, could be "based on a left maxilla" etc. or similar.
Simplified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"(doubtful taxon names)." elaborate what this means, that they have no distinguishing features.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"as defined subgenera" what is meant by "defined"?
Removed defined since it can be implied to be formally so anyways. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"a third subgenus Fraasiolophus" Comma before the name.
Added. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"more closely related to other perissodactyl groups" Link you haven't mentioned the group before this point, could also give their common name for context.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Link endemic and radiation.
Linked both. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Link Palaeogene at first mention.
Linked also. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"List of lineages" kind of ambiguous title, I wouldn't know what it meant just by reading it. Something more specific like "Plagiolophus taxa" or similar.
Changed to "inner systematics" like the Palaeotherium article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the list of taxa would make more sense before the classification section, as it basically summarises the preceding text there.
I think it's fine where it is, a table as the last subsection looks more appealing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
The Classification section seems to be as much about evolution, could perhaps be reflected in the title. Also, it seems to almost go more into other genera than the subject of the article, perhaps too far off topic.
Changed to "classification and evolution." I think coverage of the evolution of palaeotheres as a whole is necessary, as audiences need to understand the background contexts behind them, and I cannot assume that they have any idea of the temporal ranges of palaeothere clades. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"(including three outgroups)" Most readers probably won't know what that means.
Defined. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Paraphyletic also needs link and explanation.
Also defined. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Derived needs link and explanation.
That too. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
There seems to be an unusually large number of subtaxa, are they all recognised today?
The subgenera aren't too often used, but they are recognized yes. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
The Palaeotheriidae is diagnosed", "Plagiolophus is diagnosed" easier for the reader if you just say "is distinguished by".
Done both. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"in the middle of the skull or in a slight frontal area of it." less wordy if you just say "slightly in front of it".
Emended. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"Plagiolophus is diagnosed in part as having skull lengths that vary by species", that sounds like an extremely vague diagnosis, how can a genus be diagnosed just by its species having different skull lengths? What does the source say?
Changed the sentencing. I was phrasing this based on the diagnosis given for the overall genus. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"The maxilla, at the area with the canine" area of the canine.
Fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"the muzzle in comparison is thin" narrow? What does the source say?
"Le museau est plutôt étroit" - "The snout is rather narrow." Either a previous translation or I switched words for synonyms, but I'll change to "narrow" for you. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"and has its lower edges formed from those of the premaxilla and maxilla." formed by? Not sure what "those of" refers to.
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"The mandibular symphysis, the middle of the mandible" rather where each half of the mandible join.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"ranges from P1 to M1" needs to explain what these abbreviations mean at first mention, few readers would know. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Elaborated. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"The skull of Plagiolophus appears slightly triangular in shape" From what view?
Dorsoventral, added. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"has a maximum width either above or in front of where the mandible articulates with other skull bones" either depending on what? Species? Individual variation?
Not sure, the author didn't specify. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"The skull length of Plagiolophus generally increases over time as part of an evolutionary trend of species" kind of odd to have this in present tense.
Changed to past tense. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"P. annectens skull remains, held at the fossil collections of the Natural History Museum, London" State which elements are shown.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"Plagiolophus sp. limb, State Museum of Natural History, Stuttgart" seems to be specifically the lower limb, and from the front or hind legs?
Looks like the back limb given what looks to be a talus, so I'll label it as that. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
There are a lot of technical terms under description that need in-text explanations and links, would benefit the article to carefully read through it and add accordingly.
Added more descriptions and links where possible. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Likewise, there are a lot of cranial anatomy terms that could benefit from explaining where on the skull they are.
See above. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"The body of the premaxilla is elongated but low height" low in height?
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"and hosts all the incisors." is there anything unusual in this?
No, it isn't. I'll just remove it since it's routine information. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"from other foramen" foramens or foramina.
Chose the latter. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"the latter displaying stronger sexual dimorphism in males" this implies this is within males, should say something like that feature is sexually dimorphic and is stronger in males, or similar.
Changed to make sentence clearer. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"The optic foramen, located in the sphenoid bone" On?
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"but varies in such based on factors pertaining to species morphology and sexual dimorphism" very convoluted wording. Could just be "these features vary according to species and sex".
