Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Irish Elk

I've spent some time in recent months working on this, with the intention to go for GA. Current issues:

• I don't have any idea about the history of the discovery and victorian era palaeontology of the Irish Elk, particularly the Irish bone trade according to "An insight into commercial natural history: Richard Glennon, William Hinchy and the nineteenth-century trade in giant Irish deer remains" In the Archives of Natural History which I can't access.

Should be possible to get the paper relatively quickly through WP:RX. As for general history, I wonder if any books or papers deal specifically with this? The paper "The misnamed, mistreated, and misunderstood Irish elk" by Stephen Jay Gould seems to be useful, a pdf version is the first hit on google for me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unsure how to word orthogenesis section

The section reads well but could benefit from an authorative source (instead of just the web sources), maybe the book by Gould mentioned by FunkMonk has something? Also, source 16 (Zimmer) needs a weblink (a version seems to be available from National Geographic, see [1]) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Evolution section a bit muddled, the origin of M. giganteus among Megaloceros species is obscure, and I don't think this will be resolved without dental proteomes.

All you can do at this point is just state what has been published previously, it's not up to us to provide the "final truth" anyway. The article can always be updated with newer findings as they are published, but the preceding history should also be covered. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think undue weight is given to the outlier 2005 genetic study, which has been suggested to be due to contamination.

I think it's appropriate that it is mentioned, and that a follow up study contradicting it is also given equal text, when there is a controversy, we should just report who said what and when, not take sides by for example editorialising. I had a similar issue with Mascarene parrot (first study also seems to have used contaminated samples), but all the genetic studies are covered in perhaps a bit too much detail because there are so few. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the mention of it entirely is undue, I just think that the passage supporting the 2005 paper is too long and gives undue weight to its credibility. The passage was originally added by Dunk, with Dunk's text in bold:

In 2005, two fragments of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the cytochrome b gene were extracted and sequenced from 4 antlers and a bone. Based on this, Irish elk and red deer may have interbred, which would be unsurprising as hybridisation is known to occur among present-day deer species. It was suggested that, because both have palmated antlers, the Irish elk and fallow deer (Dama spp.) are closely related, but the mtDNA analysis supported a close relation to Cervus.[22] However, a subsequent study in 2015 involving the full mitochondrial genome contradicted this, finding a sister relationship with Dama.[12] This is also supported by morphological analysis of the bony labyrinth, the study also directly suggested that the results of the 2005 study were the result of DNA contamination.[13]

Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue in this case. Some things simply take more words to explain than other, and the part about the older study is only slightly longer than that about the newer. We should not try to judge credibility in these cases anyways, just give equal attention to both. Even though the study has been contradicted all these findings are still as relevant for Wikipedia as the newer study is, this is the history of scientific debate that we need to reflect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, what was the strangest thing (which wasn't even mentioned in the passage) is that they found that the Irish Elk DNA was within the living variation of red deer, which is why the hybridisation hypothesis was proposed. The results were disputed the same year they were published by a 2005 Nature study, which again wasn't mentioned in the text until I added it just now. The passage now reads

It has been historically thought that, because both have palmated antlers, the Irish elk and fallow deer (Dama spp.) are closely related. In 2005, two fragments of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the cytochrome b gene were extracted and sequenced from 4 antlers and a bone, the mtDNA found that the Irish Elk was nested within Cervus, and were inside the clade containing living red deer (Cervus elaphus). Based on this, the authors suggested that the Irish elk and red deer interbred, which would be unsurprising as hybridisation is known to occur among present-day deer species.[10] However, another study from the same year in Nature utilising both fragmentary Mitochondrial DNA and morphological data found that the Irish Elk was indeed sister to Dama.[11] The sister relationship with Dama was supported by another cytochrome b study in 2006,[8] a 2015 study involving the full mitochondrial genome,[12] and by a 2017 morphological analysis of the bony labyrinth.[13] The 2006 and 2017 studies also directly suggest that the results of the 2005 cytochrome b paper were the result of DNA contamination.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeing how it isn't well supported (just by going off these 2 refs), it'd be better if you say upfront that DNA evidence supports Irish elk is closely related to the fallow deer, and then leave the 2005 study as an afterthought like "A 2005 study found that Irish elk was instead closely related to the red deer [details if you want], but this was likely due to DNA contamination." If it actually is debated if it's more closely related to red or fallow deer, then there is much more to add   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is not OK to say "likely due to DNA contamination", as we certainly would violate the neutral point of view here. We should always attribute such claims to the studies who made them. I like the current section as it is chronological; also, the Nature paper seems to be a direct answer to that 2005 study, so this order makes sense to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it is important to avoid stating any study or hypothesis as "facts" (they are overturned by every other paper anyway), the best we can do is just to report what has been said, by who, and when. Then the reader will figure out that a study that responds to an earlier one, stating it is incorrect, is probably the latest word on a subject. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the folklore section, as I think this is unduly speculative for an Ice Age mammal, much like the claims about Elasmotherium. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe when the paper about antler trade is obtained, there could be a cultural significance section as in woolly mammoth[2], that could also deal with the Crystal Palace models[3] and any other such things? Not sure how well-sourced the folklore text was, but I agree it doesn't warrant a separate section, maybe a mention at most in a culture section if any reliable sources discuss it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Text of the folklore section was as follows:

A folk memory of the Irish Elk was once thought to be preserved in the Middle High German word Schelch, a large beast mentioned in the 13th-century Nibelungenlied along with the then-extant aurochs (Dar nach schluch er schiere, einen Wisent und einen Elch, Starcher Ure vier, und einen grimmen Schelch / "After this he straightway slew a Bison and an Elk, Of the strong Wild Oxen four, and a single fierce Schelch."). This opinion is no longer widely held.[21] The Middle Irish word segh was also suggested as a reference to the Irish Elk.[35][36] Turf cutters of Clooney and Tulla in County Clare, Ireland referred to the Irish Elk as the Fiaghmore.[37] However, these interpretations are not conclusive.[38]

To me it just seems like some unwarranted victorian speculation, and lends these unsupported folk-etymologies undue credibility. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it'd still be good to have a general culture section including cave paintings, ornaments if they exist, general hunting by paleolithic humans, and maybe this folklore thing (as long you make it clear that it was once thought but no longer is)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It worked in woolly mammoth, long discredited "eyewitness accounts" are mentioned, just to be discounted. And that's also important in these articles, that they set the record straight on such myths with the newest info, otherwise people looking the article up for info on for example these folklore claims may walk away still believing them because the article doesn't even mention them at all. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Jens

• There obviously are several unresolved tags (e.g., citation needed) which need to be gone when nominating at GAN; let me know if you need any help here.
• The taxonomy section does not contain any taxonomy. It should include who named the genus and the species, and maybe some detail on that if available. And is it the type species of Megaloceros? Also, in which group was the species/genus classified initially?

 Done added, the taxonomic situation was quite complex as the original Megaloceros name is derived from an auction listing.

• Etymology of the genus and species name is also missing.

 Partly done Etymology of the genus has been added in the taxonomy section, sourced to the OED (I can't find a better source). I can't find a specific reference to the species name giganteus (originally Alce gigantea), thought obviously the greek root means massive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The part on the sister relationship with Dama looks a bit inexact. Sometimes the article states the species is sister to Dama (not possible imho, needs to be the whole genus or the genus is not monophyletic); also conversely sometimes it is sister to Dama dama, not to the genus Dama.

 Done changed to "close relative" and "closest living relative"

• A significant collection of M. giganteus skeletons can be found at the Natural History Museum in Dublin.[relevant? – discuss] – Yes, without more context I would remove this; the word "significant" is too subjective here so that this sentence does not convey that much information. Another reason: If it is not the largest collection, or if there is any other specific reason, it is not more relevant than any other collection that is not mentioned, thus violating the neutral point of view. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done, removed for now without any more significant mention, Gould mentions that "Almost all the fine specimens that adorn museums and homes throughout the world are from Ireland." but there's no statistical basis in the paper behind this statement. Hemiauchenia (talk)

• as belonging to the Eurasian elk (called "moose" in North America) – Maybe we don't need the "called moose" part, it is a bit distracting.

 Done removed.

• It was first formally described as Alce gigantea by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in 1799. – You mean, "formally described as a separate species", or where the initial descriptions by Molyneux informal for some reason? What is "Alce", could this be explained? The moose is "Alces" instead?

Alce gigantea is definitely the original spelling of Blumenbach, as demostrated by numerous sources. Roman Croitor, one of the most prominent contemporary fossil deer workers, states "Blumenbach (1799), for the first time applied the species name Alce gigantea mentioning the fossil remains from Ireland, but without any explicit reference. The first good scientific description of the giant deer from Ireland before Blumenbach, apparently, belongs to Molyneux (1697). He provided a description with measurements and a figure of an antlered skull from Dardistown near Drogheda (Ireland)." I thinked named is better. Hemiauchenia (talk)

@Jens Lallensack: I've found the original page from Blumenbach's 1799 manuscript on google books (incidentally, it also appears to be the page where he names the Woolly Mammoth), I know that the script is a bit flowery, but is it possible for you to give a translation? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"From its own species of Moose (Alce gigantea?), which are excavated in Irland, and are distinguished by their powerful size. Of some [specimens] the skull is almost an ell in length and the ends of the two (sometimes a number of Zentner [=50 kg] in weight) antlers are separated by 14 feet." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we add to the article that "Alce" is the original spelling of Alces? Otherwise the reader will be confused about this term. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done added that it is a variant of Alces, which is the latin name for the Eurasia Elk.

