Talk:Anoplotheriidae/GA1

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

GA review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 18:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 16:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)


  • I can start this review. It may take a while for me to get through it considering the length and my busy schedule, but from a quick glance I am sure that this article will be ready for GA soon.
  • "The taxonomic history of the Anoplotheriidae was as early as 1804 when the French palaeontologist Georges Cuvier erected the genus Anoplotherium based on fossils found at the gypsum quarries at the outskirts of Paris (known as the Paris Basin).[1][2]" Is this supposed to be "begins as early"? Also, link gypsum, genus, taxonomy, and paleontologist.
  • Link Greek to ancient Greek language
  • Link species
  • "In 1812, he publosher"--> "published"
  • What do you mean by speculated on the palaeobiologies? Remove this part or elaborate further for clarity
  • What was Gray's definition (i.e. Anoplotherium and its closest relatives)
  • I do not think that the species-level taxonomy of Anoplotherium needs as much detail. I'd focus more on the number of genera, their naming, and their relationships for this part. For example, include that Xiphodon and Dichobune were named, but I do not believe it is necessary to touch on the number or validity of specific species as much. I can understand this being difficult as the level of detail needed in family-level articles is confusing.
  • Add more transitions in the second paragraph. Right now, it just repeatedly starts as "In 18XX, lorem ipsum..." Maybe try adding "In response", "In contrast", etc
  • Link superfamily at first mention
  • "in his 1885 work" work on what?
  • How does a book date from between 1891-93?
    • It's one of those habits from 19th century naturalists where some of their works are dated to multiple years. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Link anatomical terms (i. e. diastemata, premolariform, dental rows, etc)
    • I already linked diastema, but I linked the others where possible. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Link cladistic.
  • "Deperet in 1917" Maybe change this sentence to: "According to Deperet (1917), Dacrytheriidae was closely aligned with Anoplotheriidae and Anthracotheriidae, though was restricted to only a few genera..."
  • The way this is written can be difficult to follow. Are all of these concepts of Anoplotheriidae taxonomy competing? Were there any main viewpoints?
    • Some did, mainly with the consideration of the taxonomic rank of dacrytheriines and what belonged to the overall family. The research history is meant to be divided into different time lengths (early 19th century, late 20th century, etc). PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "In 1961, French palaeontologist Jean Viret newly recognized two subfamilies within the Anoplotheriidae: the Anoplotheriinae (Anoplotherium, Diplobune, and Ephelcomenus) and the Dacrytheriinae (Dacrytherium, Catodontherium, Leptotheridium, and Tapirulus)." Maybe do: "In a new vein, a 1961 paper by French paleontologist Jean Viret recognized..."
  • "In 1988, Sudre erected Robiatherium and classified it into the Anoplotheriinae.[31]" This is a bit wordy. Maybe do: In 1988, Sudre named another anoplotheriine, Robiatherium."
  • Instead of doing paper by paper at the section starting at "In 2000, Hooker and Marc Weidmann removed Robiacina from the Anoplotheriidae.[32]" and "Later in 2001, Hooker and Katherine M. Thomas removed Tapirulus from the Anoplotheriidae.[33]", maybe state: "In two papers, Hooker, Marc Wedmann, and Katherine M. Thomas further restricted Anoplotheriidae, removing..."
  • "Informally grouped into the "endemic European artiodactyls" category with other extinct artiodactyls from the region, the broader taxonomic placement of the Anoplotheriidae within the Artiodactyla had historically remained and still remains unclear today." change to "has and does remain unclear?
    • Changed.
  • Link Artiodactyla
  • I believe most of this information can be condensed into smaller sections. Instead of specifying each individual paper, maybe do: "Anoplotheriidae has historically been classified in several clades, including hipoopotamidae, pachydermata (also since invalid)..."
    • The classification subsection is meant to illustrate how the taxonomic placement of the Anoplotheriidae had changed over time, so I don't think simplifying it will cause the subsection to cover it well. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)