Wikipedia:Peer review/Siamosaurus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Siamosaurus[edit]

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

Hi! After over a year as a sandbox draft, finally got back to working on this page and it just passed GAN today. Was planning on going straight to FAC but it's a rather long article that I've written entirely on my own so just wanna make sure I get additional extra eyes on it, in case any substantial restructuring/improvements are needed.

Many thanks, ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I still think it's a bit unnecessary this has three life restorations... I was wondering whether I should retool my restoration as some other spinosaur needing a restoration? Camarillasaurus perhaps? Or even Sigilmassasaurus, though the current proportions would fit better for a more basal, long-legged, non-paddle tailed spinosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And on that note, would it make sense to have a hypothetical size comparison image here? There are estimates in the article after all... FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, starting work on one, I think a size chart should be ok since the article gives context about how fragmentary it is. There's many estimates after all and Dromaeosauroides also has one. Perhaps the restoration in palaeoenvironment[1] could be used in the description, with the sauropod feeding one put in its place? Then something else could go in palaeobiology, such as a diagram of a more complete spinosaurid skull[2], which would be helpful for readers in regards to anatomy since no skull remains are known. I think Camarillasaurus would be a good choice for your restoration; I agree Sigilmassasaurus is probably much too derived for the sort of anatomy displayed there. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tried something[3], how does this this look? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! I'll put my old Siamosaurus up for re-review at the dino review with retooling in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the size chart, a more tentative size estimate/silhouette can be reflected by placing a big "?" in the silhouette like in this Antarctosaurus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Much of the first paragraph under history seems like it would fit better under paleoenvironemrnt? In any case, it's a bit confusing since first deal ichthyosaurs that were later considered Simaosaurus before you present the discovery of Siamosaurus itself? I think you could just state the location and formation, and the more detailed information could be moved to paleoenvironment, but the info about the reassigned teeth (and their specimen numbers and other info?) could be mentioned further down under history, so they come in at the time they were reassigned to Siamosaurus.
 Done - Good points; done and reorganized. Also removed that note about the formation previously being believed as Late Jurassic as it's not very relevant to a taxon article. I'm struggling with how to arrange the info on the reassigned teeth however, since the range of dates (discovery of teeth, initial assignment, then reassignment/s) means there's a lot of overlap. Any suggestions on the most optimal way to structure this? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps discuss them before you start talking about the Japanese teeth? Then you get all teeth assigned from Thailand out of the way before you go on to the rest of the world and skeletal elements. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've made an attempt. How does this look? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or were the reference to those teeth completely removed from the history section? FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean? The citations or the content? As far as I can tell both are still there. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just not looking the right place, what is the new text? FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was the edit in which I rearranged the paragraphs[4] - does this help? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, always a bit hard to read those diffs, hehe. Well, that's all from me, when the rest is fixed, I'd be ready to support at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most abundant and diversified" Diverse?
 Done.
  • "The Khorat Group exhibits fossil taxa" Contains? Yields?
 Done - used "yields".
  • "fossil taxa only of continental origin, with no definitive evidence for marine fossils or sedimentary structures found so far."
 Done - (assuming taxa should be removed).
My mistake, I had misread the sentence and forgot to remove this point, you can put taxa in again! FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conclusions from that new spinosaur paper[5] should of course be mentioned under history.
 Done and also added the analysis of another paper (Fanti et al.; 2014) briefly discussing Asian spinosaurid teeth. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Illustrated holotype tooth" Illlustration of the holotype tooth?
 Done.
  • "Illustrated neural spine" Likewise?
 Done.
  • "S. suteethorni Buffetaut & Inga"vat, 1986 (type)" Why is "type" necessary when there is only one species?
 Done. - removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link the term holotype in two captions.
Links can be repeated in infoboxes and other images according to MOS:REPEATLINK. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the image showing the Sao Khua Formation in the section about Khok Kruat teeth? Maybe it would make more sense under for example aquatic habits or Diet and feeding?
 Done - yeah, no idea why I did that, haha. It's in palaeobiology now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼
  • "Restoration of Ichthyovenator, a spinosaurine from what is now Laos" Perhaps specify it has been found to be one of the most closely related genera, if that's the case?
 Done.
  • "Restoration of a generic spinosaur feeding on a sauropod carcass in the Sao Khua Formation (Kinnareemimus in the background), based on teeth belonging to Siamosaurus" I'd move the "based on teeth belonging to Siamosaurus" to earlier in the sentence, like "Restoration of a generic spinosaur, based on teeth belonging to Siamosaurus, feeding on a sauropod carcass".
 Done.