Nice, but isn't it just "Elk" rather than "Eurasia Elk", since the species is also common in North America? And maybe "the generic name for the Elk" is more precise, since otherwise I would expect the name of the species, Alces alces. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Elk in American parlance (also known as the Wapiti) is the sister species to the Red deer and is native to North America and Asia, the Eurasian Elk in North America is called Moose for this reason, to avoid confusion. It's important to clarifly this especially for North American readers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm but the term "Eurasia Elk" doesn't really exist, and sounds as if this would be a distinct species. I'm not sure if we can use it at all. Then, maybe, it would indeed be better to just call it "Elk" and clarify at first mention "(called Moose in North America)", similar to what you did originally? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, the spelling "Eurasian Elk" (with "n", i.e. the British English spelling) exist; but according to the article Elk this is the subspecies Alces alces alces, so not really what we mean here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added Moose back into the article for clarification, is the new variant better?

• French scientist Georges Cuvier documented in 1812 that the Irish elk did not belong to any species of mammal currently living. – But Blumenbach had already named a now-extinct species for it? So Cuvier was basically supporting Blumenbach? Could be made clearer maybe.

Cuvier is only mentioned in the Gould's account, which doesn't include Blumenbach at all, maybe best to remove entirely? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the better thing would be to seek out additional sources; if Gould said both Cuvier and Blumenbach published on Megaloceros, I don't think we have reason to doubt it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Cuvier is generally credited with the concept of extinction, which was revolutionary in his time. I would guess this information is relevant. And if no connection to Blumenbach can be made – so be it, but there could be more. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• The type and only species being Megaloceros antiquorum, based on Irish remains now considered to belong to M. giganteus, making the former a junior synonym, But did he consider the "giganteus" material to belong to Megaloceros in the first place? If not, who showed that both are identical? I mean, when was the combination "Megaloceros giganteus" first used?

 Partly done I can't find any specific reference to its first use in the literature, but a google scholar search showed that the first reference indexed was from Carl Vogt in 1871. I can't read german so I can't verify if he's referring to an earlier use of the term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• however the original description is considered by modern standards to be inadequate. – what modern standards? The ICZN has different standards for older works? And what is the impact of it being inadequate, how does that influence the taxonomy?

The literal original description (in its entirety, including irrelevant portions, is as follows direct source:

Amongst other Fossil Bones , there is a Femur , or Thigh Bone , upwards of four feet in length , likewise two uncommonly fine Crania of the Megalocerus antiquorum (Mihi). (Irish), with unusually fine horns, (in part restored)

, the interpretation that this is an inadequate description is that of Lister 1987a (last paragraph of first page)

 Done added Lister's opinion to to the text

• which included the Latin Cornibus deciduis palmitis as a description of the remains, which was later judged by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) to be a valid description. – What is Cornibus decidius palmitis, can this be explained? Cornibus is a completely new genus for it? And what is it's state, it is a junior synonym of Megaloceros? Could you explain in the text why it is relevant that this was a valid description? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The phrase (which I mispelled (it was acutally palmatis) is descriptive, the whole passage is per Lister 1987a:

Fam.3. Cervidae

• Subfam. MEGALOCERIDAE
• Megalocerus
• Cornibus deciduis palmatis
• Species
• Antiquorum

In my WP:OR interpretation I think that it refers to the palmated antlers, but this isn't explicitly stated by any source that I have found. According to Lister 1987a, an ICZN ruling in 1977 found this to be an "available publication" (Opinion 1080, for reference). Lister 1987a, states

Moreover, the phase "Cornibus deciduis palmatis" constitutes a definition sufficient under the Code (article 12) to validate Megalocerus

. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done this has been added to the article

• Taxonomy section looks much better now! Now only a few things concerning the "Evolution" section:
• The first paragraph could do with more context. Above all, introducing the other species a bit better, and how M. giganteus relates to them, would help I think. At the moment, M. giganteus does not appear to be descended from the common European Middle Pleistocene reindeer sized M. savini reads a bit awkward since the reader doesn't know why this particular species (M. savini), which wasn't introduced before, is given here and not others. More context would solve this. It is usually a good idea to look at the structure and content of FAs of a similar topic (e.g., Columbian Mammoth or Smilodon); those provide much more background information in this section.

