Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corythoraptor[edit]

I want to get this to GA, but I'm not too sure what to include in a dinosaur article. Specifically, there were 2 paragraphs in the original description talking about skull anatomy and that entire part was basically left out of the article. Also I'm not sure what else I should include here based off of what is known about other oviraptorids (like should breeding behavior go in here? Evolution?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, will have a closer look later. Well, there is one oviraptorid FAC that could be used as template for what to include, Nemegtomaia. I don't think you'd have to go too much into details about reproduction unless that paper does, I only did so for Nemegtomaia because it was relevant, as one nesting specimen is known. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is also more info and a couple of extra images in the supplemental pdf as well as fig 4[1] that could be useful. Personally, I'd split the taxobox image into three separate images (it is very cluttered, a result of the journal wanting to save space I guess), seems the article has room for it. I can help with this if it's difficult. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

  • Looks to be an easy one! I searched a bit but could not find anything apart from the first description. What could be included, however, are the geometric morphometric results of the Ma et al. 2020 study, see their supplemental material: PDF, page 20. Would be not more than a sentence I think.
  • The exact age should be stated in the text. The taxonbox gives Maastrichtian, but the paper gives Campanian-Maastrichtian.
  • The oviraptorid diversity (the key point of the paper) is barely mentioned (one sentence in Classification which is a bit misplaced there); maybe include a dedicated paragraph under Paleoecology.
  • Suggest to rename "Paleoecology" into "Paleoenvironment" which is more precise.
  • Information on the pectoral and pelvic girdle is missing.
What specifically would I add? It seems to just be describing a saurischian pelvis   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is always a bit subjective. But generally the whole description states not general features of the saurischian pelvis but mostly those that can be expected to be variable in oviraptorids (i.e., different in at least one other oviraptorid genus). You could argue to leave these parts out because there are no autapomorphies, but you do not restrict yourself to autapomorphies in the remainder of the description. Maybe the length-to-width ratio of the ischium and pubis is interesting; the lower end of the pubis is concave; the ends of the ischia not fused; stuff like this. Always good to state the relevance of that feature also (e.g., in contrast to the condition in Nomingia).
But I just see you already have it inside, under "Limbs" where I didn't expect it; consider naming the section "Girdles and limbs".
I personally also would add a bit more detail about the holotype skeleton; which parts are preserved and which are hidden from view and can thus not be studied; this gives the reader unfamiliar with paleontology a better impression. Also the mere fact that the sternum is present could be mentioned as this bone is not commonly preserved in dinosaurs, and very often missing from the skeletons you see in museums. But depends on you, the most important information seems to be present already.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to write "and colleagues" instead of the technical "et al." so that everybody understands it.
  • Important: We need to use author attribution for all statements that could potentially be questioned (i.e., "Lü and colleagues suggested that …"). We have to make clear that these are hypothesis proposed by a single paper, not established knowledge. Also, further research may need to be added in the years to come, and it will be barely possible to see who said what when we do not use author attribution.
  • I agree with FunkMonk regarding the picutres; would make it look much better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edmontosaurus mummy SMF R 4036[edit]

The second of the famous dinosaur "mummies". Any comments would be greatly appreciated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are pretty good after all! I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we now have two mummy articles, I wonder if the first image caption should be more descriptive than just "The Edmontosaurus mummy, top view". Perhaps mention and link genus name, museum and specimen number there? Since there isn't an infobox, that could be a substitute for such basic info.
Same could maybe be done for the first image in Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060 to distinguish the two? FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " by the Sternberg family" Perhaps introduce them by saying they were a family of commercial fossil collectors or something?
  • "had discovered the famous Trachodon mummy" and right after" as well as the famous Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060" makes it unclear that you are talking about the same specimen (unless the links are clicked), could be consistent.
  • "two of which were also acquired by the Senckenberg Museum." At this point you haven't mentioned or linked that museum before. So perhaps this could be presented better (now it is only linked in the third paragraph).
  • "The SMF R 4036 mummy comes" I wonder whether you should wait with using this number until it is sold in the "story", for the sake of chronology?
  • "by the local Lon Galbreath" The local what? Was he also a fossil hunter?
  • "to a height of 1.2 meters" Conversions for this and other measurements?
  • "offered the fossil Fritz Drevermann" To?
  • "head of the paleontology department of the Naturmuseum Senckenberg" Mention country?
