Dryopithecus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 17, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This  level-5 vital 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 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Primates Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It would bridge a gap if Dryopithecidae could redirect to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcrasher (talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dryopithecus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050818170314/http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Synapsida/Eutheria/Primates/Hominoidea/hominoidea.htm to http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Synapsida/Eutheria/Primates/Hominoidea/hominoidea.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is standard for a living species to get its own article, it is highly unusual for an extinct species to have a separate article from the genus article unless there is a great deal of information out there pertaining to a single species (such as Mammoth) which is very much not the case for D. fontani. Further, the article has only one source and it is, word for word, an exact copy of the Wikipedia article, and I'm not sure who plagiarized who   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dryopithecus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 23:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• and males had longer canines than females, which is typically correlated with high levels of aggression – maybe link "aggression" to Agonistic behaviour (this is what the source says?) to put it into a biological context?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead: They lived in a seasonal climate – more important categories of climate are "subtropical", "humid warm" etc.; can something like this be added here?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The first Dryopithecus fossils were first described – "First described" is technically correct, but I think you can spare one of the "first" here, as later finds cannot be "first described" anymore anyways.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Darwin briefly notes – "noted" to be consistent with tense?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• with new specimens immediately being the basis of a new species or genus – "Immediately" seems too strong, descriptions usually take some time at least. Maybe "with new specimens leading to the erection of new species or genera"?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• resulting in several erroneous species – "erroneous" is judgemental, even Nomen dubia or Nomen nuda cannot be considered "erroneous" in my opinion. Maybe choose instead "now defunct" or "poorly supported" or similar, or delete altogether since the first part of the sentence already said it all.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Was Dryopithecus the first fossil great ape to be described? One gets this impression when reading that all fossil apes had been classified within Dryopithecidae.

I'll check   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Miocene Climatic Optimum – link?

I can do a redlink   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• a quadrupedal method of locomotion – mode of locomotion

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• implying suspensory behaviour to reach them. – Also in other occasions, I would use "indicating" or "suggesting", as "implication" is too definite imo.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• and the latter two, oak, beech, elm, and pine honey sources – but only for the insects (bees), not for the apes themselves? Reads as if the apes would feed on nectar.

That's why they were sources of honey (not nectar)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reads well, only minor nitpicks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]