 Done, It's awkward because M. giganteus has a effectively ~400-500 kyr ghost lineage from its earliest possible ancestors, and the other named species from the late Early and Middle Pleistocene appear to be part of a separate lineage of the genus, which means that the ancestry of M. giganteus likely lies somewhere out in Eastern Europe or Asia, but it's totally unknown essentially. Hemiauchenia (talk)

• After this, there are two very short paragraphs which appear to be isolated pieces of information out of context. Is it possible to have a continuous text here? The second of these short paragraph lacks a source and might be better placed (with additional explanation) under "Taxonomy"?

 Done, added to the Evolution section What do think of my new version of the evolution section @Jens Lallensack: ? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• The last paragraph: I liked it better as it was originally (the version you cited above, see also the comments there). Now it is difficult to understand who said what, and chronology got lost. But its your decision of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Reverted to the original version. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• The second and first biggest are Cervalces scotti and C. latifrons, respectively. – do you mean "third largest"?

 Done fixed, it's worth noting that most of the issues you have with the text are not my wording. Hemiauchenia (talk)

• much more robust skeleton – here and in other instances, I don't think we need the "much", it seems much too strong.

 Done agree, removed

• The "Description" section contains much information that is acutally paleobiology (e.g., cursoriality, shedding of antlers). I know that these are not always easy to separate, but discussing these things in respective sections in the "Paleobiology" section makes it easier to find them.

 Partly done I've moved the antler stuff into the paleobiology section, but I agree it's difficult to separate all of it.

• In 1998, Canadian biologist Valerius Geist hypothesised that the Irish elk was cursorial – Here, author attribution is used, but not in other places in the description (e.g., Geist's suggestion that the hump was for fat storage). Should not be a big problem for GA, but at FAC this has lead to very tedious discussions with the result that articles were not promoted. Generally, it should always be very clear to the reader when a single study or opinion is cited (e.g., "biologist xx hypothesised"; "In a 2005 study …"), or when something is general consensus, which would be assumed when such author attribution is lacking.

 Done attributed for the particular instance you mention, let me know if you have more examples

• There is important standard information missing from the description: How can I distinguish this species from other deer, and other Megaloceros? What are the autapomorphies?

 Partly done There is no concensus on what taxa belong to the genus Megaloceros other than M. giganteus. I have added the autopamorphies you mention from Croitor, 2018

• Maybe elevate the "Habitat" section one level to a "Habitat and distribution" section, to be consistent with other prehistoric mammal articles (e.g., Woolly Mammoth). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done I intend to draw a range map from the Lister and Stewart Paper at some point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Physiology – Not sure but I would call it "Locomotion". Of course cursoriality also depends on physiology but it is not exactly it.
• 20-to-28 kg (44-to-62 lb) – not sure about the use of the "-" here, looks unconventional?

 Done I think those edits were made by WelcomeToJurassicPark socking under an IP, I have reverted them.

• The Breda 2005 source has some more general info on anatomy, e.g. "M. giganteus, in comparison with Alces and Cervalces, possesses a longer neck with stronger vertebrae and with all the processes more developed", that are interesting and may be used to flesh out the description section a bit more.
• Pathologies are missing; these is at least one paper on this: [4]
• Sexual dimorphism, other then body size, could also be discussed: [5]
• The mesodont condition of the teeth – would require explanation.

 Done clarified Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• The "habitat" section has stuff on feeding and predation; in other articles we usually have that information in "Paleobiology".

 Done rearranged Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• with few remains known between 27.5 and 14.6 kya, with none between 23.3 and 17.5 kya. – "and none"?

 Done

• maybe combine the second and third paragraphs of "Extinction" as these seem to belong together.
• to survive in into – into

 Done

• the "Extinction" section does not seem to be well-organised and lacks structure. Important information, e.g., decline and re-occupation, are only mentioned en passant. Maybe start with the general facts, and chronologically: Earlier fluctuations in population, decline, relict populations … and only then the discussion about the possible causes? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Funk

• Might as well make a section here too for anything I might think of. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• The two old restorations now under "habitat" are not accurate according to modern views, not that you should remove them for that reason, but they should preferably be used in sections about history or culture, and it could be pointed out in the captions that they are outdated. This mainly concerns their pattern and lack of pronounced humps, as the cave paintings showing these features were unknown at the time. More info can be found in the following blog posts by Darren Naish (including discussion of some images used in this very article) and Mark Witton, there should also be more reliable sources about this (see the literature sections of those blog posts):[6][7] FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done, moved them to the research history section, I think that their dates make it clear that they are historical illustrations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• The old black and white illustration is by Joseph Smit, see signature. Hutchinson wrote the book it was in. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done