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"The mandibular symphysis, the middle of the mandible, is elongated and contains projecting incisors. The horizontal ramus (or body) of the mandible is wide from front to back and has a prominent coronoid process." why is this at the beginning of the skull section when you seem to place all the other mandible text at the end of it?
Swapped. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Is there a way to display subgenera in the taxobox? If so, we probably should.
Not that I'm aware of; I haven't seen that on Wikipedia before. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"are generally diagnosed as having selenolophodont upper molars and selenodont lower molars that are mesodont" all these terms need explanation, and, if possible, links.
Explained both. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Explain diastema (gap).
Explained. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"brachyodont" explain.
Ditto. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"It differs from Leptolophus is appearing less lophodont and lesser degree of heterodonty in its cheek teeth." More technical terms that need explanation. I'll return when all these are done (also in the rest of the article) so as not to repeat myself.
Explained. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"It differs from Leptolophus is appearing" in appearing?
Fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"well-documented deciduous" Link and explain.
I already linked "deciduous" in an earlier section, but explained there. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"totaling at four in each of each first permanent molar" wording seems unclear. In?
Mistype, meant "four in front of..." PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"argued that the demonstrated evidence did not prove Remy's hypothesis, meaning that it requires further research for proof." Very long-winded for no reason, just say they stated it requires further research.
Simplified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"whereas later species have evolutionarily lost" Have is unnecessary and confusing tense.
Removed "have". PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"P. minor is known by a few incomplete skeletons, the first of which was studied originally by Georges Cuvier in 1804. According to Remy, the gypsum skeleton has been lost; he stated that the individual was a pregnant female. It was figured by Cuvier and later Blainville in 1839–1864, and the latter naturalist also figured skeletal elements from the French commune of Monthyon surrounding the skeleton whose whereabouts are also unclear.[31] P. minor is also known from another assembled skeleton that was originally documented by Fraas in the later 19th century,[12] although Stehlin referenced that Fraas paid little attention to studying the limb bones.[44]" most of detail doesn't reallt velong under desacription, which is about morphology. All that section needs to say that the skeleton is incompleyely known, and the specifics should be moved to research history.
Shifted and simplified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"Remy in 2004 noted that the postcranial bones of palaeotheriids are not as well-studied, meaning that future studies would require studying traits of postcranial fossils of palaeotheres at the genus level" shouldn't this just say "The postcranial anatomy of palaeotheriids is not well-studied and require further study" or such? Very wordy and repetitive now.
Revised sentence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"It tail, composed of caudal vertebrae" that's like saying the tail is composed of tail vertebrae. You could maybe say "the caudal vertebrae of the tail".
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"distinguished from those Palaeotherium"
Added "of". PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"suggesting that the digits are not well-supported anatomically." Don't know what this means.
Reworded a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"was better-adapted to cursoriality" link and explain cursorial at first mention in intro and article body.
Linked and explained in both cases. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"adaptation in multiple Plagiolophus spp." just say species, few readers would know what spp. means.
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"P. ministri has similarly tall and narrow astragali" explain astragalus.
Explained. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"and may originated from" originate.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"which the sole species name Plagiolophustipus montfalcoensis derives from" - which the sole species Plagiolophustipus montfalcoensis derives its name from.
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"By extent, the ichnogenus Palaeotheriipus" don't know what is meant by "by extent".
Removed since it's not necessary. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd say the footprint section should come last under description, size should definitely come first either way. Footprint attribution can also only be tentative, so it certainly holds less weight.
Shifted the subsection. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"Plagiolophus is characterized by the inclusion of small to medium-sized species" how can difference in size characterize a genus? What does the source say?
It can, and that's what the source says in the diagnosis for the Plagiolophus genus. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
How is it worded in the source? FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
"Despite being a high, wide, and robust skull, P. minor is the smallest species*" despite having. Now the subject is both skull and P. minor.
Fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"is known only from a male juvenile mandible" again, how is sex determined?
Don't know, I'm just stating what Remy said. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"With a potential adult skull length of about 400 mm (16 in), P. javali is the largest species of Plagiolophus.[31]" since this seems speculative, could say "P. javali is probably the largest species".
Sure. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"weight estimates of different populations of Plagiolophus" this seems to be about different species, so population is confusion, as this could include differences between populations of the same species.
Emended. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"et al. estimated that P. mazateronensis has a weight estimate range of*" they estimated it had a weight estimate? Very repetitive sentence.