  • "invented at the Senckenberg museum" Should museum be capitalised here?
  • "Dubbed "duckbill" by the museum" Maybe fun to add the German term?
  • "a newly built cellar, the "Trachodon cellar"" You don't mention anywhere it was originally classified as Trachodon (making this name confusing), I think this and subsequent change in nomenclature could be explained, as it is in detail in the AMNH mummy article.
  • Made me reread this in the AMNH article: " the famous holotype specimen of Trachodon mirabilis (AMNH 5730)" But isn't that copei? mirabilis is teeth?
  • Since this is also about a Sternberg specimen shipped to Europe, perhaps mention those lost specimens you also covered in the AMNH article?
  • Slightly related, while looking at articles for this review I just noticed we don't have any photos of the E. annectens holotype for some reason, but just found these two[2][3] on Flickr I'll upload to Commons soon...
  • "to that of the AMNH 5060 mummy of the American Museum" museum already presented in former section, perhaps redundant here too?
  • "Most of the skin impressions had been separated from the skeleton during preparation." Were instead of "had been"?
  • Edmontosaurus annectens links to the genus rather than the species here.
  • "speculated that trachodons" Maybe use another term here?
  • "refuted by Robert Bakker" Link his name.
  • Phil Manning gets no occupation presentation, same with some others (including Bakker).
  • "and suggested that this could have reflected the original posture of the living animal — in contradiction with skeletal mounts of the time, which often showed more erect limbs." You may want to note that this is also considered inaccurate today.
  • "German paleobotanist Richard Kräusel" You don't really give nationalities for people mentioned until this point.
  • Die Nahrung von Trachodon needs an author.
  • "Uhl hypothesized that the mass of plant remains could have formed after most of the body cavity had already been filled with sand by the action of a river, leaving a chamber that acted as a sediment trap where the fine plant detritus suspended in the water accumulated." Very long sentence, maybe split before the part about the chamber? Like "this would have left a chamber" or similar.
  • "and have not been recorded by the Sternbergs" I think "were not recorded" would seem more natural.
  • "position like the Trachodon mummy" Confusing change in name again.
  • "SMF R 4036 is one of the four best preserved hadrosaurid mummies, and was the second to be discovered.[2]" Only stated in intro.
  • Was this the first time the keratinous beak covering was found preserved in a dinosaur (or at least hadrosaur)?
  • This article[4] by Darren Naish on hadrosaur beaks mentions an ovelooked paper, which was apparently the first time the keratinous beak was described: Versluys, J. 1923. Der Schädel des Skelettes von Trachodon annectans im Senckenberg-Museum. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 38, 1-19.
    • Great thanks, I see I have the 1921 conference paper from him about the same topic, including drawings of the beak which I think are now public domain (he died in 1939), so I can upload those as well. Will get to this and your other points soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel[edit]

So far all of my comments focus on the taphonomy section:

  • "This sandstone contains fine layers of plant material and charcoal, which indicate the occurrence of wild fires." Do the "fine layers of plant material" also indicate wildfires? If so, it might be good to explain why.
  • "The body cavity of the mummy contained fossils such as plant remains, leave impressions," leaf impressions?
  • "the skin would not adhere closely to the bone, but rather trace the original body contour" Maybe change to "the skin did not adhere closely to the bone, but rather traced the original body contour"?
  • "Phil Manning stated in 2008 that the quick sand hypothesis" -> "quicksand hypothesis"
  • I may post comments regarding other sections later on. Hopefully these were helpful (I think that this is only the second time that I've done an article review of any sort). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly a good place to start, since there are no technical obligations as in a GA or FAC review. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments so far! They were very helpful; there are so many things that you just don't see if you have written the text by yourself. Always good to have more eyes on it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tatenectes[edit]

I've written almost the entire article here in just eight days after a bit of a hiatus. Are there any outstanding errors or omissions? I don't have any specific area of the article that I'm super-concerned about, so feel free to comment on any aspect of it! Image-wise, it's currently pretty sparse, but I plan to rectify that relatively soon. Also, is this worthy of GAN? I look forward to your feedback! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'd like to see in the description is a separation of diagnostic characteristics from other anatomical features (you don't need a separate section or anything, just spell it out in the text), and maybe comparisons to the anatomy of close relatives. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to do this in the first paragraph, does it read okay? If so, I'll apply similar context to the other paragraphs. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great organization. Please go ahead! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the task, hopefully it doesn't sound too repetitive. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly fine. In the axial skeleton paragraph, I think the cervical characters would work better as a single sentence separated by semicolons. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this: "Many features of the cervical vertebrae can be used to identify this genus; the cervical centra (vertebral bodies) are considerably shorter (in length) than wide, and are not constricted in the middle; the articulations for the cervical ribs are short but pronounced; the articular faces of the cervical vertebrae are round and weakly defined; the subcentral foramina (two small openings on the underside of the centrum) of the cervical vertebrae are positioned further apart than typical in related plesiosaurs." read coherently enough, or should I throw in more transitions? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change the first semicolon to a colon and it should be fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

  • The subcentral foramina (two small depressions on the underside of the centrum) – A foramen is an opening, not a depression.