@FunkMonk: any other suggestions? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of giving it a closer look when the points above are taken care of, and when the suggested sources are incorporated (so that there will be more text to review). FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Darren primarily cites Guthrie's The Nature of Paleolithic Art for the information about the life appearance, but doesn't provide a page number. I don't really want to cite Darren directly on this as while he is a professional zoologist he is not an expert on deer or paleolithic cave art. The hardcover book is currently going for £77.35 and it's difficult to provide a reference request without a page number on a 520 page book. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, that is a bit annoying... But there must be single papers that convey some of the same info? Looks like its life appearance has been coverd by multiple researchers. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ankylorhiza

Recently created and made a restoration for this article, then decided to expand it some more to prep it for DYK. Will probably take it to GA at some point when things calm down and I can properly work on it, but until then, feel free to give me your thoughts on how the current material can be improved! I've not much experience with mammal articles but tried my best with this one using the little time I had. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Cool, will have a look, I thought that since it's a pretty old species, there should be available public domain images of its fossils? Searching its original combination on Commons brought me these pdfs that may contain something useful:[8][9][10] And by the same token, you could probably summarise the historical literature concerning of the species prior to the erection of the new genus. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look at these sources soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've found the original description for "Squalodon" tiedemani[11] and uploaded the public domain images of Ankylorhiza's holotype. Article's looking much nicer now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Very cool, since we're unlikely to get photos of the new specimen any time soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looks nice, and great to see that much diversity here in the review!
• In addition to what FunkMonk said, there is much more interesting information on the discovery and early taxonomy in the supplementary information of the paper. Currently, the taxonomy sections leaves open some important questions, e.g. the etymoloy of tiedemani.

 Partly done I've found info on added the species etymology. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• They referred all of these fossils to the newly named and described dolphin genus Ankylorhiza, which "S." tiedemani was synonymized with under the new species name A. tiedemani. – A. tiedemani is not precisely a new species. What about replacing the second part of the sentence with "with "A. tiedemani" as the only species"?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• divided by deep valleys – "valley" seems to be a somewhat odd wording, maybe "furrows"?

Good point, done! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• The description lacks diagnostic features listed under "Diagnosis" in the paper; these are the most important I think.

Being worked on

• basal odontocete that split off between the xenorophids and squalodontids, – split of from what, the stem lineage?

Being worked on

• Along with Microcetus, Ankylorhiza is one of the most complete early toothed whales in terms of fossil remains. – I think that "in terms of fossil remains" is not really needed.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• implies – this is a very strong word, and should only be used when there is absolute certainty. Better use "indicate". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• You should mention that Squalodon was oceangoing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• When was CCNHM 103 discovered?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• "and had the largest temporal fossae (shallow depressions on the sides of the skull) of any known toothed whale" surely relative to its own size as opposed to absolute measure   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• You should clearly say that the anatomy seems transitional between archaeocetes and modern odontocetes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• It would be good to mention that modern toothed whales are homodont   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• You don't describe what "fused roots" means in description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• "indicating this region of the body experienced the most undulation when the animal was swimming" well it's a dolphin so yeah the tail is gonna undulate the most when swimming   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• In mammal articles, classification generally goes before description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• "Known skull remains of Ankylorhiza often show severe breakage of the postcanine teeth" seems to imply you aren't talking about the holotype nor CCNHM 103   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• "its niche was probably reoccupied succesively by Squalodon, macroraptorial sperm whales, and extant orcas" seems to imply orcas were around in the Miocene (earliest well-supported occurrence is Orcinus citoniensis in the Pliocene)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Adelolophus

I suspect the mere six sources I could manage for this rather obscure taxon hold it back from standing much chance at GA status, so I'll leave it here for feedback instead. I would consider the article "complete", I've milked as much out of the literature on it as I think is possible. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Funk

• Haven't read it yet, but as is, considering how little it is known from, I think it would be fine for GA, considering that as long as all the literature is covered, there isn't really much more you can do. You can't add info that simply doesn't exist. Going more into detail, I think you could split the description into two paragraphs, so it doesn't look like a wall of text. Is there nothing on paleobiogeography? Other dinosaurs from the Grand Staircase-Escalante often have implications for this, as was the case in the FAs Kosmoceratops and Lythronax. And then a last thing, it could probably be easy to make a diagram showing the specimen within a drawing of a skull. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

There's certainly literature about Laramidian biogeography that could be pulled from, but none of it invokes Adelolophus specifically, unlike with Kosmoceratops and Lythronax. I could add it but I'm not sure if it would be straying too far from the subject of the article. A diagram would be nice if someone was willing to make one. If I was to split the description I'm not sure where exactly I would do so; there is no clear stopping point or shift in topic.

