Wikipedia:Peer review/Thalattoarchon/archive1

Thalattoarchon

While waiting for the article on the closely related Cymbospondylus to be fully finalized, I decided to offer for review the article on one of the most underatted prehistoric apex predators, namely Thalattoarchon. As this is an animal having been named barely ten years ago and it is only based on a single partially preserved specimen, I am considering raising this article to the GA label.

Thanks, Amirani1746 (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I won't have time to do a detailed review for a while (if that changes I'll try to post more here), but for the moment I have the following two comments; hopefully they're helpful. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• What is the source for the CC BY-SA 4.0 license for the figures from the paper? I don't see it in the source publication, though sometimes these things are somewhat hidden
• Since the classification's controversial, perhaps the parent taxon in the taxobox should be changed to Ichthyosauria?

• Hello Slate Weasel, it is true that regarding the classification of Thalattoarchon, we could limit it to the Ichthyosauria, but it is better to leave it in the Merriamosauria, because that is what the most recent studies consider it to be (see Sander et al., 2021). Regarding the first statement, what is the type of problem and can you explain it to me in more detail ? Amirani1746 (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

For the classification, I'd disagree that we can conclusively say that Cymbospondylidae is off the table; Bindellini et al. (2021) [1] used a different dataset and recovered such a placement, and this study is less than a year older than Sander et al. (2021). With regards to the licensing, what I mean is: where in the publication does it say that the figures are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Slate Weasel, the figures are authorized via articles published under PubMed Central. Knowing that the article in question was also published under PubMed Central, I did not hesitate to transfer the figures to Wikipedia and indicate where they came from. Amirani1746 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Amirani1746, sorry for the late reply, but where does it say that the paper is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0? The article was not published through PubMed Central, but by PNAS; just because PMC was authorized to host it doesn't necessarily mean that we can. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Slate Weasel, I just published the images from the PMC, on PNAS nothing indicates this. Amirani1746 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Are the figures on PMC licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 though? I cannot find any declaration of what license they're published under. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Slate Weasel, Technically they are also supposed to be copyright free, right? I mean, that's what Lythronaxargestes did for main picture of the article about Euchambersia. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless something is explicitly stated to be public domain (or old enough that the copyright's expired), we cannot assume that it is copyright-free. In the case of Euchambersia, the following text is present at the end of the article:

© 2022 The Authors.

Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

Whereas for the Thalattoarchon description, I cannot find a statement of licensing; though the PMC version links to the PMC Copyright notice. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late Slate Weasel, but in the PNAS describing Thalattoarchon, i've seen this : © copyright

I this authorised or not so ? Amirani1746 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless the article is explicitly stated to be published under a compatible license (such as CC BY or CC BY-SA), we have to assume that the publication are not freely licensed. Unfortunately I don't think we can upload the figures in this case. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Slate Weasel, i've also seen this in the PNAS article : Copyright © 2023 National Academy of Science. All rights reserved. So I still don't know if i have the autorisation... Amirani1746 (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" means that there is no authorization to upload to Commons. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Slate Weasel, so i think that these two picture i've uplooded should be taken out... Amirani1746 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Slate

I now should have time for a more in-depth review of the article (though for the record I won't be available on Dec 12), so I'll begin with some comments on the discovery section:

• "The only currently known" - This could be simplified as "The only known"
• Paleontologist should be linked
• "The imposing measurements of the fossils led paleontologists to transport the recovered material by using a helicopter and a truck out of the field." - This sentence is somewhat hard to parse, in part due to using larger words where simpler ones could be used (i.e., "imposing measurements" could be written as "large size") and in part due to how words are arranged (it would be clearer to say "...transport the recovered material out of the field by using..."). However, skimming the source this sentence is cited to, I only see reference to a truck and helicopter being used, without reference to the fossil's size being a factor in why.
• "After preparation, the specimen, cataloged as FMNH PR 3032, consists of" - Were additional elements lost/destroyed during preparation? Otherwise I don't think "After preparation" is needed here
• "all literally meaning "rulers of the seas" - not sure if this is necessary to state, and also doesn't seem to be explicitly stated in the paper
• I'd change "specific epithet" to "species name" because it's both simpler and matches with the use of "genus name" earlier in the paragraph
• "the two terms together literally meaning "lizard eater"" - Again, I'd avoid stating this unless it is explicitly said to be so in the source
• "Due to the limited volume, the anatomy of the animal is only briefly described in the main article by Nadia B. Fröbisch and colleagues, with additional anatomical descriptions being published in a secondary article." - The detailed anatomical descriptions are part of the description paper's supplementary information, not a second publication. Additionally, I'm not sure if this is really necessary to state in the article, nor does the paper seem to mention why the detailed anatomical descriptions were confined to the supplement

