Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glyptotherium/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 April 2025 [1].

Glyptotherium

Nominator(s): AFH (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the extinct armadillo Glyptotherium. AFH (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

Hi, it seems the article has been in limbo, can you confirm that you have access to all the sources? Here's a few preliminary comments on the prose:

  • "The first Glyptotherium fossils to be described from the United States were described in 1888 by paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope." There is described...described
  • Explain "synonymized", as the term is used throughout the article.
  • What is "a great reassessment"?

More later. Graham Beards (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to all of the sources, I wrote pretty much the entirety of the article. AFH (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And my other points? Graham Beards (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed AFH (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Glyptodon_and_Glyptotherium_Distribution_Map2.jpg: what's the source for the data presented in this map?
    • added source data on wikimedia
  • File:Compte-rendu_des_séances_du_sixième_Congrès_international_de_zoologie,_tenu_à_Berne_du_14_au_19_août_1904_(1905)_(20485352308).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
  • File:Pink_Fairy_Armadillo_(Chlamyphorus_truncatus)_(cropped).jpg is quite blurry
    • Removed
  • File:Jackson_Zoo_Pygmy_Hippopotamus.jpg: the statement in the summary on the image description page doesn't align with the tagging
  • File:Peltephilus_ferox.JPG: has this image been assessed for accuracy? Ditto File:Pampatherium-bpk.jpg.
    • These images aren't on the page?

Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IntetnionallyDense

  • Countries should not be wikilinked
  • Per WP:MTAU when using simplified terms for a word (such as quadrupedal (four-legged) the technical term should go in brackets and the simplified term should go first.
  • Other pieces of armor covered the tail and cranium roof, the skull being tall with hypsodont (high-crowned) teeth. As for the postcranial anatomy, pelves fused to the carapace, an amalgamate vertebral column, short limbs, and small digits are characteristic of Glyptotherium and its relatives. feels too technical for the lead. I would either simplify for the lead or omit
  • Put the AMNH abbreviation beside the full name the first time it's used
  • Per MOS:LAYOUT single sentence paragraphs should be merged (Research into North American glyptodonts diminished after the research of Gidley, Hay, Simpson, and others, but some paleontologists still incorrectly referred fossils from the continent to Glyptodon.)
  • Wikilink gigantism
  • 350-380 kilograms, compared to 457 kg seeing as you have pounds for the other units, I think it would make sense consistency wise to add them here as well. Same with the cm later in this paragraph.
  • ramus is approximately 60 in Glyptotherium add degree sign
  • terminal tube is composed of 2–3 Numbers under 9 should be spelt out (like nine)
  • Wikilink femur
  • Also, much of their diet consists of remove "also"
  • 3 different types of arthritis spell out three
  • Wikilink bone erosion
  • Make sure you're spelling out numbers smaller than 9
  • You use US, U.S, USA and United States interchangeably. I would stick to one or the other.
  • CT evidence spell out in full and wikilink
  • Spell out approx in full
  • 23,230 ± 490 BP unless spealt out earlier, spell out BP in full since it's not clear what abbreviation it is.
  • I think the lead could be further simplified. I'm not educated enough to say wether or not the rest of the article is appropriately technical, but ideally the lead should be as accessible as possible.

That's all I have for now. Ping me when you can get back to me or if you have any questions. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented these suggestions, thank you! AFH (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to avoid doing another round of feedback here due to WP:FIXLOOP. Specifically, there are just some inconsistencies, mostly around technical language that lead me to believe that this article is not quite at a FA level. The prose could use some work as well. While I understand that articles like this are extremely hard to simplify, I just think more could be done in this regard. This is definitely something that I would be willing to reconsider if someone more familiar with this area could argue against. Oppose to this nomination, best of luck moving forward. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aurel

Here are some inital prose suggestions:

Lead:

  • Should link Late Pleistocene
  • It had a wide distribution – "It was widely distributed" sounds more natural to me
  • Llano Estacado, Texas, USA – Per WP:USPLACE, I think "USA" should be removed here
    Fossils that had been found in the Pliocene Blancan Beds in Llano Estacado, Texas were named Glyptotherium texanum – Comma after "Texas". ‐ Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genus was first described in 1903 by American paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn and the type species is G. texanum, based on fossils that had been found in the Pliocene Blancan Beds in Llano Estacado, Texas, USA. – Hmm, are the two parts of this sentence connected? They feel as though they are separate pieces of information.
  • Glyptotherium was a large, quadrupedal (four-legged), herbivorous armadillo – I'm generally all in favour of explaining potentially unfamiliar terms, but I think "quadrupedal" is a common enough word to omit the brackets.
  • was made of hundreds of interconnected osteoderms (structures in dermis composed of bone). – Could link dermis
  • Glyptotherium reached up to 2 meters (6.56 feet) long and 400 kilograms (880 pounds) in weight – I'm not sure "reached" aligns very well with "in weight"; I think "grew up to" would be more natural. I also think "in length" might be better.
    Why did you remove "in weight"? – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • making it one of the largest glyptodonts but not as large as its close relative Glyptodon or Doedicurus – Suggest placing a comma after "glyptodonts", and rephrasing such that "large"/"largest" doesn't appear thrice in the sentence.
  • Glyptotherium is morphologically and phylogenetically most similar to Glyptodon, however they differ in several ways. – Suggest changing "however" to "though", and connecting the two sentences with a colon
    Glyptotherium is morphologically most similar to Glyptodon: though they differ in several ways. Glyptotherium is smaller on average, with a shorter carapace, a longer tail, and had a different distribution. – A colon between "Glyptodon" and "though" doesn't work here. I was suggesting putting the colon between "ways" and "Glyptotherium". – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glyptotherium is smaller on average, with a shorter carapace, a relatively longer tail, and a slender zygoma, or cheek bone. – Not sure "relatively" adds anything here
    Glyptotherium is smaller on average, with a shorter carapace, a longer tail, and had a different distribution. – You added "different distribution" here, which doesn't sound as though it's related to Glyptotherium being "smaller on average". – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glyptodonts evolved first during the Eocene – Not sure "first" adds anything here
  • Glyptodonts evolved first during the Eocene, but greatly diversified in the Miocene and Pliocene, largely in the Santacrucian sites of Argentina. – By "diversified", do we mean geographically, or in an evolutionary sense? My assumption was the latter, but the reference to "sites of Argentina" would point towards the former.
  • Glyptotherium is considered an example of North American megafauna, of which most have become extinct, – The phrasing can be improved here; I'd suggest "most of which are now extinct".
  • Glyptotherium was primarily a grazer, but also had a mixed diet of fruits and other plants, that lived on open grasslands. – There's an issue here: "... that lived" doesn't follow on from "grazer ...". This reads as though either the diet (or the "other plants") lived on open grasslands.
  • One added point: Which source are the quotations "saber-tooth cat", "bone-crushing dog", and "short-faced bears" coming from? It should be cited, per MOS:LEADCITE. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another added point: Presumably "or" is not part of the translation of the ancient Greek word? – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History and phylogeny: (first two paragraphs)