If it isn't mentioned in those sources, it is probably iffy to add. I found this source on Google scholar that apparently mentions it[12], anything useful there? As for splitting the paragraph, how about by the sentence beginning with "The dorsal process"? FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That source just says it's the oldest American lambeosaur, already made clear in the article, and includes it in a list of ornithischians. I've gone and split the paragraph where you suggested. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The section looks less daunting to read, though! I'll have a look at the rest of the article soonish. Maxilla, taxa, and Wahweap Formation are duplinked, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• In addition to duplinks, some terms, such as maxilla and lambeosaur, are not linked at first mention, but at second.
• "unknown" and λόφη, "crest", referring to the anatomy of the species' presumed crest being unknown." Not something you can do anything about, but this seems silly, what if they do find a specimen preserving a crest?
• "The specific name is a reference to Hutchison" In reference or honor of? The latter seems more common.
• "may bridge the gap (in time)" Is the parenthesis needed?
• If a new diagram can't be made any time soon, I wonder if it would be better to show a diagram of another hadrosaur skull, which makes it clear where the maxilla is. Maybe part of this diagram could be used:[13]
• "Parasaurolophus head reconstruction" You should establish the relevance of the image, here, like "the closely related" or similar.
• Link mudstone and sandstone.
• "Nanhsiungchelyid turtle Basilemys" Should start with "the".
• "The tyrannosaur Lythronax is known from the Middle Member of the Wahweap Formation, but the remains from the Adelolophus locality are non-diagnostic, so whether they belong to the taxon cannot be determined." Hmmm, I wodner if we should make mention of this in the Lythronax article...
• "(a crested "duck-bill")" Could be reiterated in the article body, maybe also explain that these were herbivorous dinosaurs or similar, to establish context.
• "but it is despite this fragmentary nature very significant" This could be stated as strongly in the article body if it is so.
• I think this could be taken to GAN, and once the above are fixed, I would promote it.

Moa

Have intended to work on this article for a while and haven't really started overhauling it yet. The fact that the article is about 9 distinct species makes the topic broader than most articles that are posted here, and consequently is harder to write for. Howevrr, unlike elephant birds, much has been written about the Moa over the years so there's probably enough literature to write a proper article (I will get around to finishing work on the Irish Elk article eventually). Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I've also long thought of getting at least one moa species promoted, but yeah, it's tough. Personally, I wouldn't attempt it before I can somehow get my hands on the book "The Lost World of the Moa: Prehistoric Life of New Zealand"[14]... Otherwise it will be hard to get an overview and a synthesis of the huge literature. As for single species, upland moa might be a good contender, since a lot of soft tissue is known from it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The Moa species articles get a fraction of the views the main article does, ~ 1000 views per day for the main Moa article compared to a few tens of views per day for the giant moa species, down to only a handful of views per day for the others, its clear that the attention should be focused onto the main article that people are reading, and that improving the stubby species articles is of lesser concern. A new review article has come out on Moa diet which summarises a lot of preexisting literature on the topic, which is worth incorporating into the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"Should be" is maybe a bit of a stretch, but of course, anyone who wants to expand articles on this basis are welcome to do so. With an overview article like that, it is even more crucial to get a broad review source like a book, which would be less necessary for species. Few paleo editors have experience with writing family level articles at GA or FAC level, and I don't think we have many examples to go by. The closest would be Raphinae, which only contains two species. But there are a good deal of promoted articles about higher level extant bird taxa that could be looked at. FunkMonk (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe Casliber has nominated some higher level extant bird articles at FAC, maybe he has some insights as to how one could go about this. I could also imagine LittleJerry might be interested in helping out with something like this. FunkMonk (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

People are free to improve whatever articles they choose, but if one article is getting ~350,000 views a year, while another is getting maybe 3,000 what articles you choose to edit are going to substantially differ in impact. That said I would like to substantially improve all 9 Moa species articles at some point, but I think that the main article is the priority. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy to take a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll have to pass on this. I have other future FACs in my plans. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ankylosauria

Greetings everyone, I would like to work on Ankylosauria and make sure that it is up to standard. If possible I'd like to be guided through the writing process as mentioned at the top of this page. Thanks in advance! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