Overall, one thing I see a lot in this section is sentences being drawn out and using complicated words; generally, it's better to be simple and succinct when possible. Also, I must mention that some of the statements, while they seem reasonable, seem to be inferences rather than explicitly supported by the sources, which is veering into WP:OR territory. I'll try to review the description section tomorrow. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Although the only known specimen of Thalattoarchon is partially preserved" - This sounds somewhat odd to me though I'm struggling to figure out why - perhaps this statement could be moved behind the "largest known ichthyosaurs" statement?
• "having a size and morphology similar to some species of the contemporary genus Cymbospondylus." - I'd recommend splitting this information off into another sentence
• "However, due to some missing parts of this same specimen, the authors must await ongoing preparations and future discoveries to refine the estimates." - This information is already partially in the first sentence, it could probably be simplified and reworked into there
• "In 2021, Sander and colleagues propose" - should be "proposed"
• "but unlike the more derived representatives dating from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, the latter has a long, poorly developed caudal fin," - "the latter" doesn't really make sense here, I think just saying "it" would suffice
• "A trait rarely observed in representatives of the group, the animal's head is remarkably large in proportion to its body," - I'd personally recommend swapping this around so it reads "The animal's head is remarkably large in proportion to its body, a trait rarely observed in representatives of the group".
• "the size of the skull being estimated at 1.2 meters (3.9 ft) long" - This could probably be turned into its own sentence
• "a characteristic suggesting that it fed on large prey" - This information belongs in the paleobiology section
• "the latter" - I think this should be "the rest"
• "and each have sclerotic rings" - Should be changed to "and have sclerotic rings" or "and each contain a sclerotic ring", since there is only one ring per orbit. Would also be good to provide a brief explanation of what a sclerotic ring is
• "but entirely surrounding the pineal foramen" - Not sure why "but" is used here, also, "surround" usually implies "completely surround", perhaps could probably be written as "The frontal bones are smaller, forming the anteromedial edge of the superior temporal fenestrae and surrounding the pineal foramen."
• "but apparently lacks teeth when it reaches the latter" - I think "but apparently lacks teeth on its rearmost part" is closer to what you are trying to say here
• "a front tooth in the mandible" - What does "front tooth" mean in this context?
• "The teeth of Thalattoarchon would also have been adapted for cutting prey." - Again, this is a paleobiological interpretation and therefore would go under paleobiology
• "the pre-sacral spine" - I'd use "vertebrae" or "column" here to avoid confusion with neural spines
• "Large facets for the haemal arches, or chevrons, are present on the anterior cervical vertebrae" - I assume this should be caudal, not cervical?
• "The acetabulum of this bone" -> "The acetabular end of this bone"? Replacing this with something along the lines of "The end of this bone participating in the hip socket" would probably clearer for the average reader
• "is similar to that of Cymbospondylus, but its dorsal portion tapers to a point, meaning that the latter had only a weak connection with the sacral ribs" - This is almost identical to what's written in the paper: "but the dorsal portion tapers to a point, suggesting a weak connection with the sacral ribs"; further paraphrasing is necessary for this to be acceptable. Additionally, "the latter" here would refer to Cymbospondylus, not Thalattoarchon.
• "Thus, the hind limbs and the pelvic girdle are proportionally small" - "Thus" is not needed here because you have not made any previous mention of pelvis or hind limb size

One thing I've noticed in this section is that you have used a lot of technical terms. That's okay (it's pretty much impossible not to in the description), but you should either provide definitions or context when possible (i.e., with the lacrimals and jugals, you just mention their general shape without mentioning where they are in the skull, meaning that this information is not particularly useful to the lay). Additionally, I notice that you use the phrase "the latter" a lot, but frequently when you seem to be referring to the first of two things, for which "the former" would be more appropriate. I don't know whether I'll be able to do any reviewing tomorrow, but I hope to be back for the classification section on Wednesday. Hopefully these comments have been helpful so far. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Slate Weasel, thanks for beggining the review. I've corrected all things based on almost all the comments you have made so far. Please note that as I am French, I obviously have some flaws when I translate some of the work on French Wikipedia. Amirani1746 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're worried about writing errors, requesting a copy edit at WP:GOCER is always an option (I've done this in the past and found it helpful). The improvements look good for the most part, though I would recommend making the following changes:

• A couple things in discovery that I missed in my first round:
  • "Zone" shouldn't be italicized in "Taylori Zone"
  • Would be good to mention who described and named it
• "Paleontologists estimates the size of Thalattoarchon" - would be good to say "Fröbisch and colleagues" or "The describing team" here rather than just "paleontologists"
• "the authors must await ongoing preparations and future discoveries to refine the estimates" - This still sounds kind of odd to me, almost like the authors need to be actively restrained from refining the estimates, perhaps ""the authors mentioned that the esimate could be revised when more is known about the animal" would sound better?
• "but the dorsal portion tapers to a point, suggesting a weak connection with the sacral ribs" - This is now identical to how it is written in the supplement; it needs to be paraphrased.

As for classification:

• "in 2013, Thalattoarchon is classified" - Should be "was" not "is"
• "but recovered in an unresolved polytomy with Besanosaurus, Californosaurus and Toretocnemus." - This does not match what is recovered in the paper at all
• "This classification was generally accepted and retained in several phylogenetic analyzes concerning ichthyosaurs published from 2016 until 2021" - None of these studies actually mention Thalattoarchon in prose, so I'd hesitate to say that this placement was "widely accepted". Additionally, all but one of these cited studies just used variations of the same matrix as Ji et al., so saying "from 2016 until 2021" is kind of misleading; as unless something drastically changes if this matrix is hypothetically used again in some future study (which seems highly probable), it will probably recover that result again.
• "In 2017, Benjamin C. Moon provisionally reclassified Thalattoarchon in the Merriamosauria, but his study proposing several cladograms for the genus, including a certain number classifying it again in the Cymbospondylidae, its positioning is then seen as not definitive." - Thalattoarchon is not mentioned in prose in this paper (and Cymbospondylidae is not mentioned at all), so I'd advise stating this more neutrally; furthermore, Thalattoarchon is outside of Merriamosauria in the prefered tree, which is what Moon based his classification on. I think this could be better phrased as: "In 2017, Benjamin C. Moon ran a variety of analyses, in which Thalattoarchon was recovered in a variety of positions, namely being more closely related to later ichthyosaurs, earlier-branching than Cymbospondylus, or the sister taxon of C. nichollsi".
• "In 2021, Paul Martin Sander and his colleagues unanimously reclassified Thalattoarchon within the Merriamosauria" - What does "unanimously" mean here?
• "but this time in a position situating it as a sister taxon of the Shastasauridae" - Could be simplified as "but this time as the sister taxon of the Shastasauridae"
• Sander et al. (2021) did not mark where Ichthyosauria would be on their cladogram that I can see, and its positioning is not consistent with the definition typically employed for the group.

In summary, to be blunt, quite a bit of the classification section is not supported by the sources, and will need to be heavily revised. I'll try to review paleobiology (and maybe paleoecology as well) tomorrow. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As always Slate Weasel, i've corrected most of your objections, but when you're saying that in the soncond problem it's not "his does not match what is recovered in the paper at all" it's false. In the secondary article of Fröbisch et al. (2013), they mentionns very clearly this sentence : The parsimony-based analysis found T. saurophagis to be more derived than Mixosauridae and Cymbospondylus and represents a basal merriamosaur falling into an unresolved polytomy with Besanosaurus, Californosaurus, Toretocnemus, and more derived merriamosaurs. For the rest i have to agree with you, the classification chapter need a huge revision, and as you are a "specialist" in ichthyosaurs, you left no stone unturned to rewrite it (I would, however, take care of the structure of the sources). Amirani1746 (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The edits look good for the most part, though there are still grammatical errors (I can try to do a copyedit of the article myself once I'm finished with the review, if that's fine with you). I do seem to have missed that line in the supplement about the parsimony analysis, my apologies (only the Bayesian is discussed in the main paper). However, even then it still doesn't match what you have stated in the article ("more derived merriamosaurs" were also in the polytomy). It would also probably be good to mention that using a different method the authors found Thalattoarchon to be more derived than the three other genera. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Slate Weasel, I'm completely open with your corrections, especially if they come from experts and can improve page quality. Afterwards, I will leave the chapter "Classification" to be rewritten by yourself, because I have some difficulties fo understanding the classifications of ichthyosaurs (I would also probably need you on this subject on the expansion of the article on Cymbospondylus, as I suggested to you previously). Amirani1746 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I can help rewrite the classification section, but you will need to understand ichthyosaur classification if you wish to take this article to GAN (I unfortunately cannot really commit to a long-term collaboration right now given that I think I will be busy for much of the first half of next year). Not saying I'm unwilling to do it, I just personally find it easier to learn by doing for this sort of thing.