  • Tatenectes had sixteen dorsal vertebrae, which, when articulated, do not form a strong arch – I would add what the relevance of this is (the reader may wonder why a strong arch could be assumed): "considerably flatter as in other cryptoclidids" for example.
    •  Done
  • The posterior regions of the coracoids are much thinner than the rest of the pectoral girdle. – The source states that the posterior ends are unknown?
    • The posterior ends are indeed unknown, but this just describes the posterior region. To quote the source: "However, the posterior-most portion of the pectoral girdle of UW 24215 is greatly reduced in thickness, indicating that a complete coracoid could not be much longer than what is preserved in this specimen." --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the description, you inconsistently use singular and plural forms for bones: For example, "the ischia", but one sentence later "gracile ilium". We usually stick with singular also for the paired bones, but the decision is yours of course; it should just be consistent.
  • In 2009, O'Keefe and Street considered that utilizing the name "Cimoliasauridae" for this group was a poor choice due to Cimoliasaurus actually belonging to a different group, Elasmosauridae. – I would write "because they found C. actually belonging to …" to mark it as an opinion, not a fact.
  • Pachyostosis, as seen in Tatenectes, is unusual among plesiosaurs, and only a handful of genera – the source states there is only one other pachyostotic plesiosaur?
    • It's unclear, as the source states: "Currently, Pachycostasaurus dawni Cruickshank et al., 1996, is one of the few plesiosaurs described as exhibiting some degree of pachyostosis." which would imply that there are more than just two? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I looked at the wrong source (the O'Keefe 2011 paper) which states that there is only one other species. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, together with the unsually flat body shape, would have increased the stability of Tatenectes when swimming close to the surface in shallow water. Tatenectes would have been more resistant to turbulance, particularly roll, than other plesiosaurs. – better mark this as an hypothesis rather than a fact, and attribute it directly to the authors.
  • lung deflation could also have been used as ballast by Tatenectes – you mean "to control buoyancy"?
  • In addition to pachyostosis, lung deflation could also have been used as ballast by Tatenectes. Plesiosaurs also could gain negative buoyancy through lung deflation, helping them dive – repetitive
  • While it has been proposed that these could have been used for ballast or buoyancy control, further studies indicate that a digestive function is more probable.[7] – For controversial statements like these I would not cite a Master's thesis. See the works of Oliver Wings on gastroliths.
    • I've found the publication, it's a very interesting read! I'll add the information either today or tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an ideal environment for this plesiosaur. – I suggest to remove this; it can be assumed but we simply don't know; it doesn't say anything.
    •  Done
  • consider adding age range (in mya) to the taxonbox.
    • I can't seem to find any age more specific than "Oxfordian" for the Redwater Shale Member. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just meant giving the age range in mya as well (i.e., the temporal range of the Oxfordian), just that the general reader unfamiliar with the geologic time scale knows how old it is. Also for consistency, as it is usually included in the taxonboxes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the range, but does a source need to be cited? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just the range of the Oxfordian, then no. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent article, and it is difficult to find any issues. Certainly ready for WP:GAN. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I almost certainly will proceed with GAN once we're done here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also did some copy edits; please just revert anything that you disagree with. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only changed the wording about the loss of the holotype a bit to improve the flow of text. Thanks for the copyedits! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soonish! Length and subject-wise, it could certainly warrant a GA. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image-wise, while you said you're working on it (size comparison and restoration I guess), the current taxobox image[5] could perhaps get a more specific link to the source than just the author's name? And I assume there must be more old public domain images?
