Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Choristodera

Thought I would improve this article next. I have added an evolutionary history section. It has come to my attention that the supplementary information of the paper describing Danuvius guggenmosi lists Lazarussuchus in the supplementary information as also from the locality. As the locality has been dated to be around 11.6 million years old according to the paper, it is several million years younger than the early Miocene remains of the last known species of Lazarussuchus, making it the youngest known record of the Choristodera. Given that the only reference is in a supplementary table, is it WP:OR to include this in the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I deleted most of the "Fossil record" section because it was poorly organised and uncited, though there is some material in there worth including. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If there is no specific mention that this fossil expands the known range of the clade, then yes, I think it would be at least WP:Synth, if not WP:OR. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Cope is linked twice within the same sentence.
  • Anything available on the etymology?
  • Thanks for giving this a start. A lot more work is needed, and parts of the article are still without source, which might be the most urgent issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have removed all the unsourced stuff. The structure is still a major issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack: I have completely overhauled the article. Any sections that you think are missing or need expansion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow, this looks so much better now! With a bit of work, this might be in striking distance for a GA soon.
  • The lead could be much longer, it should summarize the entire article.
  • We have to consider that this is supposed a basic overview-article, aimed at people without any clue about the topic. From this perspective, the article is overly complicated, often unnecessary so. Specific suggestions below.
  • The taxonbox is huge and overly complicated. Having two images there is not standard and makes it over-loaded. I'm also not sure why there should be two Hyphalosaurus fossils shown in this article, what does the second one add? Maybe remove the Hyphalosaurus from the taxonbox, it also takes away a lot of vertical space.
  • The "subgroups" section in the taxonbox also seems overloaded to me. At least I would stop at the major groups rather than listing all the genera. This also is redundant, as they already appear in both the cladogram and the navigation template at the bottom of the article.
  • The cladogram also looks extremely complicated, and I guess any non-expert wouldn't even try to look at it! First, I would remove the word "order", since ranks are kind of useless in paleontology anyways, and they go against the concept of phylogenetics. Second, I would remove the specimen numbers (I consider this excessive detail). I would even simplify to genus level, except for the paraphyletic genera; the cladogram is kind of huge at the moment; this would also be more consistent with other articles. And I would consistently link all names, even if some will lead to the same article.
  • Strict consensus of 10 most parsimonious trees from the analysis of Matsumoto et al. (2019) – This also seems just too complicated. Maybe they can be avoided completely for this general article; just "example tree by Matsumoto and colleagues, 2019" would also work? I think it is important to include the word "example" here to show the reader that this is only one of many trees that have been suggested.
  • et al, a technical term which can be easily avoided by using "and colleagues".
  • make sure to link (or even avoid or explain) as many technical terms as possible, e.g. Bathonian, Callovian, homodont, etc.
  • Another thing to work on is the content. The uncertainty about the relationships of the group could be explained; the reader may wonder why, is it the lack of transitional fossils that is the problem? Introducing/explain the possible groups to which they may belong would also be helpful. This classification section (better simply call it "Classification"?) lacks context that the general reader needs.
  • Two phylogenetic studies are discussed, but even if these are the two most recent, it seems to be undue weight as there are others that are not mentioned at all. Does one of the papers contain, maybe, a little "review" on the history of classification of the group, which can help to summarize what has been proposed in the past?