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"Restorations of P. annectens" specify life restorations and link the term.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"Reconstruction of Diplobune" why reconstruction all of a sudden when you say restoration everywhere else?
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"Restoration of Ronzotherium, a rhinocerotid genus" link rhinocerotid.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"in P. minor based on skull evidence" but what other evidence could it be based in? Seems redundant.
Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"are also observed in a contemporary palaeothere Palaeotherium" the contemporary? Reads odd now.
Would "contemporaneous" fit better? Replaced if so. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The weird part is the "a" instead of "the". Doesn't really make a difference if it's contemporary or contemporaneous. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Replaced. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Link and explain gregarious.
Done both. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"Both Palaeotherium and Plagiolophus have dentitions that are both capable of" last both is unnecessary.
Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"folivorous (leaf-eating) and did not have especially frugivorous (fruit-eating)" link these terms.
Linked both. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"tooth wear of either of the genera" of either genus, less wordy.
Reworded. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"and Palaeotherium having a high rate of efficiency in" being efficient at? Less wordy.
Reworded. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"that the Plagiolophus species that they studied" the studied Plagiolophus species.
Reworded. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"The hypsodonty trend in Plagiolophus was previously documented by Remy in 2004" Why are you presenting the information out of chronological order? It would make more sense to present this study first.
Shifted and reworded. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"The change in dieting in P. minor" diet, dieting is something else.
Replaced. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"to the extent that fruit is nearly absent from its diet." Was.
Replaced. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"could have been due to seasonal climates as well, in which the availability of certain plants by season varied." Overly long. Could just say "seasonal availability of certain plants" and mean the same.
Ditto. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The see also section seems pointless when Palaeotherium is already linked and covered extensively in the article.
Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"(or the suborder Euprimates)" why is that necessary here?
Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"along with the archaic "condylarths"." many readers will have no idea this refers to a group of mammals and not, say, plants.
Explained in parentheses. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
You seem to use UK English, yet you use "paleo" instead of "palaeo" some places.
I saw two instances of such which I corrected. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Likewise you say both "behaviour" but then "favor".
Corrected. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
" (Choeropotamidae (possibly polyphyletic, however)" double parenthesis is more confusing than helpful, and I'm not sure we need this level of detail anyway.
Removed the inner detail. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Link stratigraphically.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"the Geiseltal uMK" why abbreviated?
I looked more deeply, and it might be an abbreviation of "Unteren Mittelkohle". PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"The Geiseltal Obere Mittelkhole locality" I assume this is the above? Should be spelled out at first mention.
I think it's a different locality. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"exclusive to the faunal unit" clearer if you say "this faunal unit". Replace a couple of places.
Replaced. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Explain  sp.
Explained. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Link Diplocynodon.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"as a result at 33.9 Ma, although some estimate that the event began 33.6-33.4 Ma." Unnecessarily wordy, just say estimated at 33.9-33.4 Ma.
I think the context helps here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"The massive drop in temperatures stems from" why present tense?
Changed to past tense. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"to strong extents" by instead of to?
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Link glaciation.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"Alexis Licht et al. suggested" When?
Listed year. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Instead of just illustrating similar herbivorous mammals under Palaeoecology, why not present different ecological niches, like predators etc.?
There aren't really large sources for explaining ecological niches of such, and comparing faunas of different stratigraphies is more useful. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"In the early Oligocene after MP21, Plagiolophus was the sole remaining palaeothere genus present in Europe." so why do we think this genus went extinct too?
Several clades lasted until MP25, but no source really states that the Palaeotheriidae went extinct as a result of said high aridity, which currently would cross WP:OR territory. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not asking abotu aridity specifically, but about whether any sources give any hints as to whatever they could have become extinct from? FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Not that I know of, no. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Link Oligocene in intro.
Linked Eocene and Oligocene. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"The type species P. minor was initially described" what does "initially" add?
Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Now the sentence seems to be malformed "was described and originally into Palaeotherium". Missing "placed"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
"The type species P. minor was initially described by the French naturalist Georges Cuvier in 1804 based on postcranial material including a now-lost skeleton originally from the Paris Basin. It was classified to Palaeotherium the same year" This is misleadingly worded, as the original description classified it as Palaeotherium. So you should specify from the get go: The type species was originally placed in the genus Palaeotherium as P. minor" or such.