  • J. N. Cuatáparo and Santiago Ramírez – Is the former's first name Juan? I'd suggest including that.
  • The first sentence in the "History and phylogeny" feels much longer than the one which follows it (and the other sentences in the paragraph).
    In the 1870s, fossils attributable to Glyptotherium were found by civil engineers Juan N. Cuatáparo and Santiago Ramírez collected a glyptodont specimen from a drainage canal near Tequixquiac, Mexico. – Is "found" or "collected" the verb here? The sentence doesn't work grammatically. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another species of Glyptodon from Mexico was described in 1889, G. nathoristi, – This makes it sound as though 1889 is also known as G. nathoristi.
    This suggestion hasn't been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these species have since been synonymized with G. cylindricum. – This species hasn't been introduced yet in the body; I'd suggest giving a brief explanation here.
    This suggestion hasn't been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1888, Glyptotherium fossils from the United States were described by paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope – Did Cope discover them? If so, is there a reason to use the word "described"? (The same comment applies in a few other places.)
    This suggestion hasn't been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1888, Glyptotherium fossils from the United States were described by paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope and consisted only of a single carapace osteoderm – The phrasing here feels awkward; I'd suggest switching to the active voice in the first part of the sentence, and rephrasing the rest accordingly.
  • and consisted only of a single carapace osteoderm that had been collected from the Lower Pleistocene "Equus Beds" of Nueces County, Texas. – Suggest linking osteoderm
    This suggestion hasn't been addressed. I notice you link it below, but not here; it should be linked on first mention. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cope named his osteoderm Glyptodon peltaliferus, but Cope did not give the species a proper description that followed ICZN rules, – Repetition of "Cope" isn't needed here
  • making it a nomen nudum and it has since been synonymized with G. cylindricum. – The second "it" here feels awkward; try rephrasing or using a semicolon there.
  • The next year, Joseph Leidy named Glyptodon floridanus based on isolated carapace osteoderms and pieces of caudal armor, – Suggest linking Caudal (anatomical term)
  • The next year, Joseph Leidy named Glyptodon floridanus based on isolated carapace osteoderms and pieces of caudal armor, though some were also referred to G. peltaliferus, that were collected from Pleistocene deposits in DeSoto County, Florida. – It isn't really clear to me what the word "some" is referring to here. Should it be "referred to as" here? The phrase "that were" also seems to result in a plurality clash, as G. peltaliferus is singular; presumably "that were collected ..." is supposed to be referring to the "carapace osteoderms and pieces of caudal armor", but it isn't doing that currently.
  • This species is now seen as a nomen vanum – The link sends you to the top of the linked page, but the redirect nomen vanum links to the relevant section (which is probably more helpful).
  • This species is ... considered a junior synonym (is the same species) of Glyptotherium cylindricum – The parenthetical explanation here isn't grammatical
  • This species is now seen as ... by a review of the genus by American paleontologists David Gillette and Clayton Ray (1981). – This doesn't make sense to me: how can it "now" be seen as something by a review from over 40 years ago?

A few miscellaneous points:

  • The way sources are given in the infobox is inconsistent: some (eg. Osborn, 1903) are given in small text below the relevant information, some (eg. (Brown, 1912)) are given in brackets beside the relevant information, and others (eg. Simpson, 1929) are given beside the relevant information without brackets.
  • The short description is 75 characters, which, per WP:SDLENGTH, is too long I think.
    I'd suggest avoiding the word "xenarthran" in the short description, as most readers won't know what it means, and it doesn't appear in the article's lead. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not qualified to comment upon the sourcing or content here, but it does feel as though the article would be helped by some careful copyediting; most of the suggestions above are relatively minor in nature, but they are from just the first five paragraphs of the article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Points implemented. Described is different than discovered, as described is just when a description of the specimen is published whereas discovered is just when the specimen is found. As for the taxobox, authorships in parentheses (ex. Brown, 1912) are in parentheses due to the fact that they're for species reclassified as belonging to Glyptotherium. AFH (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The question regarding the use of "described" was on whether Cope himself was the one who discovered them; if he did, then I think "discovered" would be better (assuming we have the year for the discovery), as this wording feels more appropriate in a section with "History" in the title. Regarding the citations in the infobox, I'm not sure I'm following. To give an example, Xenoglyptodon fredericensis has the citation "Meade, 1953", but the same citation appears on the line below with brackets (this occurs in several places); similarly, some citations are in small text, while others are in regular-sized text. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The authorship in parentheses is used when that species is reassigned to a genus and species. An example would be the woolly Mammoth, Mammuthus primigenius, which was described by Blumenbach in 1799 as Elephas primigenius. This would make it Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799. However when it was given its own genus, Mammuthus, its specific authorship goes in quotes as (Blumenbach, 1799). AFH (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I do have to say that it still doesn't make sense to me why this would be done, but if it's standard practice in paleontology then that's fine I suppose. I'd still recommend having all of the citations in either small or regular-sized text. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General & miscellaneous:

  • The use of the abbreviation "G." for "Glyptotherium" seems to be inconsistent; for example, some of the time we have Glyptotherium texanum, and sometimes we have G. texanum.
    This doesn't seem to have been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CAPFRAG, a full stop should be omitted from captions that don't contain a full sentence
    Some captions still have this issue. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the paragraphs in the article are very long; the longest is 370 words. I think at least a handful should be split in two or three.

"History and phylogeny" down to the "Phylogeny" subsection:

  • Glyptotherium itself was named in 1903 – Not sure "itself" is needed here
  • fossils collected by an American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) expedition led by J. W. Gidley – Link James W. Gidley, and use "James"
  • Glyptotherium itself was named in 1903 when fossils collected by an American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) expedition led by J. W. Gidley to the Early Pliocene strata from the Blanco Formation of Llano Estacado, Texas were described by Henry Fairfield Osborn as a new genus and species of glyptodont, Glyptotherium texanum. – I'd suggest splitting this (into two sentences, or using a semicolon), focusing on the discovery and the naming separately
  • The fossils were deposited at the AMNH and consist of a carapace and associated postcranial elements, one of the few G. texanum skeletons known. – I'd suggest "The fossils, which were deposited at the AMNH, consisted ...", using the past tense with "consisted". There's also a plurality clash between "associated postcranial elements" and "one of the ...".
  • The generic name Glyptotherium comes from the Greek roots glyph meaning "carved" or "grooved", after its relative Glyptodon, and therion meaning "beast", a commonly used suffix for prehistoric mammals. – The commas aren't quite right here: "... and therion" needs to follow from "the Greek roots glyph ...". The phrase "after its relative Glyptodon" also isn't following here, as it sounds as though it's the meaning of glyph which comes from Glyptodon. A comma between "therion" and "meaning" is also needed, as presumably "therion" (rather than "beast") is the "commonly used suffix" here.
    Presumably "Ancient Greek" is meant here (also could link Ancient Greek). Not strictly necessary, but you could include the Greek words themselves, in brackets, including accurate diacritics in the transliterations (which is normally done for transliterations of Ancient Greek words). – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The species name of the type species, G. texanum, is after the holotype's discovery in Texas. – A name can't really "be" after something; something can, however, be named after something. I'd also see if "species" can be used just once.
    is named after the holotype (name-bearing specimen) specimen's discovery in Texas. – Now "specimen" is being repeated. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • after the holotype's discovery in Texas. – Holotype could have a link
  • The specimen was sent to the American Museum of Natural History as well, – I'm happy with referring to it as either the "American Museum of Natural History" or the "AMNH", but one should be used consistently (this applies below as well, where "AMNH" is used again).
  • The species name cylindricum meaning "cylindrical" is after the cylindroid anatomy of the premolars in the holotype of G. cylindricum. – Similar to above: commas needed around "meaning "cylindrical"", and avoid "is after"
    the species name comes from the roots cylindricum, meaning "cylindrical", due to the cylindroid anatomy of the premolars in the holotype of G. cylindricum. – I'm only seeing one "root" here (shouldn't be plural). And what specifically do you mean by "root" here? A root belongs to a language. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the cylindroid anatomy of the premolars in the holotype of G. cylindricum. – Suggest linking premolars
  • Starting with the sentence The species name cylindricum meaning ..., it feels as though we have three quite short sentences; I'd suggest doing some reworking to help things flow.
  • In 1923, Oliver Perry Hay named a new species of Glyptodon, G. rivipacis, based on the fossils described by Leidy from DeSoto County, Florida. – DeSoto County, Florida is linked above. The word "after" also seems as though it would be better here than "based", assuming I'm understanding the meaning correctly.
    This link is still here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This species is now seen as a nomen nudum and synonymous with Glyptotherium cylindricum. – nomen nudum is also linked above