    • Only an illustration of some phalanges from Knight (1900). He was rather concise in its description, perhaps excessively so. The paddle comes from Mehl's paper, which is on Commons. I'll improve the description page there. The size chart's on the PALEOART page, it probably could be added. I've also redrawn the restored pelvis from O'Keefe et. al. (2011). I'm thinking of trying to make a restoration, too. A Megalneusaurus picture might go in paleoenvironment, too. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taxobox image:  Done
Seems the phalanx image may be a good addition then, if that's some of the few images published of the holotype? FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that it's PD due to age (1900 in USA)? I'm not too familiar with uploading PD-old images... is there anything one would need to do when uploading such files? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, anything published in the US before 1923 is PD, so should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it could be stated which specimens are depicted (for example mention it's the holotype for the paddle). FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Is the information conveyed in the file description sufficient? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Might want to link terms and names in the captions too. FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, should I remove the later links in the text body? Also, just as a note, I've begun work on the life restoration, first draft should be ready soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only duplinks within the article text if there are any, the captions are a separate text so to speak. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have many good photos of complete Cryptoclidus skeletons (a close relative according to the cladogram), could perhaps be shown under classification to give an idea of how the whole thing might have looked?
    • Sounds like a good idea. It's a shame that we don't have any Aristonectes photos... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just read the history section, and it seems quite good, but I wonder if it could be stated specifically what the genus and specific names refer to? It is kind of obvious, but might be good to state explicitly if the sources do.
    •  Partly done (Knight didn't give an etymology) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "noting that Cimoliosaurus was a wastebasket taxon" Did he really use that term? I thought it was a bit of a neologism?
    • Mehl stated: "In the past Cimoliosaurus Leidy has been made a sort of catch-all for the remains of imperfectly known plesiosaurs." So not exactly, but this definitely is very close to "catch-all taxon," listed as a synonym on wastebasket taxon. Should I change it to something else? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe make "catch-all" a link to wastebasket taxon? FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably less 3.7 meters" Less than?
    •  Done
  • "The squamosals are tall" I think you should identify this as a bone of the skull and where it is located at the beginning of the sentence, as many readers probably wouldn't know.
    •  Done added "bones located at the rear of the skull" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a "plesiosauromorph" plesiosaur" Could be explained what this means?
    • "As a "plesiosauromorph" plesiosaur, Tatenectes would have had an elongated neck, small head, and longer humeri than femora." Does this not sufficiently describe what a plesiosauromorph body type is? What do you recommend be added? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more what does it mean in itself, something that it is similar to Plesiosaurus, or how? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term "plesiosauromorph" is used to refer to the characteristic body plan small head + long neck, while the term "pliosauromorph" refers to large head + short neck forms. Can be described as ecomorphological grades. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be clarified more somehow? I wonder if lay readers would be able to make the connection, perhaps state in parenthesis (characteristic features of plesiosaurids as opposed to the short necks and larger heads of most pliosaurids) or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, only wondering whether this info is in the paper cited, or if we need another citation too to source the distinction? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Richards (2011): "There are two basic plesiosaur body types, plesiosauromorphs and pliosauromorphs (Fig.1.1). Plesiosauromorphs are plesiosaurs that possessed long necks consisting of at least 28 cervical vertebrae, relatively small heads, and humeri that are larger than the femura. Pliosauromorphs are plesiosaurs that had short necks made up of 13 to 28 cervical vertebrae, relatively large heads, and femura that are larger than the humeri" I think that this should be sufficient to indicate that the distinction's based on those three features. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very good then. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cervical, dorsal, sacral, and caudal vertebrae could be explained (that they are in the neck or back, etc.).
    •  Done
  • "Tatenectes had sixteen dorsal vertebrae, which, when articulated" and "Tatenectes had unusually large gastralia (belly ribs) for its size that exhibit pachyostosis (thickening)." It is a bit confusing that you change tense throughout the description section. Personally I'd keep them in past tense, but if you use present, it should just be consistent.
    •  Done I usually use present tense since the bones (generally) still exist. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were an additional two bones in the lower arm" there were two additional bones? The change from singular to plural is a bit jarring.
    •  Done
  • "Tatenectes had six carpals" Explain what a carpal is.
    •  Done
  • "Further studies have recovered Tatenectes as a member of Cryptoclididae, where it is still found to be a close relative of Kimmerosaurus, in addition to Cryptoclidus.[9]" You cite one study for the claim "further studies" Perhaps just state who found this and when?