  • The tracks could be expanded to a nice paragraph, rather than this single sentence. Importantly, I think we need to make clear that this is a opinion of a single study only. Trackmaker identification is a very tricky, and often subjective business, and the next study could be of a different opinion. Consequently, we urgently need author attribution here. Also, it would be good to point out that these are the first tracks ascribed to the group; what the features are; why they can be referred to the group; where they have been discovered and so on. Might even nice to include a schematic line drawing of the tracks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack: I have made the proposed changes, any further thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
As an aside A paper in Geologica Carpathica from last year states that "The oldest known choristoderes are from the Ladinian of southern Germany" citing "Schoch R.R. 2015: Reptilien. In: Hagdorn H., Schoch R.R. & Schweigert G. (Eds.): Der Lettenkeuper – Ein Fenster in die Zeit vor den Dinosauriern. Palaeodiversity Sonderband 2015, 231–264." Which I don't have access to. As far as I am aware, this claim is not included in other recent papers on choristoderes, is it best to ignore it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Fulltext is officially available here as open access: PDF. I think we definitely have to include it, but again, best with author attribution. The paper makes a clear claim that they have a new, unequivocal choristodere species, and that this is the oldest known. Let me know if you need help with translation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I have added it to the text. It seems strange given such a bold claim that it hasn't been mentioned elsewhere in the recent choristodere literature. As such I've been cautious with it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the taxonbox, why are you listing genera of Allochoristoderes but not of Neochoristodera, and why isn't the latter bolded as well?
You said earlier that the taxobox was too cluttered. Choristodera is at an awkward clade size where its not small enough that everything can be confortably be contained in the taxobox, but not big enough to really justify the creation of separate clade articles. "Allochoristodera" is an informal clade according to the authors of the study, and the clade is currently only supported by 1 synapomorphy and isn't recovered under bootstrap concensus. Would it be better to simply have a "See text" and then list the taxonomy in the article body? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
If these clades are not widely accepted (Allochoristodera is only informal?), I don't think they should appear in the taxonbox. Maybe do it like in dinosaur and name it "major clades", with Neochoristodera as the only entry? Or you can list all genera outside Choristodera, but I don't really see how this could be helpful, as they are repeated in the navigation template and the cladogram anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The navigation template is inaccurate to recent literaure, and needs to be changed. The "Allochoristodera" clade has been consistently recovered in the literature over the past few years, but it was only named last year. Other clades like the "Monjurosuchidae" are not consistently recovered in recent literature, so they are omitted. While Hyphalosauridae is usually recovered in the literature, I am happy to omit it to reduce clutter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, but why is Allochoristodera bolded while Neochoristodera is not? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe move that vertical Hyphalosaurus skeleton picture down next to the cladogram, to fill the white space there, and avoid the sandwiching with the taxonbox it currently does? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I've replaced the image entirely with a new, wider image of multiple hyphalosaurus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Any comments? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't know much about these guys, but will try to have a look at some point. I wonder if there are any theories as to why they survived past the Mesozoic that could be covered? FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
From the explanations i've read in the literature, it seems much of the freshwater aquatic fauna was relatively little effected by the K-Pg impact, including choristoderes. Neochoristoderes crashed and burned after the Paleocene though. Lazarussuchus's (literally meaning Lazarus's crocodile) survivial in the waterways of Europe for over 40 million years after the extinction of choristoderes elsewhere is exceptional and it was something like the Tuatara, I guess. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Could there be some discussion of this in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
It's discussed in the "Evolutionary history" section of the article, I've mentioned the faunal turnover and elevated temperatures from p. 257 of "Choristoderes and the freshwater assemblages of Laurasia". Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Why two navigation templates? This is confusing, and the content of the group will only pop up in the first. I suggest to remove the Archosauromorpha template.
Removed Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you have a source for the "possible" in "Possible Triassic records"? If not, this information seems to be close to WP:OR to me. The source does not say "possible", it says the Triassic ones are clearly choristoderes. Or has this assessment been questioned? If not, I would ignore the fact that it is not widely cited; I think this is because it is only six years old and written in German, probably not everybody was aware of it from the beginning.
