Talk:Glyptotherium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article over the next week or so. While reviewing, I'll add comments and thoughts to this page. You can track overall progress using the above template. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Etymology in the first sentence is a bit much. You already go into detail in the article itself. What about "Glyptotherium (from Greek for "grooved or carved beast": γλυπτός "sculptured" and θηρίον "beast") is a..."
The sentence "The holotype (the specimen Osborn studied) included a nearly complete carapace, tail, or caudal, armor, and several additional postcranial elements that had been found in the Pliocene Blancan Beds in Llano Estacado, Texas, USA." needs a rewrite.
"Graviportal"? Can you use simpler terms in the lead section? Remember that non-biologists and people without technical backgrounds will read this article. Same with "osteoderms", although that one is more likely to be understood, and "hypsodont".
In general, the lead section needs to be a little bit simpler and easier to understand. Remember that you can go into all the nitty-gritty details in the body.

Prose

Sources

The sources are all to reputable journals—good work here! Y
There is one major issue with the sources: The page ranges cited are too massive for verifiability. You can try utilizing a references list and then using {{sfn}}, {{harvnb}}, or similar for short citations indicating the pages for the individual claims.

Images

File:Glyptotheriumm.jpg is just someone's DeviantArt artistic recreation of a Glyptotherium. What qualifications does this person have to be making this image?
File:Osteoderms of different cingulates - Lima et al 2018.tif comes from this journal. I don't see the copyright listed as CC-by-SA 4.0 on this page. Can you verify that this is not copyright infringement?
File:Glyptotherium texanum osteoderms.png is a scaled-down version of this image on the Smithsonian's site. I cannot find evidence of this being CC0 licensed, and Smithsonian states that all CC0 content is flagged as such. Can you verify that this is not copyright infringement?
Image captions don't need to end in full stops (periods) especially when they are not full sentences.
Images are missing alt text.

Other

Copyright spot checks revealed no close paraphrasing or plagiarism. Y
Original research spot checks revealed only one very minor concern: The text "Another important find came in 1910..." claims that the find is "important", and, while I don't doubt that it is, the source does not back up this claim. It backs up everything else in the sentence. However, my inability to find the source for the importance part might simply be due to the missing individual page numbers as described above in the "Sources" section.

Will do prose review once these other issues are resolved. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Augustios Paleo, are you still interested in this article? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Augustios Paleo, please let me know by December 1st when you will get to this. Otherwise, I will have to fail this due to a lack of response. Sorry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has stated elsewhere that they're on an indefinite Wikibreak. Perhaps someone else wants to take over. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

You could stand to explain in-text (like in parentheses) a lot of the anatomical words, like zygoma (cheekbones), trilobation (three-lobed), or caudal (tailward), just to name only a few. Otherwise, large swathes of the article or largely inaccessible to the general population Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, refrain from using ampersands & Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I repaired the ampersands/what remained of them. SmolBrane (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Failed due to lack of response after being open for more than 3 months. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]