In that case, I'd just cite all those studies too after the sentence. The problem was saying "many studies say this" while only citing one source, how can that be verified by a single citation? FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, cited two more. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aristonectes and Kaiwhekea, however, are now thought to be derived elasmosaurids known as aristonectines" Likewise, this is stated as fact, when you should instead say someone found this position and when. Cladograms are generally very unstable, so they should always be taken with a grain of salt...
    • As with above, this has been found by multiple studies. Should I cite more sources here? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd be more specific and say this and this study has found this position, that'll lave no ambiguities. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is recovered even more than cryptoclidid Tatenectes, so I've just done the same thing as above. I don't think anyone currently regards aristonectines as non-elasmosaurids. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was not a bottom feeder like some other plesiosaurs" Like they are thought to be? I don't think it is anything like a fact yet?
    • To quote O'Keefe et. al. (2011): "There is no evidence to suggest that Tatenetes was a bottom feeder, unlike the elasmosaur fossils described by McHenry et al.(2005), whose gut contents primarily comprised benthic macroinvertebrates such as mollusks and echinoderms." I've changed it to "unlike what is hypothesized for some other plesiosaurs"
Then maybe state specifically "as some elamosaurs are known to have been based on their gut content", just so the reader knows it's based on tangible evidence. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, changed to "unlike some elasmosaurids as indicated by their stomach contents" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many invertebrates are known from the Sundance Formation. Among them are" Does this need to be two sentences?
    •  Done
  • Any idea how the holotype was lost?
    • No, unfortunately. O'Keefe & Wahl (2003) don't seem to elaborate on this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on stomach contents, Tatenectes would have fed on cephalopods and hybodont sharks" What kind of stomach contents? And in which specimens?
    • I don't have access to Wahl (2005), so I'm not sure which specimen had the hybodont. What exactly do you mean by "What kind of stomach contents?" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like is it bones, scales, teeth? Does it seem digested? Do you have the full citation for Wahl 2005, then we can maybe find it? FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wahl, William R. (2005). "A hybodont shark from the Redwater Shale Member, Sundance Formation (Jurassic), Natrona County, Wyoming". Paludicola. 5: 15–19.
As for belemnites, it looks like the preserved remains are hooklets. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this it? Just found it by googling: https://fdocuments.in/document/a-hybodont-shark-from-the-redwater-hybodont-shark-from-the-redwater-shale-member.html FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that should be it for me!
    • Thanks for the feedback! Additionally, when researching for your comments, I found a relevant paper for paleoenvironment ([6]), so I may change how some of that section's written. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since this is kind of a test case, I also wonder whether you think the review was too nitpicky, or if it serves the purpose you expected, or any other comment, like a review of the reviews, so we can see if this is the right way to go. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that paper really didn't change things as much as I anticipated. As for specificity, the review was definitely helpful. I wouldn't mind less or more precision, although perhaps others have some input? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking again, how many sections are we thinking of having out at once? If we're expecting to have >20 sections out at the same time, then more brevity may not be a bad thing if we want the page to load easily! If we're thinking of only having 5-10 sections at once, I think that this level's probably fine. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also brought this issue up at the end of this section. I don't think we would want to sacrifice useful comments to save space or want to restrict how many nominations we can have, but not sure how we could circumvent length issues without transclusion. I guess we can only tell after some time how long this page will get, we're kind of making up the rules as we go along anyway... But compared to the image review at least, it doesn't seem so long. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny coincidence, I just saw a new cryptoclidid paper is out with a new cladogram[7], doesn't seem too different from the one you use, but perhaps worth a look. I can send it to you. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I don't think that it will change the article all that much, but it could be useful if I work on cryptoclidids again (Cryptoclidus itself may be worth a shot sometime!). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... this actually appears to be the first time that Tatenectes, Kimmerosaurus, and Cryptoclidus don't form a clade, and it's Tricleidus this time occupying Cryptoclidus' former spot. Perhaps the mention of Cryptoclidus in the text should be changed to "Cryptoclidus or Tricleidus"? Tricleidus being the sister taxon of Tatenectes + Kimmerosaurus isn't stated in the article text, though. Would it be OR to mention this little shuffle or is a cladogram adequate for citation? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to state what the changed positions are, but interpreting what it means would be OR. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I'll keep the article as it is for now, as Cryptoclidus is still relatively closely related to Tatenectes + Kimmerosaurus in that phylogeny, and it is just one study so far. But looking closer, classic Colymbosaurinae has been found within its supposed classic sister group, intriguing! Not really relevant to the article, but it will be interesting to see where this goes. The plesiosaur navbox, however, probably should be updated sometime to reflect that the Cryptoclidinae/Muraenosaurinae distinction doesn't seem to be in wide usage anymore, I'll see if I can get around to that soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Comment: I've addressed most of the issues above, and will get to the rest as soon as I can. I have requested feedback where I was uncertain about the quality of my changes. Thanks for all the input! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd promote this now if it was at GAN, so I wonder how to proceed from here... It would seem odd if one of us quick promoted it there maybe? So we should perhaps let others do the GA review? FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a full GAN process would be best. I plan to nominate it once the life restoration passes review. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another General Comment: I believe that I've addressed most of the points listed by now, and I've gotten feedback on all but a few more recent ones. Do we want to archive this once the current reviews wrap up, or have it out open for awhile? If we archive, do we want to do it in a manner akin to the PALEOART/DINOART reviews or just make "Archive 1" and switch to "Archive 2" after 1 reaches a certain size? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You decide when to archive. I think the article is certainly ready. I don't think we need an archive here at the Paleo Review at all, since we need to copy the review to the article's talk page in any case (and that should be enough). I already amended the introduction accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also wondered how to go about with this, I think it would be nice after all with an archive here too to keep track of the history? And now that the page is growing, the edit history is of course also harder to follow, which may be why they use transcluded reviews at both FAC and the military history review. I've been thinking of pinging Gog the Mild to ask how they go about at military history A class review (since this review was inspired by that to begin with), now might be the time. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally fine with having an archive here also, it has some benefits. Regarding the transclusion: I would agree if this page stays as busy as it currently is. But maybe activity will slow down after a while, and in this case, people may not visit this page on a regular basis, and will not have each transcluded subpage on their watchlist: this means that they may miss ongoing discussions. Which would be problematic since we want to encourage collaboration. I just fear that we would get a similar situation than at GAN, where the reviews are essentially private affairs. But lets see what Gog the Mild thinks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack, FunkMonk: I kinda see where you are coming from, but I am strictly a content creator. I literally know more about how a remote control makes moving pictures appear than I do about when and how to archive. For me, if a bot doesn't do it I just ignore it, and hope that someone tidies up after me. (On which topic, this may or may not amuse you.) Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, sums up why we'd like to emulate the writing and reviewing atmosphere of the military history project! FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I believe that I have addressed all of the above comments, there still isn't a method for archival, and it was deemed okay to proceed to GAN/FAC in this sort of situation at WT:PALEO, I will go ahead and nominate Tatenectes for good article status. Thanks for all the feedback! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, yeah, that shouldn't be a problem. Shouldn't be much left to nitpick! FunkMonk (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankylosaurus[edit]

Ankylosaurus became an FA in 2015[8], with the description mainly based on Kenneth Carpenter's 2004 redescription. In 2017, Victoria M. Arbour and Jordan C. Mallon re-redescribed the animal (open access paper[9], currently citation 12), so LittleJerry and I expanded the article accordingly in time for it appearing as Today's Featured Article in 2018. While it was copy-edited again in that context, the new text based on Arbour & Mallon was never reviewed, so this new peer review might be the perfect place for such a focused check-up. Info from that paper is sprinkled throughout the article, but mainly affected the description section. Any views on other parts of the article are of course also welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

  • Ankylosaurus had a diamond-shaped (or hexagonal) internarial scale at the front – This is a caputegulum, right? So it is actually a bone, which is why the link to internarial scale is misleading and should be removed.
Thanks, yeah, this is a consequence of mixing info from older and newer sources that use different terminology (Carpenter used those scale terms), and exactly why a second review makes sense. I'll try to fix these things soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote that passage with the modern terms. Perhaps more types of the caputegulae present should be mentioned, not sure... FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nasal cavities (or chambers) of Ankylosaurus were elongated and separated by a septum at the midline, which divided the inside of the snout into two mirrored halves. The septum had two openings, including the choanae (internal nostrils).[10][12] – The last sentence seems unlikely and I can't locate in the sources immediately; could you check?