I understand where you are coming from, Schoch is an enormously respected worker on early tetrapods. I just feel uncomfortable including the claims as definitive when major choristodere workers like Susan E. Evans and R. Matsumoto haven't commented on them. I can't include a caveat like "these claims have not been mentioned in the recent choristodere literature" because that would be OR. I have changed the wording in the taxobox to "potential" rather than "possible" and "stated" rather than "suggested" for Schoch's claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack: Ezcurra, 2016 defines Choristodera as "The most recent common ancestor of Lazarussuchus, Cteniogenys and Champsosaurus and all of its descendants". By this definition the Middle Triassic taxon likely lies outside Choristodera. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Why would the new taxon necessarily fall outside the group? It could as well fall inside, if the clade containing Cteniogenys derived even earlier. But I now think that you are probably right and the current wording in the article is OK: It emphasizes the fact that a proper description is needed before independent validations of the claim can be done. More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I suggest to split the "Evolutionary history" into at least two paragraphs; shorter chunks of text allow the reader to "breath" (and think) in-between and facilitate reading.
  • Maybe rename the "History" section into "History of discovery"? Just "History" is ambiguous, as it also can be "Evolutionary history". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Done Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Gordodon

I've recently expanded the article for the edaphosaurid Gordodon, so I felt it was worth swinging by here for a look over to improve the writing and bump up its rating (a stub no more). Not much relevant literature to go on for it or even relating it to the rest of the formation its from, but I think I've squeezed out what I reasonably can while keeping it focused, so I'd consider the content "complete" until something new is published. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 14:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor note: the plural of diastema is diastemata. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Noted and fixed. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Jens

  • Cool, looks very good. Some quick comments for now.
  • with a prominent overhanging 'brow' of bone above them formed by the roof of the skull. – Kind of goes without saying that it is the roof of the skull; maybe give the involved bones instead?
 Done
  • 'incisors' – why in quotation marks? This seems to be the common term.
There's some debate over whether early synapsid tooth types are strictly homologous with those of modern mammals, and papers often flip-flop in using terms like canine/caniniform, incisor/incisiform, etc. depending on the author. I opted to using 'incisors' in quotation marks for the front teeth after describing them as "incisor-like teeth" so the text would be less cumbersome, but I can see how this would be confusing. Would it be better to establish the teeth as incisiform and using that instead? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • although an opposing pair on the lower jaw is indicated by a pair of large open tooth sockets – the paper only mentions a single tooth socket as far as I can see?
 Done Good catch.
  • I think it makes sense to have the "Discovery and naming" as the first section, because you discover first, and then describe. This would also be more in-line with other articles.
 Done
  • I can't find the size estimate in the sources, in which paper is it? Or did you measure it from the skeletal reconstructions?
News articles appear to have these estimates, but they should still be cited. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
That'll be where it comes from, though here it was a leftover from the original article text that I evidently forget to double check. I think I mistakenly got into my head that it was included in the paper with the mass estimate. I've added a citation for it, as well as the paper's presacral length estimate (~1 m) just to be safe. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you want to take it to GAN or FAC, make sure to use author attribution for all statements that are potentially controversial, most importantly in the "paleobiology" section (this issue has lead to failures of article nominations in the past). The problem is that the average reader may assume that the presented information is fact, or at least agreed on by scientists, when it is actually the opinion of a single study, which does not necessarily reflect consensus. To make this clear, use something like "In 2019, paleontologist xx and colleagues suggested that …". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Cheers for the feedback, hopefully this all brings it more up to scratch. I feel like this one may be a little low on citations for GAN, but I've tried adding some author attributions anyway for the sake of improving the text regardless. In Gordodon's case, there's mostly only the original source to go on for this, with only one other paper that adds little extra information, so it really is mostly the word of only one set of authors to go on. Still, hopefully that's more clear in the text now, at least. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This is certainly ok for GAN, and will be ok for FAC as well (I have a similar article of a recently named genus nominated there at the moment). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
In that case, I think I might give this one a shot at GA now that the other critiques have been sorted (stem-mammals could be doing with some of those). Thank you for all the helpful comments! DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 23:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Slate Weasel

I'm going to have quite a lot of time over the next few days, so I'm thinking of giving a more comprehensive review over this time. For the moment, I wonder if the palaeoecology section could be expanded more, to include more information on the rocks, plants, and perhaps the generic names of the tetrapods (if any have classifications that specific). I look forward to reading this! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! I was deliberately vague in the palaeoecology section since I couldn't find any information on which unit of the Bursum Formation Gordodon was from (it may not even be attributable to any of them, from what I can gather), and likewise no leads on anything else known from the same layers. Everything else is from other units in the formation and so may not have been coeval with Gordodon, which is why I went for broader categories rather than specifying down to genera (which the ref for that section does in some cases). If you and other reviewers think it would be better to include that information, I can gladly go over them in more detail. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. It probably is better to "play it safe" here, as occasionally you get really expansive formations with multiple, disparate faunas (i.e. Cedar Mountain Formation). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the lead and description:

  • Is it more common to say Early Permian or Cisuralian?
