Talk:Ceratosaurus/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The day has come! I'll begin reviewing soon, some preliminary comments first. Nice you added that skull diagram, I was thinking of proposing that before you did so... FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you a few reviews by now, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the pop culture section, it is very short and it is mainly a "spot the dinosaur" affair. I won't press the issue here, but I could imagine it would be cut during FAC. In any case, probably the most famous media appearance of Ceratosaurus, One Million Years B.C., isn't even mentioned...

I am not good with pop culture sections. I added a little bit, but maybe I should remove that sentence about the novels, as they really do not seem that relevant? Or remove the whole section right away?--Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd just remove it. I was lucky that several reliable sources covered the appearance of Dilophosaurus in Jurassic Park and such, but usually this isn't available for most dinosaurs, so it is almost impossible to make a meaningful culture section without it just being a list of appearances. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some instances where the text is "sandwiched" between the images, under description and under classification. Images should preferable not be placed on the same "line", but rather be placed in a staggered fashion.

Tried to improve. Please feel free to help out, you are much better with images than I am! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think your new layout looks good, the only change I would make is to move the photo with Dryosaurus one section up, to where coexisting dinosaurs are listed... FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit arbitrary to me that the hand function is grouped with the horn and osteoderm function? The two latter seem related, though, both being bumps of bone. Perhaps give hand function its own section, perhaps there is some info on the hind leg function it could be grouped with?

Well, I thought having one paragraph on functional morphology … but sure, I splitted it. I couldn't find anything on locomotory performance or similar things though, so both sections are rather short. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe the section could just have been renamed, but well, maybe it's good to have the new section in case more is published on it in the future... FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but I was thinking the text about Proceratosaurus could be placed below the cladogram? Not the text jumps from talking about the classification of Ceratosaurus to Proceratosaurus, and then back to a cladogram only showing Ceratosaurus.

Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any issues with the anatomy in the life restoration, I can try to fix it. I already de-pronated one of its hands years ago...

Hm, I was thinking if the tail is slightly too short. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fenestrae maybe seem a bit too demarcated, but then again, as long as it is only with colour patterns and not by looking sunken in... FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Megalosaurus nasicornis is listed as a synonym in the taxobox, but the article doesn't explain under which circumstances this happened.

That was a serious hole. Stuffed it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Two skeletons, assigned to the new species C. magnicornis and C. dentisulcatus by James H. Madsen and Samuel P. Welles in a 2000 monograph" I'd think this is a bit too much circumstantial info in a paragraph about size? In any case, they were only "new" at the time...

Rewrote it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also in regard to the above sentence, if you mention those two species by name, you should name nasicornis too when you mention the type specimen.

Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is stated as fact that these are separate species in the description section, but if there are differing opinions on this, you should clarify that they have also been considered simply older specimens of nasicornis already there.
The article seems to lean towards the view that there are multiple species, I think this could maybe be avoided by using specimen numbers, quarry name, or similar outside the history section... The species names could then be listed in parenthesis after the first mention of each number, for example by saying "The larger of these, specimen UMNH VP 5278/the Cleveland-Lloyd specimen (considered to belong to the species C. dentisulcatus by these authors)". Or well, it's up to you, it would just seem more neutral.
Link ceratosaur, scapula, sacrum and probably other terms at first mentions. Other terms such as ungual could also be glossed.
You mainly use scientific terms for bones which are glossed in parenthesis, but not for centra.
"the tail was deep in lateral profile" Isn't lateral redundant here? Isn't a profile always lateral view?
"Gray Bir" Gary?
"(not ossified)" I think ossified itself would need explanation.
"The manus" Explain.
"manus retained four digits, with digit IV being reduced in size, and is very similar to" Change in tense.
"The foot" You say manys, why not pes? With gloss, of course...
Wouldn't it make more sense to describe the teeth in the premaxilla before those of the maxilla?
Perhaps explain that the finger bones are missing in the photo of that hand?
Anything on the texture of the horns? They seem very rugose.
"skull and spine had been heavily distorted" The/its skull and spine?
"is regarded one of the richest" Regarded as?
"had been rescued from" Seems a bit dramatic. Recovered/excavated from?
Marsh should be linked at first mention.
"was the at the time best-known" Was at the time the might sound better...
"alludes to the animal's prominent nasal horn" Do we know whether it specifically refewrs to only the nasal horn, or all the horns?
You don't give the etymology for nasicornis under history.
"Allosaurus specimen (referred by Gilmore to Antrodemus)" Maye a bit off tangent here?
Perhaps list what bones were missing from the type specimen?
"six supernumerary" Maybe too technical a term? Six vertebrae too many?
Since you cover the stances in early depictíons chronologically, maybe the skeletal diagram should be placed at the top of the history section, the skeleton photo moved down, and the old life restoration moved to the right?
"a significant find was not made" Maybe add "Ceratosaurus find"?
"The specimen, considered the largest Ceratosaurus specimen known" I think the secnd specimen is maybe redundant.
"the first Ceratosaurus skeleton pertaining to a juvenile" Seems to contradict the earlier statement that the type specimen itself may be a juvenile?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't genera only have type species and not type specimens? As written here, it would seem the C. nasicornis type is referred to as the type specimen of the genus.
"Ceratosaurus ingens is now believed to be a dubious carcharodontosaurid" You only present C. ignens in a subsequent sentence, but it seems like you should maybe not mention it until that point? As in after you explain Janensch may not have assigned it to Megalosaurus.
"Timothy Rowe and Jacques Gauthier mention a second" Mentioned?
"n 2000 and 2006, paleontologists around Octávio Mateus" Around seems an odd way to put it, maybe say "lead by" or similar?
"between the municipalities Lourinhã und Torres Vedras", "Im 2015," Hehe, is this article translated from German?
"who question the validity of C. dentisulcatus" Questioned?
There are a good deal of duplicate links, perhaps try this script:[1]
This should be a good deal to work with, so I'll continue the review when it's done, otherwise it might seem like an overwhelming list.

