Talk:Elasmosaurus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 08:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Will review this later! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Reading palaeo articles is a nice Christmas activity I'd say... I'll ping my co-nominators, LittleJerry and Lythronaxargestes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wrote most of description and history, Lythronaxargestes wrote most of species and classification, and LittleJerry wrote paleobiology and paleoecology. So we probably don't know the sources used in the other sections as well as those who wrote them. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the description, you use "neck vertebrae", but in other sections its very often just "cervicals". Not a big issue because the description section states "Elasmosaurus differed from all other plesiosaurs by having 72 neck (or cervical) vertebrae", making it clear that these are synonyms. Still, it would be better to decide which term to use, and use it consistently.

Yep, this is a consequence of different writers writing different sections. Now I am unsure about what terms to use throughout, scientific or "common"... Any ideas? Scientific terms worked fine in Ankylosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters so much in this case, and not a big issue, but it would be ideal if it is consistent. I have, however, some thoughts on the use of "middle" instead of "medial", see below. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed cervical, dorsal, and caudal throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Did you plan to give both first and last names of people at first mention, and afterwards last names only? If so, this should be consistent. Many first names are not given, and some are given more than once (e.g., Benjamin Kear).

The plan from my part was to give full name at first occurrence, and then only last name at second occurrence. I think mainly the classification and species sections differ, maybe Lythronaxargestes can take a look there, as I don't know the full names of all the people mentioned there. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I really missed one sentence stating which elements are known and which are not, before it goes into anatomical details.

This is listed under "Known and possible fossil elements". Usually this isn't stated in the description section. We do state that the single known specimen is fragmentary in the description. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As I think about it, this should appear in the lead already. It is the only known specimen of the genus, so the info is very relevant. Something like "consisting of a fragmentary skull, the spine, and the pectoral and pelvic girdles" should be sufficient. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Added to intro. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Before going into detail about the axial anatomy, I would suggest to add a bit of general information on the vertebrae, to give people an idea how such a vertebra looks like, and the chance to follow the anatomical description. I would at least introduce the terms "centrum" and "neural arch" first, and point out some general proportions and features of these elements in Elasmosaurus: Some information which is apparent for everybody by looking at a skeleton.

I'm not sure how to source this, though? None of the sources used seem to give such general information. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I would, for example, look at the Cope descriptions, and an general overviews over Elasmosaurid anatomy. If you think this would be a good addition: Am I allowed to make some edits in this direction? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

If you can find a good way to source it, would be fine for me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed difficult, but I see you have much in the description text already anyway (I really should read more carefully). I added a bit, and separated the atlas-axis description from the general part with a line break. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I also would mention the cervical ribs somewhere in the article, because they are shown in the File:Elasmosaurusskull.jpg; otherwise, people might wonder what those funny bones on the pic are, and wonder why they are not mentioned anywhere despite the otherwise great degree of detail.

They are mentioned in the description section as "neck ribs", perhaps that's why you missed it? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, yeah I missed that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion: For Elasmosaurus_neck_vertebra.png, I would add to the image description that "llr" stands for the longitudinal ridge on the centrum, because this seems to be an important feature and is re-occurring at several occasions in the article. Sad that there is no more image material to illustrate more of the anatomical traits described in the text.

Added. Yeah, we've pretty much used all available images already... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• The pectoral girdle had a long bar – If you mention this, you should also add where this bar can be found (the pectoral girdle is a huge element).

Added "at the middle", which is all the source states ("median bar"). FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, although I feel slightly uneasy when I see "median" to be replaced with "at the middle", and I sometimes think that it might be better to explain the term medial and use that instead of "middle". Because "at the middle" can mean so many different things, and I think people (including myself) would generally assume it to mean "at midlength" or "in the center". Which is not what "medial" really means. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

How would you explain it, at the midline"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Better. Or maybe "along its midline" or "along the body midline" to be more precise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Please add something about neck length (there is an approximation in Taylor and Wedel (2013), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.36).