Is that just trying to say it could breathe through its nose?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Carpenter source says "This septum divides the snout sagittally into two mirrored halves, as it does in other ankylosaurids (e.g., Euoplocephalus Vickaryous and Russell2003). The nasal chambers are pierced by two openings, the anteriormost of which connects to the internal nares or choana." How to interpret this? FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then the issue seems to be that the nasal chambers, not the septum, had two openings. A minor issue is that the nasal chamber only leads to the choana, but does not form the choana directly? Would be ideal to point this out in a functional context, i.e. what this means for the air flow, then the reader might get more from it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The nasal chambers had two openings, including the choanae (internal nostrils), and the air passage was looped", but the functional stuff is already under "Airspaces and senses". Or is it different info you're thinking of? FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tooth row was relatively short. – would mention that earlier where the teeth are discussed.
I can't even seem to find this info in the cited paper, so removed it for now, didn't really add much anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • meant that the jaws could accommodate more teeth than other ankylosaurines. – already mentioned.
Do you mean mentioned under "Specimen AMNH 5214 has 34–35 dental alveoli (tooth sockets) in the maxilla and has more teeth than any other known ankylosaurid."? Because the information is not entirely identical, do you propose it to be consolidated somehow? FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is what I meant. For me it looks as if these two (i.e., the part "more teeth than any other") are redundant: If one specimen has more teeth than any other ankylosaurid, than we don't need to state that the jaws had more teeth than other ankylosaurines, since ankylosaurines are included in ankylosaurids? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just looked at the source, and I guess the issue is, we both hear that the maxilla has more teeth than any other ankylosaur, that the dentary also does, and then later we are told the reason why this is possible, because the teeth were small. The number of alveoli is discussed in the paragraphs about the respective bones they are found in (maxilla and dentary), because they are mentioned as part of describing those bones. So I think it's a tough one to merge, will have to think a bit more about how to do it... FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removing one of those sentences is always an easy option. The selection of information we include here is a bit subjective anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now condensed the "most teeth" claim into: "their size in proportion to the skull meant that the jaws of Ankylosaurus could accommodate more teeth than other ankylosaurines." FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other ankylosaurids often have many smaller osteoderms surrounding these larger ones. – already mentioned previously.
Consolidated info. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first osteoderms behind the second cervical half-ring would have been similar in shape to those in the half-ring, – "first" half ring?
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flattened, pointed plates resemble those on the sides of the tail of Saichania. – Where are those located in Ankylosaurus, if unknown I would add that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now says: "Flattened, pointed plates resembled those on the sides of the tail of Saichania, and may have been distributed similarly on Ankylosaurus". FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question, I just noticed the back osteoderm in the old photo under classification is the same one shown in colour (from the 2017 paper) under the armor section. Now that I added another skull ornamentation diagram to the classification section, it looks a bit crammed. Should the old osteoderm image be removed as redundant, or does it add anything?
I have no real preference, but the old image has the inner view in addition? My immediate idea would be to combine it with the tail club photo (one above the other), as both have a very high aspect ratio, but not sure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is a pretty good image, so I realised it fit better in the defence section, and replaced the caudal vertebra image there (which was very marginally relevant to that text anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going on a trip for a week, I'm thinking of leaving it up for that time (to see if anyone else comments), and archive it when I get back. FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parasuminia[edit]

I've just recently expanded Parasuminia based on what little relevant literature there is available. I don't feel there is a need to aim for a GAN or FA with this one, but I think it could do with some looking over from other users for readability on account of the differences between Russian palaeontological literature and what's more commonly used on Wikipedia, and so familiar to readers. Namely this concerns the use of Russian therapsid taxonomy and stratigraphy, the main issue being that Parasuminia has only ever been extensively discussed in one Russian publication and hasn't been included in discussions using the same taxonomy (or indeed any phylogeny) and stratigraphy adopted by Wikipedia. I've done my best to try and explain this in the article without resorting to WP:OR, but I would appreciate some peer review for making it any clearer, more concise, and neutrally worded. Any other comments for further improvement are also appreciated! DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 03:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the correlation between schemes is explained well enough. I plan to expand Viatkogorgon for FAC in the future, so I imagine I'll run into similar problems... But I guess all that is needed is a paper that explains the correlations? FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good to hear. Fortuitously, there was a paper[10] published just a few months ago with updated stratigraphic correlations between the Russian units and various other global localities, including a pretty detailed correlation chart, so that should hopefully be a suffice reference in the future. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that'll come in handy! By the way, I don't think this article is too far if you want a try at GAN. Since you've already created images for other articles, perhaps some could be made for this too? FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider possibly drawing up some of the known bones, given there's so few of them, as well as a comparison between them and Suminia. I don't think I've got the time currently to commit to those and a GAN at the moment, but it'll be something I'll keep in mind down the road for sure. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 04:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with shorter, more robust stouter." Seems a word is missing?
