Talk:Ephelcomenus

Ephelcomenus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 10, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Ephelcomenus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the artiodactyl Ephelcomenus is thought to have been capable of burrowing?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ephelcomenus.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the artiodactyl Ephelcomenus is thought to have been capable of burrowing? Source: * Johannes Hürzeler, Ephelcomenus nov. gen. ein Anoplotheriide aus dem mitleren Stampien (1938)

Jean Viret, Traitè de Palèontologie (Section: Artiodactyla) (1961)

ALT1 ... that the artiodactyl Ephelcomenus has an elongated, tusk-shaped first incisor tooth? Source: * Johannes Hürzeler, Ephelcomenus nov. gen. ein Anoplotheriide aus dem mitleren Stampien (1938)

Jean Viret, Traitè de Palèontologie (Section: Artiodactyla) (1961)

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Long gu
- Comment: Neither source appears to be available online as far as I can tell.

Created by PrimalMustelid (talk). Self-nominated at 02:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ephelcomenus; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

starting review--Kev min § 16:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: Are you still going to be reviewing this? Z1720 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation new enough and article much more than long enough. Older book sources that are off line taken as AGF. The article is neutral and the sections are well cited. The hooks are off line and taken agf. If they are deemed "boring" an alternate hook could be created from the suggested survival past the Grande Coupure extinction. Looks good to go.--Kev min § 21:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ephelcomenus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 15:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) 16:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing but free time and am feeling guilty about not joining the GAN drive, so I'll take this review too. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written:

Clueless reader What are these anoplotheriids mentioned in the lede and first section and why are they relevant? ....And then you switch to talking about anoplotheriines, also without introduction. I recommend sticking to anoplotheriid and mentioning somehow that Ephelcomenus is part of the family Anoplotheriidae.
Bold Anoplotheriidae in the phylogenetic tree and explicitly state that it is a tree showing the position of Anoplotheriidae in relation to other artiodactyls.
Gloss bunodont in Description at first mention
I suggest spelling out which teeth instead of using the abbreviation, i.e. is the prominently elongated and tusk-shaped I¹ first upper incisor.
Its phalanges may served to excavate burrows,... Are these phalanges claws? Then just call them claws.
That Choeropotamidae is possibly polyphyletic is entirely off-topic.

2. Verifiable: Earwig detects no copyvio. Close paraphrasing is highly unlikely to nigh-impossible considering the nature of the sources.

3. Broad: Yes

4. Neutral: Yes

5. Stable: Yes.

6. Illustrated: All three images are appropriate and under acceptable licensing.

Initial review done. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12 Implemented all the above suggestions. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.