I went with Early Permian just for being a more recognisable name (and it still appears in papers at least), although if something like "Cisuralian (early Permian)" is still preferable that'd be an easy fix. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "These include large incisor-like teeth at the front," Perhaps change to "Gordodon had large incisor-like teeth at the front,", as "these include" doesn't really match with "arranged" earlier in the paragraph.
 Done
  • I think "long necked" has a hyphen in it
 Done
  • "fructifications" should be defined
 Done
  • "Prior to the discovery of Gordodon, the only synapsid herbivores with similarly complex teeth were the mammal-like cynodonts that appeared 95 million years later during the Triassic." Might be good to specify non-mammalian synapsids here
 Done
  • "estimated to be roughly only 1.5 metres" Optional -> Remove "only"
 Done Re-worded this sentence after clarifying the citations for its length (see above), which takes care of this too.
  • When using anatomically jargon, it's usually recommended to provide an in-text definition
 Done? I think I caught everything worth defining, but please point out if I've missed any.
  • "although like other edaphosaurids it is still proportionately small" -> "although, like other edaphosaurids, it is still proportionately small"
 Done
  • I wonder if the first sentence in "Skull" could be split into two sentences
 Done
  • "incisors-like" Should this be "incisor-like"?
 Done It should.
  • "These teeth were pointed from the side" Does this refer to the roughly triangular shape in lateral view? I find the current wording a little confusing.
 Done It does, hopefully it's clearer now.
  • Not sure if a hyphen is needed in "semi-circular"
 Done

Hopefully this is helpful! I'll continue the review tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "who collected the specimen over a period between 2013-2014" This feels a bit awkward right now, perhaps it could be phrased as "who collected the specimen during 2013-2014"?
 Done
  • "parts of both right and left scapula" The plural of scapula is scapulae
 Done
  • "which has been approximately dated the earliest" -> "which has been approximately dated to the earliest"?
 Done
  • What exactly are "marginal teeth"? Are they teeth located on the very edge of the jaws? It might be good to define this term.
 Done Reworded, hopefully clearer.
  • "a characteristically small head and marginal teeth, a jaw joint below the tooth row, and the characteristically tall neural spines with lateral protuberances" Could "small head" and "marginal teeth" be separated by a comma here? Also, since these are characteristic features, I'm not sure if "characteristically" is needed twice.
I intended "small" to refer to both the size of the head and the teeth, but I can see how that's not as clear so I've individually specified the small size of the teeth as well.
  • "shortening snout length" -> "shortened snout length"
 Done
  • "a deeper height of the mandible" I wonder if this could just be phrased as "a deeper mandible"
 Done
  • Perhaps images of related taxa, such as Edaphosaurus, could be placed within the classification section.
 Done I've added an image of an Edaphosaurus skull specifically for comparison with the jaws and teeth, along with some life illustrations on the cladogram where possible if that suffices.