We usually have sections on taxonomy (or history of research), description (anatomy), classification, and paleobiology – in this order, not the current order in the article. I would suggest to simply start somewhere, and I will have an eye on it. Do you have relevant literature? There is a relatively recent book chapter on ankylosaurs in "The Complete Dinosaur, Second Edition", which should be a good starting point. Let us know if you lack any literature. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I can probably make a start with the information in my collection of palaeontology related books, I'll try my best. Though I do not have "The Complete Dinosaur, Second Edition", I would highly appreciate it if someone could share the information on Ankylosauria in that book with me, so long as it is legal. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia resource exchange WP:RX tends to be useful for this purpose. You should be able to get just a single chapter there. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don't have books, there are of course paleontology-related publications online, such as this one, which talks about the dermal armor on ankylosaurs I think. But of course, this isn't the only one, there are a lot of these online, and if you don't have access, you can go to WP:RX, which is what Lythronaxargestes said above. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Do I just ask for the chapter on Ankylosaurs then? I haven't done this before. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I can send most of the stuff you need directly to you if you want. You just need to enable WikiMail so that I can send you an email, or you send me an WikiMail with your email address (go to my user page, then in the menu on the left click "Email this user"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If I did everything correctly my WikiMail should now be enabled. Thanks in advance! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please check your email! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll get to work a.s.a.p.! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note that we have one WP:Featured Article about an ankylosaur, Ankylosaurus, which could perhaps be used as model for structure (some of the info is more general than just about this genus) and how to use sources. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reaction, and thanks for the tip! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

How is it going with the article, by the way? For sure, Ankylosauria is not the easiest article to start with, because of its broad scope. Much easier (which much less relevant literature) are recently named genera. But depends on you of course! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah progress hasn't really picked up yet, I'm probably going to start by doing a new genus. Do you happen to have any suggestions? TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Minotaurasaurus, maybe? It is only a skull, which reduces the complexity quite a bit. You could start with summarizing its first description (a short paper), incorporating relevant information into the article. Really depends on you which article you want to work on though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That one might be a bit difficult because there was a debate about its legal status and whether it was a synonym of Tarchia (it was long a redirect to that article)? Another contender could be Ziapelta, which has many free images and is also known from limited remains. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Ziapelta is already quite developed as an article, with main sections already in place. Here, you could improve already existing text, add information that is missing. When complete, it would be a nice contender for a WP:Good Article. For a start, the lead should be much longer (a summary of the whole article), and the paleoenvironment section is still missing. However, if you would rather write a whole article from scratch by yourself, one of the many "stub" articles might be a better choice. It really depends on what you want to do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ll take a look when I have some more time, I have some important tests coming up. Ziapelta sounds like fun, though I’ll have to look up what the different parts of an article are called as I don’t know what the lead is :) TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The intro section, see WP:Lead. For the other sections, take, as FunkMonk said, Ankylosaurus as an (perfect) example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hyperailurictis

Hyperailurictis is one of the earlier felid genera, and one of the few articles that I have extensively edited. That said, I would like for it to undergo a fact check and minor writing check. I suspect that it is horribly unbalanced in regards to the Taxonomic History section when compared to the other two sections, if not missing some essential information that could be added.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want a "complete" article, you certainly need some secions. An example of a "complete" prehistoric felid article could be the FA Smilodon, it should probably have the same "top" level sections (probably not all the subsections). FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and put it some changes. I plan on expanding another prehistoric felid, Pratifelis, soon, and will probably go to Hyperailurictis once done and do whatever is recommended here.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I find the Description lacking. There are probably a number of other anatomical features, including distinguishing characteristics, which could be presented in that section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• There is also an issue in that there are a lot of single sentence and very short paragraphs, which should preferably be grouped together in large paragraphs. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: Sorry for just leaving this here for so long, but it classes are interfering and I do not have the time to take on such a big project. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Rhynchocephalia