Here are my comments on the paleobiology and paleoecology sections:

• "Due to its teeth" - Would be good to specify which features of the teeth support it being an apex predator
• "the abundant presence of marine reptiles within the Favret Formation suggesting that the animal would have regularly attacked the latter" - This could probably be turned into its own sentence by replacing "suggesting" with "suggests". Also, "the latter" should be replaced with "them", as there's only one thing here
• "is also compared to" -> "is also comparable to"?
• "generally preferring to prey on medium-sized marine reptiles or juveniles." - I'm assuming this is about Thalattoarchon but the way it's listed in the sentence makes it sound like it's about Cymbospondylus
• "outcropping the Augusta Mountains" -> "outcropping in the Augusta Mountains"
• "The Anisian is the first of two stratigraphic stages of the Middle Triassic, spanning 247.2 to 242 million years ago." - The phrasing makes it unclear if this date is for the Anisian or mT, but since the Formations already have age ranges I don't think stating the age range of the Anisian is necessary
• "but there is however" - "but there is" would be sufficient
• "Among the fish discovered, we find the" - "we" should never be used in encyclopedic writing; "we find" could be replaced with "are" (which also removes the need for the comma)

I'll try to have the lead reviewed tomorrow. If you're looking to expand the paleobiology section, some generic ichthyosaur information could probably be added. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Slate Weasel, It's already corrected, and i'm very intersted what you will propose for improving my article. Amirani1746 (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead section:

• Not sure if saying "extinct" in the first sentence is really necessary, most of our project's recent quality articles don't say it, and it's already implied by saying it lived in the Middle Triassic
• "the authors are doubtful about the exact measurements" - "doubtful" feels a bit strong here, perhaps "uncertain" would work better
• Might be worth mentioning some more details about the teeth (i.e., shape, edges) since they're a major feature of the animal
• "Thalattoarchon certainly occupied the highest place in the food web" - I'd personally just say "Thalattoarchon is interpretted as an apex predator" or "Thalattoarchon would have been an apex predator" as this is more direct

Images:

• The images from the paper currently in the article will need to be deleted due to copyright reasons
• We have a free photo of the skull not currently used in the article that could be added: [2]
• File:Cymbospondylus and Phalarodon.jpg does not appear to have gone through WP:PALEOART review

General:

• Looking through the supplementary info of the Cymbospondylus youngorum description, I'm seeing a decent amount of paleobiological information that could be added to the article.

That's all for the moment; I'll try to do my copyedit later today or sometime tomorrow. I may have additional comments after that. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Slate Weasel, Technically I always use the term "extinct", because it's a sort of habit that I use very frequently in my French work. If you look at my GA articles that I did on Megawhaitsia and Aristonectes, this word is present from the beginning of their introduction, and it in no way spoils the quality of these articles. For the rest, I'll see what I can do. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Slate Weasel, it's been a while, whould you continue to expand the article or close the peer review ? Amirani1746 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Amirani1746, sorry for the long wait. I realize that I never really concluded my review, sorry about that too. Life has gotten very busy for me, so I cannot commit to doing more reviewing. However, I feel I have already said basically all that I wanted to say. For the future of the article, my points about glossing more anatomical terms (absolutely vital if you wish to take this article to GAN) and expanding the paleobiology section with information from the supplement of Sander et al. (2021) still stand, and I would still recommend requesting a copyedit at WP:GOCER (having someone more skilled with grammar and flow than me looking over the article I think would be helpful). If you want to close this review page, there are instructions here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines#Step 4: Closing a review. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello again Slate Weasel, thanks for the reply, I'll see what I can do later. Amirani1746 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)