Funny, I asked Sven where to find such a measurement, he didn't know, but the measurement given by Taylor/Wedel is based on Sach's own measurements... Added! Also a bit about how the necks of elasmosaurs were still much shorter than those of sauropods. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

But keep in mind that the real length of the neck would have been somewhat longer, because you need to add the thickness of the cartilage (which is unknown). I can offer to do some edits here if I am allowed to. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems cartilage i already taken into account for the measurement I added: "For other plesiosaurs, Evans (1993) estimated that the thickness of intercervical cartilage amounted to 14% of centrum length in Muraenosaurus Seeley, 1874 and 20% in Cryptoclidus Seeley, 1892. Using the average of 17% for Elasmosaurus, we can estimate its total neck length as 7.1 m (Fig. 2.4)." FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nowhere in the article are autapomorphies mentioned, or any information of how scientist differentiate this genus from related genera. Given the amount of detail, this really appears as a significant omission.

All diagnostic features are mentioned in the description, just in the paragraphs about the anatomical element they belong to. For example "The number of premaxillary teeth distinguished Elasmosaurus from primitive plesiosauroids and most other elasmosaurids" and "Elasmosaurus differed from all other plesiosaurs by having 72 neck (or cervical) vertebrae". I'm not too fond of seperated "diagnostic feature" lists, what do you suggest? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh man, I missed that as well. You are right! All fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• To hide his mistake, Cope attempted to recall all copies of the preprint article, and printed a corrected version with a new skeletal reconstruction that placed the head on the neck (though it reversed the orientation of the individual vertebrae) and different wording in 1870. In a reply to Leidy, Cope claimed that he had been misled by the fact that Leidy had arranged the vertebrae of Cimoliasaurus in the reverse order in his 1851 description of that genus, and pointed out that his reconstruction had been corrected. – I found this slightly confusing. Did Cope publish the 1870 correction with reversed vertebrae because there was no time to redo the figure, or (this seems to be the case) because he assumed this was correct? If the latter is true, he wrote to Leidy that this "had been corrected". So, did he change his mind about the issue between publishing the corrected figure and his latter to Leidy? And what was he referring to in his latter to Leidy (it can't be the preprint figure, which shows the old idea)?

I also find it confusing that he would still reverse the individual vertebrae, but no source explains this (one only states he did so). It seems Cope may have been confused himself... On another confusing note, Davidson seems to have been unaware of a letter to Leidy where Cope explains the reasons for giving E. orientalis a short neck, and she goes into her own unfounded speculation... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is additional info in the first paragraph of the classification, written by User:Lythronaxargestes. Still, the reader is wondering how these two bits of information fit together. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I wrote most of that sentence on "Streoptosauria" also, but it doesn't really explain the mistake in Cope's corrected reconstruction... FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• The article does a good job in keeping the amount of detail consistently in the separate sections. However, the "Classification" section contains a lot of detail which is not strictly about Elasmosaurus itself but about the Elasmosauridae in general, but can be equally well or better placed in the article Elasmosauridae. Of course, as the nominal genus, the Elasmosaurus article should have a summary on Elasmosaurid systematics. But I would think about reducing the amount of detail here.

Yes, much of it could probably be summarised and relocated, want to give it a try, Lythronaxargestes? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would also include a short note on endothermy, as this is an extremely important aspect of the biology of the animal.

Maybe LittleJerry has seen something about this in the sources. I wonder if this info would maybe instead be found in a source about pelsiosaurs in general? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• It seems a bit weird to state "The exact function of the neck of elasmosaurids is unknown" and than only mention a very outdated hypothesis (use of the neck to breath air). From my understanding, it is quite clear that the neck must have been related to feeding, and this is what other papers say. Maybe even combine the neck function and feeding sections, as they appear to be difficult to keep separated.