Reworded. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"but was reclassified to the subgenus Plagiolophus, named by Auguste Pomel in 1847." Odd wording, just say "but was assigned to the new subgenus Plagiolophus Auguste Pomel in 1847" or such.
Ditto. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"it is defined by three subgenera" it contains. Not sure what definition has to do with anything.
Replaced with "contains." PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"derived (or with traits evolved from ancestral forms)" that's a very vague definition, rather it would be traits that differ from the ancestral form or some such. Everything is evolved from an ancestral form.
Reworded. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"Plagiolophus, as a species-rich genus, has a wide body mass range extending from less than 10 kg (22 lb) in the smallest species P. minor to over 150 kg (330 lb) in the largest species P. javali." Why present tense?
Replaced with "had." PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"The postcranial builds of several species suggest that some had stockier body builds" No need to repeat "build", just say "some were stockier".
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"likely descended from the earlier subfamily Pachynolophinae in the middle Eocene" I'm not seeing this stated outright in the article body, and if it is, it is unclearly stated.
Well this is basically implied with the explanations for the paraphyly of the Pachynolophinae and Plagiolophus being an early-appearing palaeotheriine. Added a bit more to the end of the classification for specification. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"likely because some of its species were well-adapted towards major environmental trends as a result of their dietary changes and cursorial nature" Likewise, it might be stated in an implied way over vast paragraphs, but would help the reader to state it this explicitly in the article body as well.
I think it's already clear enough with the 4th paragraph of the "Grande Coupure" subsection. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"where Plagiolophus was largely present" what does this mean? Mainly distributed?
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk)
"would have allow it to niche partition" allowed.
Corrected tense. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"with various other faunas" a fauna is a collective term for the assemblage of animals that live in a place, so I'm not sure "faunas" plural makes sense here.
Changed to singular tense. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
"1804 sketch of a skeleton of Plagiolophus minor from the commune of Pantin" if this is the lost specimen, it's important enough to state in the caption.
Specified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
As stated earlier, it is important to state already in the history section if the type specimen is lost, not all the way down in description, as it has huge taxonomic importance.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Since source spot checks have recently become required for GA reviews, I'll return soon to do that, as I'm not very familiar with that procedure.
A good deal of the citations lack page ranges for the cited parts, which makes them very hard to verify. You'll have to fix this for them all before I can spot-check and finish the review.
Added page numbers to Remy 2004 citations. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Added some replies above, will attempt source review next. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Done both. If possible, do you think we can get this review done by the month’s end? PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the source now, so shouldn't take much more. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Citation 9 supports the etymology, "derives in Ancient Greek" should be "derives from", though.
Changed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Looking at Remy for citation 3 156–159, There appear to be more sexually dimorphic characters than the sagittal crest and canines, which should be mentioned here too.
Already referenced for the sagittal crest, elaborated for the snout. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Citation 49 supports the attribution of tracks, but it says "and Plagiolophustipus by Plagiolophus (Ellenberger, 1980; Santamaría et al., 1990)." Since the citation itself is not about Plagiolophus, why don't you use the sources it cites directly, instead of this indirect citation that isn't really about the subject of thje article?
Added the Santamaria et al. citation. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Citation 55 appears to support the mode of feeding.
It is difficult to search source 3 without knowing French, but I would like to check the text about the lost, pregnant specimen, if it can be provided.
Sure. The translated text says, "Cuvier includes on plate 115 of "fossil bones" (1836), under the name Palaeotherium minus, a nearly complete skeleton in anatomical connection which is unfortunately untraceable today. It appears to have been the skeleton of a gravid female, notably lacking the head (only the vertical branch of the mandible remained) and the autopods." (Note that "gravid" means "pregnant.") PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Yep, "gravid" is actually the Danish (my native language) word for pregnant as well, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@FunkMonk That should be everything after a long while. Thanks, and good day. 02:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Same to you, looks fine to me now, so will promote. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

... that the seventeen species of the prehistoric distant horse relative Plagiolophus ranged in weight from 10 kg (22 lb) to over 150 kg (330 lb) (size chart pictured)?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dukiełka

PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC).

 Article looks good, no evidence of copyvio. Eligible from the GA promotion recently. QPQ checks out. The hook is interesting (great picture!) and checks out with the source. Everything here seems good to go; great job. Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   04:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)