    •  Done Wups, that was intended to be "and with shorter, stouter teeth.", fixed.
  • "and so are not a real group" Probably clearer to say "natural" group.
    •  Done
  • The pineal foramen itself is raised slightly above the surface of the skull, however, it is less raised than – better use ";" instead of the first comma, to make clear that the however is part of the second part of the sentence.
 Done
  • and in recognition his "outstanding" work on Russian palaeontology – "of"?
 Done
  • I assume that all known specimens are from the same locality? Could be mentioned.
 Done Indeed, good call.
  • The remains of Parasuminia all currently consist of fragmented, disarticulated pieces of skull and jaws, although pairs of lower jaws are often found due to being strongly sutured together. – this seems contradicting: the remains consists of disarticulated pieces, but pairs of jaws are often found. Maybe the second part of the sentence refers to the group as the whole? But then I don't quite see the connection.
 Done Poor wording on my part, re-worded it to be clearer about the lower jaws being isolated but still sutured together.
  • Dr. Robert Broom – you don't use titles elsewhere (they are best avoided).
 Done
  • However, the assignment of Parasuminia to Galeopidae by Kurkin is instead based on the taxonomic classification proposed by Russian palaeontologist M. F. Ivakhnenko. – This, and the preceeding paragraph, is a bit convoluted and difficult to follow. I'm not sure if we should speak of a new "classification" when only few more genera have been added, and I'm not sure why the initial study of Broom gets so much space here. Or is it still accepted as a feasible alternative?
    • My reasoning for putting emphasis on the 'new classification' is because Ivakhnenko's concept of Galeopidae is fairly distinct from the original one proposed by Broom, and is part of a much broader alternative classification of synapsids as whole (for example, Synapsida is instead called Theromorpha and has almost all other synapsids separated out into a distinct group from the cynodonts and therocephalians). The main intent was to give some context for this classification, since the classification Parasuminia has only ever been extensively discussed using the heterodox Russian taxonomy (barring the brief drive-by referral to Venyukovioidea mentioned afterwards). I tried keeping it as short as I could to avoid going too far off subject, but if it would improve readability I could expand and re-word the section to something like this:
However, Kurkin assigned Parasuminia to Galeopidae based on an alternative taxonomic classification for anomodonts (as well as other synapsids) proposed by Russian palaeontologist M. F. Ivakhnenko. Under Ivakhnenko's taxonomy, the family Galeopidae consists of the traditional 'dromasaurs' as well as other anomodonts, including Suminia and Anomocephalus, and is classed within the suborder Dromasaurida, itself under the order Dicynodontia proper. Ivakhnenko proposed galeopids were grouped together for their use a palinal jaw stroke (pulling their lower jaw backwards to chew), a trait they share with dicynodonts which he considered to indicate they shared a common ancestry. This opposes modern orthodox phylogenetic classifications of anomodonts, which do not group these anomodonts together within a single clade.'
If this is still difficult to follow, I'd be open to simplifying the original down if I can. This information is probably also better suited for one of the 'higher' anomodont articles, but in the absence of it I felt it was worth including here to avoid confusion, especially in this case where going with the simple orthodox classification isn't available. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 04:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DrawingDinosaurs: Looks good! Adding more general background is usually a good idea; readers are almost always grateful about this, so I would not worry about redundancy with other articles. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good stuff! I'll add the updated text to the article. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 07:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very solid and fine article. If you want to develop it further, I think the next step would be to give more background information for the non-expert reader. For example, you stress the importance of the transition between theriodontian and dinocephalian faunas, but the article is about an anomodonts. What are anomodonts and what was their role? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! I'll definitely keep this in mind if I come back to develop it, but if the above fixes bring it up to scratch I think I'll let it be for the time being. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 04:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Peer_review/Archive_1&oldid=1029609491"