I'll leave this to LittleJerry. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not mentioned as is more important for plesiosaurs in general. LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this answer is for the previous point, and not this one? FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Oops. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As LittleJerry argued, this information is not specific for Elasmosaurus. Still, I would suggest adding a brief note here. The whole first paragraph of the "Paleobiology" contains general information on plesiosaurs only, and this paragraph appears incomplete without mentioning endothermy. But if you insist to keep it out: It is not a very big issue. An overview is provided here. I can add a sentence if you like to have this information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I also think adding this information would be an improvement, feel free to add. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Will add something very briefly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Other invertebrates known to have lived in this sea include cephalopods (such as squids and ammonites), Baculites, and the crinoid Uintacrinus.[100] – There are much more than these, according to the Everhart book.

Also for LittleJerry, who is the only one with the book. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The book lists too many so I listed the major groups. We usually don't list the names of smaller organisms for articles like these. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• the western boundary, however, consisted of a thick clastic wedge eroded eastward from the Sevier orogenic belt – The wording seems to be unnecessarily complicated, and could be formulated much easier.

LittleJerry? FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I just copied that text from the Interior Sea article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Still could need rewording? Maybe the Oceans of Kansas books has something, I am not familiar with these circumstances.

FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Everhart's book has very little on the geology. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I was just thinking about some "translation" of this highly technical sentence in something simpler that people will understand, such as "the western border accumulated a thick pile of sediments eroded from the western land mass". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• So far my comments – I keep a couple of minor points for the FAC! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I've answered what I could below, left the rest for co-nominators who may know more about the respective sections. I've also added a few questions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I answered the outstanding points above, and (sorry for that) added new points below that came to my mind (but which should be easy to fix). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

additional comments

• The citation "An elasmosaur with stomach contents and gastroliths from the Pierre Shale (Late Cretaceous) of Kansas" has two authors, but only the second is listed. Also, the link does not seem to work.
• In the paleobiology section, I would be very careful with stating speculations made by individual researchers as facts. It is important to always add an "According to xx, …". There are many statements of Everhart which should not come across as undisputed knowledge.
• Plesiosaurs probably used these stones to help in the digestion of food. – This is only one idea out of many. See review here. At the very least, I would suggest to replace "probably" by "possibly". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed to possibly. LittleJerry may want to list some of the further possibilities mentioned in that paper. I've also left the two other issues fro him, as he will be more familiar with the sources used there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, Jens Lallensack, with this edit[1] you removed Cope's revised Elasmosaurus description as a duplicate, but there are differences even in the text, in addition to the new restoration, so both sources should probably be used. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Forgot about that. Would it be better to include "preprint" or something similar to make clear that these are two nearly-identical sources? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• All good now! I also allowed myself to do some additions, please feel free to delete, alter, or move the stuff around if needed. Will pass the article tomorrow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne I think it is important to be aware of the language used in the article to ensure that it is not too academic. WP articles need to be accessible (comprehensible) to the average Wikipedia reader. I already changed "a much increased vertebral count" to "a much increased number of vertebrae" (feel free to improve this. I wonder why you need to use the word "increased". Increased over what? When was this increase? Perhaps just use "a much greater number of vertebrae"; again, you are comparing. Greater than what?). I think "a vertebral count" is overly academic. Also, in the first paragraph of Elasmosaurus#Paleoecology, we find the following sentence:

• There was little sedimentation on the eastern shores of the Seaway; the western border accumulated a thick pile of sediments eroded from the western land mass.

In the first clause, you have "on the eastern shores of the Seaway". In the second clause, you have "the western border". I would guess readers might wonder between what this "western border" was a border. Border of what? Where? Why is it "eastern shores", but then "western border"? I suggest that you either use "western shores" or explain what the "western border" was.  – Corinne (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to "western margin". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing Comment As the GA criteria are fully meet now, it will be promoted now. Good work, everybody. Nevertheless, I encourage the authors to consider the still-open point raised on the redundancy in the systematic section before submitting to FAC. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, we'll have to wait for Lythronaxargestes to show up so we can get the trimming and full names done... FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too sure when he'll show up. He's either gone dark intentionally across everything for a time, or he had a real-life issue that needs resolving. He himself said he had an issue, but from what I know of him I can't tell if he's serious or not. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hope all is well, I sent him an email last week, but got no answer. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)