  • Like I mentioned at the dino review page, the water in the restoration seems almost toxic green, perhaps desaturate it a bit?
 Done.
  • "In 1986, a reassessment of the remains by the same authors attributed them to a new genus and species of spinosaurid theropod" Seems interesting, since Baryonyx had just been described, and wasn't even considered a spinosaurid yet. What did they base the spinosaurid classification on?
Oh, I see this is discussed under classification. Still, I wonder if the discovery of Baryonyx had any effect on Siamosaurus back then? FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked through the descriptions of Siamosaurus and Baryonyx and seems like there wasn't. Which I think may be due to the initial classification of "Baryonychidae" as separate from Spinosauridae. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The best-preserved specimen from the series" What is meant by series here? I know syntypes can be called series, but since there is a holotype here, it may be odd wording? Or what does the source say?
 Done - Switched it out with "from the teeth described" since "series" is rather ambiguous. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described a set of fossil teeth recovered from the Phu Pratu Teema locality of the Sao Khua Formation" Were they found together? And when?
Can't find the source for this (it's older than the original description), so I've put in a request at WP:RX. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sculptures of the animal have been erected in various places across northeastern Thailand" Could be nice if we had a photo!
 Done - Actually been trying to find photos of those sculptures ever since I started working on my draft. After a ton of digging I finally managed to get some screenshots from CC-licensed videos including two of the models. Just added them to the article! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Perhaps add the freedom of panorama in Thailand tag I added to the image you formerly had there:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot about that,  Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add inaccurate palaeoart tags too? FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe say assigned instead of referred throughout, to avoid confusion for layreaders?
 Done.
  • "Thailand's Khok Kruat Formation assumes" Can a formation assume? Is assumed to be?
 Done - Changed to "is dated to", with some additional rephrasing. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "upwards process on the top of the vertebrae" Well, the vertebra includes it, so I'm not sure it is on top of it, but maybe say "processes that extends upwards from the top of the vertebrae?
 Done - Changed to "upwards-extending process from top of vertebra". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though this could also represent evidence of scavenging" Peculiar possibility, anything more about this?
Unfortunately not. It is of note however that the Khok Kruat specimen has appears to have been tentatively referred to Siamosaurus in its exhibit at the Sirindhorn Museum, seen in these photos[7][8][9], which I could maybe use as reference to illustrate more of the skeleton or perhaps even make a skeletal. Samathi et al. (2019) also figures the pubis. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2004, Don Lessem" Present him as you do others?
 Done.
  • " In 2005, Sussana Davidson and colleagues" Likewise?
 Done.
  • "Skeletal diagram and estimated size of "Phuwiang spinosaurid B" compared to a human" Perhaps state it may be the same animal as Siamosaurus?
 Done.
  • "According to the authors, this dramatic size range suggests the teeth are from individuals of different ages. [1]" Why not just from different parts of the jaw? Also, there's an unnecessary space before the citation.
 Done - This is not suggested in this particular source, so I included some info about how this can also be due to variation in the tooth row from some other sources (in a way that avoids WP:SYNTH of course), let me know if that looks good. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why spell out Siamosaurus suteethorni every time it is mentioned? Shouldn't S. suteethorni or Siamosaurus be enough after first mention?
 Done.
  • Likewise with "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis. "S." fusuiensis?
 Done.
  • "the Japan specimen having" Japanese?
 Done.
  • "Like the Thailand and Japan teeth" Likewise?
 Done.
  • "on each face of "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis teeth" Each of the?
 Done.
  • "these flutes are of varied lengths" Vary in length?
 Done.
  • "Buffetaut and colleagues most likened the "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis teeth to those of Siamosaurus" Found them most similar to?
 Done.
  • You say lateral for the first time under classification, so readers who have read the description and don't know that term may be confused. Perhaps you should just replace all directional terms with more common terms.
 Done.
  • "closest taxon in dentition to Siamosaurus was Spinosaurus" I think it could be mentioned that Spinosaurus itself was also very badly known, and what they compared with, Stromer's plates? Perhaps say "was Spinosaurus from Egypt, whose fragmentary fossils had been destroyed during WW2" or such.
 Done.
  • "based on the close similarities in dentition to Spinosaurus aegyptiacus." You should spell out the binomial at first mention of Spinosaurus, shouldn't be necessary after that.
 Done.
  • "placed Siamosaurus as an indeterminate theropod" Considered?
 Done.
  • "a redescription of the genus' validity" Not sure validity can be described, say reassessment?
 Done.
  • "Likewise, British palaeontologist Thomas Arden and colleagues resolved Siamosaurus" Is this the correct way to use resolved?
 Done.