    Again, this link is still here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hay also described well preserved fossils, including skull elements and teeth, – "well-preserved" should have a hyphen
  • that were collected from Rancholabrean strata in Wolf City and Sinton, Texas that were referred to Cope's Glyptodon peltaliferus. – There should be a comma after "Texas". The repetition of "that were" doesn't work grammatically.
    "Texas" still needs a comma. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • based on several isolated specimens unearthed by the AMNH from Rancholabrean age localities in Florida, – "Rancholabrean-age" should have a hyphen I think
  • the holotype specimen being the rear portion of a carapace recovered from Seminole Field locality in Pinellas County, Florida. – Suggest either a semicolon or a new sentence here, to avoid using the word "being". I think the definite article is required immediately after "recovered from" (either "the Seminole Field locality" or "the locality of Seminole Field").
    A third genus of North American glyptodont, Boreostracon floridanum, was established by George Gaylord Simpson in 1929 based on several isolated specimens unearthed by the AMNH from Rancholabrean-age localities in Florida, the holotype consisting of; the rear portion of a carapace recovered from Seminole Field locality in Pinellas County, Florida. – You can't end a sentence with "consisting of". The second clause also isn't a proper sentence, and the point about "Seminole Field locality" hasn't been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[[Pinellas County, Florida|Pinellas County]], Florida" is used here, but the piped link isn't used for other linked locations
    This suggestion hasn't been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • believed that all of the glyptodont fossils unearthed from North America were not of Glyptodon. – Suggest using "none of ... were" rather than "all of ... were not". I'd also suggest using "belonged to Glyptodon" (or similar), rather than "of Glyptodon".
  • However, Simpson chose not to designate a new genus or species for Glyptodon peltaliferus, but he still believed that they were from a separate form of glyptodont. – Avoid using both "However" and "but" in the same sentence. I'd also specify "the fossils" (or similar) in place of "they" here.
  • Research into North American glyptodonts diminished after the research of Gidley, Hay, Simpson, and others, but some paleontologists still incorrectly referred fossils from the continent to Glyptodon. – I'd try to avoid the repetition of "research". Relatively minor, but the word "diminished" often refers to a reduction in quality or value, which is presumably not the intended meaning here (an alternative word or slight bit of rephrasing would fix this). I also wonder if it might be possible to be more specific as to the time period in which this mistake was made.
    Inquiry into North American glyptodonts dissipated after the research of Gidley, Hay, Simpson, and others, but some paleontologists still incorrectly referred fossils from the continent to Glyptodon. – I don't think "dissipated" is correct here; this would suggest that it essentially disappeared (which is contradicted by the latter part of the sentence). – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1927, many Early Pleistocene age fossils were collected by the University of Oklahoma from a locality in Frederick, Oklahoma, – Not sure "age" adds anything here
    This suggestion has not been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The glyptodont fossils were originally referred to Glyptodon in 1928, but were not properly described until 1953. – I'd suggest combining this sentence with the one that follows, as it's presumably talking about the same description from 1953 (this isn't clear until you get to "in 1953" in the second sentence).
    This suggestion has not been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The species is now considered a junior synonym of Glyptotherium texanum. – As the term "junior synonym" isn't used above anymore, I'd suggest linking it
    This suggestion has not been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all of these genera were named, further analysis of their validities was not conducted until 1981, David Gillette and Clayton Ray published a monograph on North American glyptodonts. – The word "when" is missing here. I also wonder if perhaps "validity" should be singular here?
  • ... David Gillette and Clayton Ray published a monograph on North American glyptodonts. In their monograph, they recombined all previously named genera and species into Glyptotherium, synonymized some species, and also researched the genus' ecology, anatomy, and distribution. – Is the fact that a monograph was published particularly significant? If not, it seems to me that we can cut that, and just have "David Gillette and Clayton Ray recombined all ...". The statement that they "synonymized some species" also feels somewhat vague.
