172:
the lead is difficult, too many words the average reader is not likely to understand. Can anything be done to simplify this a bit? Also consider making it more explicitly clear why this discovery is important in the paleontological scheme of things. Eg., something like this sentence from
304:"Flynn and colleagues identified wear facets five and six lingual to the distal metacristid–cristid obliqua and in front of the hypoconulid" I don't quite understand the first part-five or six wear facets were found? The wear facets are numbered 5 and 6? Could you gloss wear facet?
212:
I usually vary between these two (and a few others, like "well-developed") to say the same thing. Flynn et al. also use "strong" in reference to the cingulum, and they say the premolar is "dominated" by the central
250:
Thanks for the review. I would like to make the article about this interesting mammal actually comprehensible, so I'll try hard to improve it, but don't have more time right now, so I'll come back later today.
226:
The description section has too much unexplained jargon; I don't know what any of the redlinked terms mean, and I get the strange feeling of reading something in
English but barely understanding what is being
184:
I have added something similar to that. I do think the lead needs to give some description of the animal—after all, it's the distinctive morphology that give this animal (arguably the oldest known
156:
3rd sentence talks about the central cusp, but I think you may be assuming too much here… what's a cusp? I don't know that its a "occlusal or incisal eminence on a tooth"
121:
Thanks again! (To pre-empt one point: I am not aware of any reconstructions whatsoever of the biology of this animal, or of the early australosphenidans in general.)
233:
I will ask J.J. Flynn whether he is able to release an image. I think that will help in clarifying the description; I know I looked at the illustrations in the
174:
73:
181:
extends backwards the known temporal range of the tribosphenic tooth by some 25 Ma, which is equivalent to about 20% of its previous known history."
69:
218:"The p-last has a strong central cusp and on the back and probably front lingual sides smaller cuspules." this sentence doesn't quite parse
54:
46:
151:
are the same thing until a second species is discovered. But I added "genus" anyway; it is a useful point of clarification.
288:"Each of the teeth has a prominent cingulum (shelf) on the lingual (outer) side." shouldn't that be lingual (inner) side?
132:
I'm used to articles about genera telling me in the first sentence that this article is about a genus; this one says that
277:
It's much better, there's enough context around the redlinked terms that I can mostly understand what I'm reading now :)
159:
I linked it... not sure yet about a good way to explain it; "occlusal or incisal eminence" is hardly much clearer.
62:
193:"in the Isalo III unit of the Isalo "Group"" what does this mean? Is this a known archeological site?
17:
230:
Is there a picture or photo in one of the papers? A labeled sketch would work wonders here I think.
261:
I just made an extensive copyedit, clarified and extended some material, and added a picture of a
324:
308:
268:
252:
238:
122:
111:
97:
39:
209:"The p-last has a strong central cusp" Is "prominent" a more appropriate adjective here?
23:
280:"Ambondro is a genus of mammals" only one mammal in the genus, so shouldn't use plural
320:
185:
107:
93:
328:
311:
271:
255:
241:
125:
115:
101:
263:
167:
But explained; I'll try to write short articles on these topics soon.
267:
tooth to clarify the terms of direction used. Is it better now?
319:
Ok, I'm satisfied that GA criteria are met, am promoting now.
164:
trigonid, talonid = scary redlinked jargon in the lead
81:
50:
196:It's a little far back for archeology. Clarified.
106:Back again to review; comments in a day or two.
8:
143:To me, the distinction is meaningless;
7:
31:
1:
291:Yes; mixed up a little there.
237:paper a lot when writing it.
221:Split sentence and reworded.
296:is a cuspule a small cusp?
344:
329:19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
312:19:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
272:17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
256:06:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
242:19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
188:mammal) its significance.
126:19:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
116:19:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
102:19:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
24:Talk:Ambondro (genus)/GA1
18:Talk:Ambondro mahabo
136:is a mammal. Isn't
22:(Redirected from
335:
86:
77:
58:
27:
343:
342:
338:
337:
336:
334:
333:
332:
67:
44:
38:
36:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
341:
339:
317:
316:
315:
314:
302:
301:
300:
294:
293:
292:
286:
285:
284:
278:
259:
258:
247:
246:
245:
244:
228:
224:
223:
222:
216:
215:
214:
207:
206:
205:
199:
198:
197:
191:
190:
189:
170:
169:
168:
162:
161:
160:
154:
153:
152:
129:
128:
87:
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
340:
331:
330:
326:
322:
313:
310:
306:
305:
303:
298:
297:
295:
290:
289:
287:
282:
281:
279:
276:
275:
274:
273:
270:
266:
265:
257:
254:
249:
248:
243:
240:
236:
232:
231:
229:
225:
220:
219:
217:
211:
210:
208:
203:
202:
201:holotherian?
200:
195:
194:
192:
187:
183:
182:
180:
177:would help: "
176:
171:
166:
165:
163:
158:
157:
155:
150:
146:
142:
141:
139:
135:
131:
130:
127:
124:
120:
119:
118:
117:
113:
109:
104:
103:
99:
95:
92:
88:
85:
84:
80:
75:
71:
66:
65:
61:
56:
52:
48:
43:
42:
33:
25:
19:
318:
262:
260:
234:
178:
148:
144:
140:the mammal?
137:
133:
105:
90:
89:
82:
78:
64:Article talk
63:
59:
40:
37:
307:Clarified.
51:visual edit
264:Megalomys
149:A. mahabo
138:A. mahano
91:Reviewer:
34:GA Review
204:Removed.
179:Ambondro
145:Ambondro
134:Ambondro
227:said :)
74:history
55:history
41:Article
321:Sasata
309:Ucucha
269:Ucucha
253:Ucucha
239:Ucucha
235:Nature
123:Ucucha
108:Sasata
94:Sasata
213:cusp.
186:crown
83:Watch
16:<
325:talk
299:Yes.
283:Yes.
175:here
147:and
112:talk
98:talk
70:edit
47:edit
327:)
114:)
100:)
72:|
53:|
49:|
323:(
110:(
96:(
79:·
76:)
68:(
60:·
57:)
45:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.