  • I did some edits to the PLOS image[10], main things were removing one hand to make the pronation less obvious, removed dorsal spikes, made the tail a bit thicker, gave it a crest which we had somehow overlooked it didn't have, and some other minor things.
Thanks! Looks much cleaner now overall. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate the thorough review! Answered most suggestions so far, with some questions/comments. In addition to the suggestions listed, I also found some more free images useful for the article, including another geological map and a picture of one of the referred vertebrae (possibly from the Khok Kruat skeleton?) that I took a screenshot of from a CC-licensed video. Also did some additional rearranging of the image layout to hopefully be more optimal, let me know how that looks. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new image layout looks much less crammed! FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it premature to add some description of the skeletal elements?
 Done - I've added details only for the Khok Kruat skeleton, since it's been suggested as belonging to Siamosaurus in more sources and was found near teeth belonging to the genus. Whereas "Phuwiang spinosaurid B" is much more tentatively suggested as representing S. suteethorni, and only in Samathi's dissertation. I've also cut down most of the description on that second tooth from Japan (which was referred only to Spinosauridae indet. instead), and kept some info just for comparison purposes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the locations of the two maps should be swapped, since the lower one seems to more clearly show exact places mentioned in the history section?
 Done.
  • "feeding on a sauropod carcass in the Sao Khua Formation" Perhaps add "environment" as in the other restorations, as this is not in the formation as such...
 Done.
  • "Buffetaut and Ingavat suggested in 1986 that Siamosaurus probably led a heavily piscivorous (fish-eating) lifestyle" That's pretty interesting, so they did so without any reference to Baryonyx? I think you could add that this diet was confirmed the same year with Baryonyx.
 Done.
  • "He notes that this likely" Why change to present tense?
 Done.
  • Do we know where the various tooth specimens would have been located in the jaws?
Was wondering about that before but unfortunately not, so a skeletal like that at Dromaeosauroides is not possible. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "compared the oxygen isotope ratios of spinosaurid teeth from various localities, including Thailand and China, with those of turtles" But turtles don't have teeth?
 Done - changed to "remains". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sauropod remains in association with tooth crowns from Siamosaurus, documenting either predation or scavenging on part of the latter." Seems the PLOS restoration is based on that? Perhaps interesting to note, but it doesn't seem the paper makes the connection?
Yeah, a bit strange, since they cite the paper that describing these finds, but don't go any further than that. It's why I included "based on teeth belonging to Siamosaurus" in the restoration caption. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more humid Phu Kradung Formation; dated to the Berriasian." Not sure this is the correct use of semicolon? Perhaps if you said "this formation is dated to the Berriasian", or just make it a comma.
 Done - made it a comma. Shows how little I know about using semicolons, haha. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(meaning "Siamese lizard")" The article body only indictes it would mean Siam lizard?
 Done - Seems like Wikipedia (and replica sites) is the only place that refers to it as such as well, fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is unclear if two partial spinosaurid skeletons" Yet to be determined?
 Done.
  • "Since it is a tooth taxon" could say "since it is based on teeth" to make it easier for layreaders.
 Done.
  • "similar to that of teeth from". Maybe just similar to teeth from?
 Done.
  • "questioned by many palaeontologists" By some? A bit strong.
 Done.
  • "confidently classed as a dinosaur." Classified?
 Done.
  • "who agree that the teeth are spinosaur in origin" that the teeth belonged to spinosaurids?
 Done.
  • "Isotope analysis of spinosaurid teeth indicates they may have had semiaquatic habits. Siamosaurus' role as a partially piscivorous predator may have reduced the prominence of some contemporaneous crocodilians competing for the same food sources." Shouldn't this come before the environment info in the intro, reflecting the article structure?
 Done.
  • Alright, when that last source you say you're waiting for is added, I can insta support at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't able to get the ref at Resource Request. Seems to be a pretty obscure one. So I've just emailed Buffetaut requesting a copy. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't gotten a reply about the source yet but I think I'm ready to nominate this for FAC anyways. Maybe I'll hear back from Buffetaut during the review but even if not I don't think the paper should be too necessary anyways. Are you alright with me closing the peer review, FunkMonk? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unless Dunkleosteus77 has more to say at this stage? FunkMonk (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • I think the lead is far too large for an article of this size. For the first paragraph, instead of the 3rd and 4th sentences, you could just say "It is unclear if 2 partial spinosaurid skeletons from Thailand and isolated teeth from China and Japan also belong to Siamosaurus"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look at similarly-sized dinosaur articles and that does seem to be the case. Did some edits and managed to shrink it down a good bit[11], is this better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Siamosaurus/archive1&oldid=961839506"