  • However, G. arizonae, G. floridanum, and G. mexicanum were kept as valid species, all of which were later synonymized with G. texanum and G. cylindricum after the discovery of more complete skeletons that proved their synonymy. – The phrase "all of which" makes it sound as though all valid species were later synonymized with G. texanum and G. cylindricum.
    anatomy, and distribution.[14]G. arizonae, G. floridanum, – Missing space.
  • After later review, the former species was declared a junior synonym of G. texanum – The phrase "later review" sounds a bit odd to me. Why not just use "The former species has been ..."?
  • the former species was ... and the latter two – I don't think we can expect the reader to remember the order in which they were given above; I'd restate the names here.
    The synonymy of G. arizonae with G. texanum and G. floridanum and G. mexicanum with G. cylindricum after the discovery of more complete skeletons. – This isn't a complete sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the 2000s to the 2020s, – "In the 21st century"?
  • hundreds of additional fossils were referred to the genus from Central America and Brazil. – Use "have been", as the 2020s aren't over yet!
  • These include fossils previously referred to Glyptodon and Hoplophorus, as many fossils were hastily assigned to both by 19th century paleontologists. – Glyptodon shouldn't be linked here, as it hasn't been linked anywhere above
  • One of the specimens reassigned to Glyptotherium, an isolated dorsal carapace osteoderm, – I'd try to simplify this (or explain it a bit more), as "isolated dorsal carapace osteoderm" might be a fair bit for the unfamiliar reader to take in.
  • was collected from Pleistocene age carbonate caves in Lagoa Santa, Minas Gerais, Brazil by Friedrich von Sellow during the early 1800s. – The century or the decade? There should also be a comma after "Brazil", and a hyphen in "Pleistocene-age".
    The first and last points haven't been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was later described as a new species of Hoplophorus, H. meyeri, in 1845 by Danish paleontologist Peter Wilhelm Lund. – Don't think "later" adds anything here. Starting with "In 1845, Danish paleontologist Peter Wilhelm Lund ..." also sounds more natural to me, and makes the "later" part clear.
  • Lund incorrectly named the taxon however, making it a nomen nudum. – Did he name the taxon "however"? It also sounds as though "it" is referring to the taxon here, when it's referring to the name.
    The second point hasn't been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2022, a host of fossils of Glyptotherium cylindricum including skulls, some preserving pathologies caused by humans, – There should be a comma after "cylindricum", and I'd suggest placing "some preserving pathologies caused by humans" in brackets.
    In 2022, a host of fossils of G. cylindricum, including skulls (some preserving pathologies caused by humans) were described – Comma after the brackets. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • were described that had been collected from several sites in Falcón, northern Venezuela that dated to the Late Pleistocene. – The phrase "that had been ..." doesn't work here. It's trying to follow on from "a host of fossils ...", but it isn't doing so currently. There should also be a comma after "northern Venezuela".
    These points haven't been addressed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This gets us down to the start of the "Phylogeny" section. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions implemented, thank you! AFH (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Augustios Paleo, but I'm going to oppose on the basis of prose concerns, as I've found quite a few grammatical errors in my review of the first part of the article. I've looked over your changes, and have given some follow-up points above. I do hope this doesn't discourage you from continuing work on the article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

glyptos doesn't translate into "grooved or carved", it translates into "grooved" or "carved" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't resolved Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't resolved Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and why are they all in quotes? Why not just say, "including Smilodon, the dog Borophagus, and the short-faced bear Arctotherium wingei"?

Coord note

The reviews suggest that this article is under-prepared for FAC and I'm archiving it accordingly; recommend PR before another run here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Glyptotherium/archive1