Talk:Galulatherium

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Tanzania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania (assessed as Low-importance).

This review is

Talk:TNM 02067/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ucucha, I've signed up to review this article on a bone fragment. Comments in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Ucucha 16:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good-only a few minor suggestions:

• suggest adding dates for the geological eras on first usage (at least in the lead)
  • Added in the lead.
• "In 2007, Stevens and colleagues" perhaps give his full name, to be consistent with "David Krause" earlier
  • Nancy.
• "It preserves much of the body," I'm not sure what this means
  • Clarified, I hope.
• "…all of which are known from the Cenozoic, less than 65 million years ago, only." It's somewhat awkward to have that "only" stuck at the end of the sentence as a clause by itself.
  • Moved "only" up a few words.

Everything in order, promoting now. Sasata (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]