The Rhynchocephalia article was pretty bad, but I have improved it significantly. The use of the term Acrodont is poorly defined, so I have had to define it in the article text. I can't find any compelling explanations for the decline of Rhynchocephalia in the literature either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you plan to expand it further? FunkMonk (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably. Rhynchocephalians receive relatively little study in comparison to other reptile groups, so its difficult to know what to write. Many of the relationships within Rhynchocephalia are unstable, often forming large polytomies and completely differing from phylogeny to phylogeny, so its difficult to meaningfully talk about their diversity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I myself know little about them besides what I've read about tuataras, but there must be some review articles or books out there which summarise some aspects? FunkMonk (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Should be in interesting one. What strikes me about the current version is the list of synapomorphies, which seems to be a quote from a paper. This is not very nice to read and quite inaccessible to readers as things are not explained. Also, there is some redundancy (acrodonty is listed, but then again explained in further detail below, without making clear that the same feature is discussed). "Pleurodont" could be explained in this context as well. Maybe start with the most important synapomorphies, and try to summarize the less important ones in an accessible way. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have made the suggested changes, I couldn't figure out what concha meant in this context (presumably part of the reptile ear?) so I removed it. Acrodont has multiple distinct uses by authors that are often confused, which is the main thrust of the cited paper, which is about the poorly defined usage of the term "acrodont" in the palaeontological literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A concha is a shell-shaped structure, so I think it is a excavation on the quadrate, but I'm not sure which exactly. On a different note, I'm not sure if we should link to Coronoid process of the mandible, as this is about human anatomy. The process might have the same function I think in both humans and reptiles, but in humans it is formed by the dentary, so it is not homologous at least, and might be misleading? Not sure here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree the structures are not homologous. I think the process in rhynchocephalians is on the surangular. Also is it just me or do squamates also have prominent "coronoid processes"? having had a look at some lizard skulls, they appear to have structures that look a lot like the coronoid processes of humans, this paper on amphisbaenians mentions a coronoid process directly. I think its best to remove the line for now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The coronoid process is a typical structure in reptiles. But it is more pronounced in some groups than in others, and in rhynchocephalians it is apparently quite pronounced. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper describing Vadasaurus diagnoses that it is a rhynchcephalian based on an "elongate, posterior process of the dentary that reaches the glenoid cavity" and "deeply nested within rhynchocephalia" based on a "at least a moderately high coronary process", so it does appear that a process on the jaw bone is somehow diagnostic for rhynchocephalia. I'm not sure how to put "pronounced" in a layman-friendly way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I always thought "pronounced" is not a too technical word. But "large" would also work I guess. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Implemented. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've done some expansion work, including definining the definitions of Eusphenodontia and Neosphenodontia, any feedback? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wondering why there is a Phylogeny section separate from Classification. Would it not make sense to put the cladogram (and maybe a few alternate topologies) under Classification? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The "classification" section also includes a lot on anatomy, maybe its better to separate them? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have split the history of discovery off into a separate section and added an ecology section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Agustinia

I've been thinking of reworking Agustinia using the German translation, but there's no citations for any of the statements (only a list of references at the bottom). Could anyone help me with this? Thanks in advance! Borophagus (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems @Jens Lallensack: actually had a hand in expanding the German version, perhaps he knows what was used where? FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Everything without inline citation is cited to Bonaparte (1999). But I have to note that the German version is from 2010 and thus quite outdated already, especially regarding the interpretation of the spines and plates. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That helps a lot! I'll obviously have to read up about the spines plates, etc, but that does help. Thanks! --Borophagus (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Ziapelta

Hello everyone, as discussed above here I'd like to work on the Ziapelta article. Could someone be so kind as to provide me with a list of things that need improving / adding? Thanks in advance! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As Jens pointed out earlier, it could be modelled after Ankylosaurus, which means it could have the same main sections, and cover the same ground. The difference is of course that much less has been published on Ziapelta, which should make it easier. And the fact that Ziapelta was published in an open access journal also means it is easy to look over the description:[15] So a start could be to see if there is info missing from the paper in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just published my first couple of edits, I've edited the whole article for a bit of grammar and to improve readability. I've also expanded on the lead a lot, and modeled it after Ankylosaurus like you suggested. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! A few comments here:

• We don't put references in the lead, but make sure that everything in the lead is repeated in the main body. You could, maybe, start the "Description" section with a general paragraph with one or two sentences on general ankylosaur body built (to give the layman reader some idea) and the size estimates?
• The lead could contain more wiki links; it should be as accessible as possible. Terms should be linked in both the lead and the body.
• You can link "caputegulum" to the Glossary of dinosaur anatomy using {{Dinogloss|caputegulum}}.
• Also note that the correct plural of "caputegulum" is "caputegulae", not "caputegula".
• As a next step, if you want to take it further, the "Palaeogeography" could still be expanded.
• If you want to write a "Paleoenvironment" section, there is general information on the Kirtland Formation with suitable sources in the Parasaurolophus and Kritosaurus articles, so you don't need to start all over again.
• Finally, you could search Google Scholar for more recent papers on other ankylosaurs that do systematics, and see how they classify Ziapelta. At the moment, only the conclusions of the first description are discussed in the "Classification" section, and a cladogram of another study was added but not yet included in the text.
• Hope this helps! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Also - comment on the lead. The convention is to write articles from the perspective of the genus, so the first sentence should refer to Ziapelta generally instead of Z. sanjuanensis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe I fixed the first three comments Jens made, and I'll fix the thing you mentiond Lythronax TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to the genus name as you said, I think I kinda intervened here a bit, though. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear; everything that is in the lead should also be in the main text (and therefore the lead needs no sources). Now, you removed the source from the lead, but the size estimate is still not given in the main text, so it is without source at the moment. Think about a separate paragraph for this info as I suggested above! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

So that’s what you meant, I’ll look up how to add references and make sure that the information gets added into the article. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've copied some of the information from the lead into the description section and added references, I hope I did it in the right way TimTheDragonRider (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)