Palaeobiology & palaeoecology reviews will come tomorrow! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Is "palinal motion" the movement of the palate? It might be good to clarify this.
The line "where the jaw is slid backwards to grind food" was intended to clarify what palinal motion describes, which in hindsight isn't as clear as it could be. Hopefully the rewording clears that up.
  • "and so the exact mechanisms" Not sure if the "and" is needed here
 Done
  • "The sedimentary facies of the Bursum Formation indicate that Gordodon inhabited a near-shore coastal plain environment, that over the course of the formation's deposition alternated between terrestrial, beach, and marine environments over cyclical rises and falls of sea level, indicative of its proximity to the coast." This is a very long sentence. Perhaps it could be split up?
 Done

And that's all I've got! This was quite an interesting read - I never realized how unusual Gordodon was before. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, glad to have shone more light on the thing. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot about this! The changes all look good! Unfortunately, I just noticed that the life restoration seems to lack the lack projections on the neural spines, which apparently are quite distinctive in Gordodon. Otherwise, I have no other issues. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed...this came up last time the image went up for review at WP:PALEOART at the end of 2019. At the time, the artist said they'd be making a new one, but that was over a year ago by now and they seem to have dropped off Wikipedia since then. The other issues were fixed by FunkMonk, excepting for the cross bars, and I think I might just try and draw them in myself to sort it. Glad to hear everything else looks fine, thanks again. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 23:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I didn't feel I understood those structures well enough to do it. I think I removed a few too many scale details when I removed the hump, I'll try to add them back in now, so it's going to be ready for your pass at it... FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, much obliged! I didn't even notice those honestly, thanks for the fix. I should hopefully be done with the spikes later today. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs)
And done, hopefully. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 17:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Helicoprion

Been meaning to do this one for a while. Undoubtedly the most famous Permian marine organism, the article as it stands needs some cleanup. I've gone ahead and added a separate "History of Discovery" section, which does overlap awkwardly with the species portion of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My knowledge of Permian eugeneodontids like everyone else here is pretty much zero, so there's a lot of context that needs to be understood and added. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Good to see much-needed work happening on this article. Perhaps try to merge the two sections and add background from additional sources? Some information about morphological differences can probably be merged into Description too. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
One thing I noticed which might be worth looking into - the literature appears to be inconsistent on the spelling of ergasaminon. Bendix-Almgreen spells it that way, but Tapanila spells it ergassaminon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking good! I only have a bunch of minor comments:
  • Fossils of Helicoprion have been found worldwide, as the genus is known from Russia, Western Australia, China, Kazakhstan, Japan, Laos, Norway, Canada, Mexico, and the United States (Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Texas, Utah, and California). – I'm not sure listing US states but not the states of the other countries satisfies WP:NPOV?
  • common logarithmic spiral-shaped root – tooth root? If so, should it be linked?
  • The earliest juvenile tooth – do you possibly mean "the youngest"?
  • and often serrated, which point forward in the spiral – "Which" does not seem to refer to anything grammatically, maybe "bear serrations, which point forward"?
  • The roots of the teeth – now there are multiple roots? I am confused.
  • The roots of the teeth form projections that curve abaxially – they are pointed adaxially, right?
The paper states that "Lower projections of individual teeth curve in an abaxial direction, such that the root of one tooth is shingled below the crown of the previous, smaller tooth in the series." This might be a typo and so I've removed reference to the direction entirely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • consisting of an palatoquadrate and Meckel's cartilage respectively – in the upper and lower jaw, respectively? If so, pointing this out will certainly help with understanding.
  • The studies reconstruction places – Don't we need some apostrophe here?
  • monodontode and complex polyodontode scales – would be ideal to add a brief explanation here for the terms.
