Wikipedia:Peer review/Peloneustes/archive1

Peloneustes[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I have been working on expanding this article for about 11 months now (with more than one really long hiatus), but I'm finally satisfied with my expansion of it. This is the largest expansion of an article that I've yet done on my own, so I'd greatly appreciate any feedback on it! I'm specifically interested in readability, whether it's too detailed, and if I've left anything out. While I've finished my initial expansion of the text, I've yet to finish with images; I plan to make a size comparison and life restoration for this guy eventually, which is why parts of the article are so image-sparse.

Thanks, --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment once I'm done with some of the FAC related reviews I'm in the middle of, but in the meantime I noticed you show more images of other genera under history than the one that's the subject of the article. I think it could be more balanced maybe (for example instead of showing Plesiosaurus, maybe the holotype could be shown). There's a bunch of Peloneustes photos from Oxford on Flickr that could be used throughout the article:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, at a glance, it looks like at least some of those show the holotype. Isn't there some sort of script for transferring files from Flickr to Commons? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just click the blue Flickr button below[2] and paste the URLs. And if you want to use all images and they take too much space, you could consider having multiple images in one spot, like for example in quagga. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, I'll see if I can do that tomorrow. Multiple image templates are indeed quite useful (and already used in the article)! I also found Jacard and Linder's description papers, so I've got quite a lot to add to the history section. I am somewhat hindered by my basic knowledge of French and nonexistent knowledge of German, but jargon, images, and machine translation (treated with a grain of salt) have helped! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's annoying when important sources about the subject you're writing about are in languages you don't know. Doesn't seem to help in this case, but for future reference, this site[3] has a lot of international palaeontology articles translated into English. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing here is that Linder (1913) is actually on the list of requested translations [4], so perhaps, someday in the future (probably not anytime soon though), we'll get one... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't notice there were request, and I was about to say don't count on it, since the website looks like something from the 90s, but it also says: "Last updated on: 01/07/2021 02:14:04". FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A closer look shows that, unfortunately, I was wrong. This does not appear to be the holotype, all of whose teeth fell out and both mandibular ends were almost completely preserved. I may actually draw out the holotypic cranial fragment myself for usage in the article. I may still upload these images later if I can find ways to fit them in, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could also go into more about individual specimens, which notable ones are there, where they're located (perhaps mention specimen numbers), and show this photo of a different skeleton than the one shown in the taxobox:[5] I know you show the skull, but I think it's important to show when we can that there are several very complete skeletons.

I've replaced the skull close-up, since that specimen was quite obviously crushed. I'll look into adding more information about the specimens soon, I think that I should be able to add quite a bit about the specimen Lydekker describes in detail (whatever it is), the Leeds collection, and perhaps NHMUK R4058 (the only uncrushed cranium). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, also mention which specimens are shown in captions and their museums, so the reader can correlate them with what's mentioned in the article text.

Done where available. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link other genera mentioned in image captions.

Added --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

Some very quick comments for now, this was not careful reading yet:
More material pertaining to "Plesiosaurus" philarchus was examined by Richard Lydekker, who published a description of it in 1889. After studying this new specimen – so "more material" means "a new specimen"? Maybe specify at the beginning.

I'm currently working on a total rewrite of the first part of History (User:Slate_Weasel/sandbox#Peloneustes_History_Expansion), so there will be some considerable changes to this weaker part of the article. I overlooked a variety of publications and skimped on Lydekker's description paper in my initial expansion. In the end, I expect the section to at least double in size, based on Andrews' skull publications, Jacard's paper, Andrews' Catalogue, Linder's osteology, Tarlo's review, and perhaps even Ketchum & Benson's skull description. I anticipate that this may take quite some time, but hopefully it will be worthwhile. Already, this issue has been resolved in the WIP (Work In Progress). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

including some very complete remains – "remains" and "complete" are a bit contradicting. What is complete here? Complete skeletons?

This issue has been gotten rid of in the WIP update. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

maybe explain "propodials" in a bracket?

Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and its extreme similarity – can we get rid of the "extreme" here? I would just delete it without replacement.

Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred N. Leeds – has an article and should be linked.

Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pleiosaurus ?grandis – Plesiosaurus?

Pliosaurus, actually - to make its overcomplicated, overlumped legacy even more infuriating, there was a habit in the 19th century to use Pleiosaurus just as frequently (if not more so) as Pliosaurus. I've basically followed what people said at the time, considering that this is the history section. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you abbreviate genus names as "P.", it is often not clear if you mean Plesiosaurus, Pliosaurus, or Peloneustes. Maybe just write them out to avoid confusion.

They refer to the last one stated, but yeah, that may not have been such a bright idea in the first place. I've removed it except where it's pretty obvious and would be a bit clunky. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Optional: I would remove middle name initials, to be in-line with other articles, and since they disrupt reading flow. e.g. Hilary F. Ketchum and Roger B. J. Benson.

I may do this, but it'll probably happen after the expansion mentioned above. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeley and Lydekker could not agree on which genus to classify P. philarchus in – How, and when, was this resolved?

I'm not sure if this ever was resolved between them. I'll look into it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean: Since when is Peloneustes accepted as a valid genus? Or are there still some that want to lump it into the other genus? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure. The next publication that I know of regarding Peloneustes is Andrews (1895), who accepts Peloneustes without comment. Tarlo (1960) comments that Peloneustes is "well established in the literature" which leads me to guess that Seeley was the only one to question its validity. It seems like it would be pertinent to mention that Seeley's claims didn't catch on, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many species have been referred to Peloneustes throughout its history. – Maybe state right away how many of them are valid now.

Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peloneustes belongs to the latter group, – I would stick with "morphotype" instead of "group" here, to make clear it is not a taxon.

Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peloneustes bore an elongated skull, which sloping upwards towards its back end – something missing here. "is"?

Changed from sloping to slopes. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it has been stated that Peloneustes had nasals, well-preserved specimens indicate that this is not the case. – Characteristic for the genus or plesiosaurs in general?

This seems to be (or have been) debated for a while - Ketchum & Benson (2011) viewed it as a practically universal condition, but others have had objecting views. I think that I may need to do a bit more research on this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lydekker considered Peloneustes to represent a traditional form between Pliosaurus and earlier plesiosaurs – "transitional"?

Oops... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

displayed a reduced level of ossification of its bones – isn't the opposite the case?

No, which is why Pachycostasaurus was so unusual. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you give information that is not necessarily accepted as general consensus, you should give author attribution (Paleontologist X stated that …). Otherwise the reader may assume you are presenting facts, when these facts in reality are singular opinions which may be contentious.

Yeah, I recently discovered that with vertebral count... besides the aforementioned nasals, are there any other incidences of this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had, in particular, the paleobiology section in mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'll have to look over that sometime. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might have more photographs if you need, will take a look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I believe that the BMNH, GPIT, and SMNS. At the moment, I don't know how much space there will be for images (I should really get around to finishing that life restoration), but it's good to know that we've got plenty. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue review once your re-write is done, to avoid reporting things you already fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The re-write only really applies to the first section, so feel free to keep critiquing the description and all below it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]