Talk:Apertotemporalis/GA1
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 06:06, 19 April 2026 | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
:::fixed, lmk if there is anything else [[User:Augustios Paleo|AFH]] ([[User talk:Augustios Paleo|talk]]) 05:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC) |
:::fixed, lmk if there is anything else [[User:Augustios Paleo|AFH]] ([[User talk:Augustios Paleo|talk]]) 05:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
::::The discrepancy between being called a member of Bothremydidae in the first sentence of the lede and a "possible member" of that family in the third sentence is still present. It might be best to just call it a "dubious genus of turtle" in the first sentence, as that also sidesteps using technical and unfamiliar language until a little further into the lede, when it's better explained. Otherwise I don't have any comments on wording or grammar, it looks good to me. I've also done some copyedits of my own, it might be worth you looking over those as well. [[User:Gasmasque|Gasmasque]] ([[User talk:Gasmasque|talk]]) 05:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
::::The discrepancy between being called a member of Bothremydidae in the first sentence of the lede and a "possible member" of that family in the third sentence is still present. It might be best to just call it a "dubious genus of turtle" in the first sentence, as that also sidesteps using technical and unfamiliar language until a little further into the lede, when it's better explained. Otherwise I don't have any comments on wording or grammar, it looks good to me. I've also done some copyedits of my own, it might be worth you looking over those as well. [[User:Gasmasque|Gasmasque]] ([[User talk:Gasmasque|talk]]) 05:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
====Source review==== |
|||
Sorry for taking longer than expected to get to this. |
|||
*In the last paragraph of the Discovery and research history section a significant amount of text is drawn from Gaffney et al. (2006), but isn’t cited to that source. |
|||
*Source 11 (AbdelGawad et al.) is published in an MDPI journal. If the authors are credentialed and have published extensively in non-MDPI journals then this isn’t an issue, but because this publisher is sometimes considered predatory and has less scrutinous peer-review not everything published through it is a reliable source. |
|||
*Is source 22 (Sallam et al.) a JVP conference abstract? These aren’t considered academic sources the same way papers are, so shouldn’t be used as sources for novel or controversial information. The information here does look to be published in a Master’s thesis by the second author, which also may not be usable as a source in this case for similar reasons. |
|||
*Other sources look good. |
|||
====Spotchecks==== |
|||
*In progress |
|||