  • some more terms could be linked, e.g. morphometric, phylogenies. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed most of these issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Peloneustes

Peloneustes, which I've been working on for quite some time, recently passed GAN. I'm not entirely sure what writing a featured article entails, having never done such a thing on my own before, so I've decided to submit the article here prior to FAC. I know that Jens Lallensack mentioned that the type of thesis should be specified when cited. I've tried to find out what kind of thesis Noè's is, but I'm still not entirely sure what kind it is (it was done for "the degree of Doctor of Philosophy", does that mean that it's a dissertation?). Is there anything else that needs improvement? Any feedback regarding any part of the article will be appreciated! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to review it here soon (will see if I can finish reviewing Garudimimus first) as if it was a FAC, and then I can support it straight away once you nominate it there. In the meantime, how did it go with those Flickr photos? The only other plesiosaur FA is Elasmosaurus, perhaps it would help to look at that and its nomination pages to see how they went? FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I actually forgot about the Flickr photos, sorry about that! There isn't a whole lot of space left in the article, although perhaps an image could get snuck into classification (probably an image of the axial material since it's currently only represented by some cervicals at the moment) and, of course, multiple image templates could get used. I'll probably look into this over the weekend. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely think it's more valuable to show more images of the genus the article is about than other genera, if it's a matter of space. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I've replaced the image of the Pliosaurus skull with the picture of the vertebrae and ribs. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
It is a PhD thesis, yes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I've specified this in the text for Noè (2001). I'll look into finding a better source in place of the master's thesis. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Various papers already cited proved suitable for this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Funk

  • Since this has a pretty clear British affiliation, it should probably be in UK English. Now, you use both "paleo" (US) and for example "catalogued" (UK). FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done I wasn't aware that articles were supposed to follow the nationality of the subject in terms of spelling, but that does make sense. As my writing probably makes obvious, I'm more used to utilizing American spelling, so please let me know if I missed anything! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll have a look, it (WP:Engvar) arguably isn't that important for a subject like this, but it should at least be kept to one type. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Among these was CAMSM J.46913, which would become the holotype specimen of" I think for this to make chronologcal sense, you should wait with mentioning the specimen number by " with the specimen being stored in the university's lecture room within cabinet D". Otherwise it reads as if it received that number right away, while it probably didn't even have one by the time it was named.
I think that I've resolved this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You could mention occupations for the people mentioned.
The one thing that worries me about this is that sometimes the occupations of people aren't stated in the literature, so I'm not sure what the best option would be here. Additionally, since the story of Peloneustes starts pretty early on in paleontological history, some people technically had multiple occupations by our standards, so I'm not sure what to say for them. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think citations for something as trivial as that is needed, I usually just Google the people mentioned. I think it falls under Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. And if someone had multiple occupations, I'll just say naturalist (goes for many 19th century figures) or biologist (works for modern ones). FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I've added them where I could. I didn't list it for the Leeds brothers, since something like "Fossil collector Alfred Leeds had been collecting fossils" sounded a little silly. I was unable to find very much on Jaccard, but it seems like he also published in geology, so I referred to him as a geologist. I wasn't able to find very much information on Koken (I couldn't even find a definite first name), so I just went with "palaeontologist". How does this look? (Also, it's an interesting challenge to remember the "a" in "palaeontologist"!) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "discovered by Henry Porter in a clay pit." Any more info on where this was located? You should also state the country in the history section.
I've added "close to Peterborough, England". --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • " humeri, femora" These could probably be explained.
Changed to "upper limb bones" when defining propodials, added a parenthesized definition on their first mention. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "While Charles Leeds eventually left, Alfred Leeds" Don't think you need to repeat their last names here?
Removed. I restated the last names initially because I feared that not doing so would sound too informal. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You mention the British Museum a few times before you link it. You could also shorten its name after first mention (British Museum or some such).
I've corrected the location of the linking and glossing. I'd prefer not to abbreviate it as "British Museum", as that's the name of another museum, although I can if it's strongly desired. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not a big deal, but could maybe be abbreviated then? FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "multitudinous vertebrae" Can we just say multiple?