Thanks a ton for the in-depth review. I'll ping you once I am through! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

got them all now, user:FunkMonk! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, here are some comments for classification, will continue some time tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and "coelurosaurs"" Maybe this quotation mark needs some explanation? At least a link.
"Gilmore argued that the genus is not closely related to any other contemporary theropod known at that time" Was?
"merely show that Ceratosaurus nasicornis was a distinct species but are insufficient to justify a distinct genus" Maybe better to use past tense here.
"that Marsh's original claim of the Ceratosauria as a distinct clade gained ground" I doubt Marsh used the term clade, hehe... Group?
Basal and derived should be linked and explained.
I had something sightly different in mind with the image layout under history. As a general guideline, the subject of an image should "face" the text. May I try?

Got those also. Sure, please help me with the picture placement! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took a stab, and just noticed the Bond restoration is posed directly after the Marsh skeletal, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the short-snouted Allosaurus morph" Is this a reference to USNM4734, which I read somewhere might just have been reconstructed incorrectly? Some photos of the skull here:[2] Paul 1987 also distinguishes between A. atrox and A. fragilis, with the latter supposedly having a shorter skull, a statement which again seems based mainly on USNM4734.

Yes, correct. I added what I could! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now that paragraph on Allosaurus is very long, perhaps split in two? FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather keep it together, as most of it is discussing one single study. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"inside the water" Within or in? Inside seems a bit strange...
"vestigial" could be explained.
"Diplodocus is commonly found at the same sites as Apatosaurus, Allosaurus, Camarasaurus, and Stegosaurus." This sentence can probably be removed, I think it's here because I copied much of that section from the Diplodocus article...
I still see no translation of nasicornis?

I wasn't able to find a source! Do you possibly know about something? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I thought Glut would at least mention this. Can't find anything in my books, but it seems to just mean nasal horn? Casliber is good with dictionaries, perhaps he can help? FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

species name comes from Latin cornu "horn" (p. 153) and nasus "nose" (p. 387) from my copy of Cassell's latin dictionary. Cas Liber (talk ·

contribs) 14:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Added it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a pair of hornlets over the eyes" In front of?
You gloss osteoderms as "bony plates" in the intro, but as "skin bones" in the article.
Likewise with "hornlike ridges"/"hornlets".
Nothing on its feeding behaviour in the intro?
I read somewhere that the teeth of the juvenile specimen may look exceptionally long because they have partially slipped out of their sockets?

Would be an interesting addition – do you possibly remember where you read this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Headden mentions it in this blog post[3], though it isn't clear whether it is his own interpretation or if he is citing something... He does mention Britt et al., 1999, which you've already cited. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should not cite that blog post though, right? Britt et al. 1999 is just an SVP abstract, a paper has still not been published. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are usually not considered reliable enough, so let's hope that paper ever comes out... FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, user:FunkMonk, for the great review, I think the article has made a huge step forward. All minor points I not directly answered are agreed on and fixed. It feels that one gets blind for all these things when working on the same article for too long! Let me know if there are any further issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is looking really good I think, added a few comments above. After that, the article should be ready to pass (and go on to FAC). Perhaps a copy edit would be good, as none of us are native English speakers... FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if Casliber responds here today, otherwise I'll just pass the article tonight. By the way, I just lengthened the tail in the restoration a bit (the tip was cropped off for some reason), made the body deeper (following Hartman's reconstruction), and made the fenestrae less demarcated.[4] FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, good work! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Cas, will pass this now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]