Yeah, that's probably a better term here. I've done it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Link museums in image captions.
Done where the museums had not yet been mentioned in-text or in other captions (also skipped over "Musée Paléontologique de Lausanne" as it doesn't seem to have an article). Should I do this for every image caption?
Only at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "lumped Peloneustes into Pliosaurus" First mention of Pliosaurus here, so should be linked.
 Done
  • "However, Peloneustes has gained wider acceptance since." Wider, or just universal? You make it seem like some still lump it in Pliosaurus...
Changed to "However, Peloneustes has since become the acceptanced name." I have never seen anyone lump it into Pliosaurus for practically a century... but yeah, the late 19th century was apparently a good time for paleontologists to have weird rivalries. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "description of two Peloneustes specimens from the Oxford Clay" Where were they found? Were they from the UK?
It seems that they were found near Peterborough. Unfortunately the paper doesn't seem to give specimen numbers. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Could probably be neat to add the rest of the vertebrae[1] to that specimen under classification as a double image? It appears to be the same specimen:[2]
I've combined all of the Flickr images into a multiple image template. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It would probably be easiest to most readers to say "assigned" instead of "referred".
 Done
  • It is probably also easier for most reader if more common terms are used for directions than anatomical terms, but up to you.
 Done, this seems to be the more common practice. The only case in which I refrained from doing this was with the scapular rami, where "dorsal ramus" and "ventral ramus" actually seem to be the names of those features. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "they have all been reassigned to different genera or considered invalid." Might add "since" before "been reassigned".
 Done
  • "the University of Cambridge's Woodwardian Museum" You could just say Woodwardian Museum at this point, has already been introduced.
 Done
  • There is a good deal of text sandwiching under Contemporaneous biota, I think you could easily snip an image there.
Swapped out Pachycostasaurus for Liopleurodon, swapped out the Cryptoclidus image for a right-facing image of the same genus, repositioned the images in the top part of paleoecology, and got rid of the Leedsichthys image, which seemed the least relevant and the most incongruous. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • May be difficult to achieve, but it is preferred that subjects of images face the text instead of away from it. Mainly an issue under Paleobiology, could maybe reverse the locations of some of the images?
 Done
  • Link and explain diagnostic (not sure we have anything appropriate to link?).
On its first mention, I was unsure if I used the term properly, so I changed that part of the sentence to "which cannot be used to differentiate different pliosaurid species". I glossed "nondiagnostic" as "lacking distinguishing features". --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder why we need to show Liopleurodon under classification which does not even seem particularly closely related? There I again think it would be better to use the space on more images of this taxon, such as some of these.[3][4][5]
As a non-brachauchenine thalassophonean, Liopleurodon is actually a relatively close relative of Peloneustes, but I've moved it to paleoecology anyways. I've used a good old multiple image template to include all five images (two of which had already been uploaded a couple years ago or so!). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "spatulate mandibular symphysis" Link and define the latter.
This was actually linked once and defined twice elsewhere in the text. I've moved the link and definition to the appropriate spot and removed the superfluous ones. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "N. Novozhilov" Full name?
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "G. C. Crick" Full name?
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "By then, PIN 426 had heavily suffered from pyrite damage (a buildup of iron sulphate crystals in specimens containing pyrite due to oxidation and exposure to moisture, leading to cracking),[19] and was on the verge of disintegration." Is all this detail really necessary here when it does not belong in this genus?
I've simplified it to "By then, PIN 426 had suffered from heavy damage" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I've gone ahead and dealt with a few of them already. I'll have a lot of spare time this week, so I'll probably get to the rest of them either tomorrow or later today! I've been a little out of practice with article-writing as of late, so it's good to get back in the habit! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
FunkMonk - I think that I've addressed all the above points. Please let me know if I missed anything! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, a few more comments above and below. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "acceptanced" Is this a real word?
No... not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Peloneustes is a small-[12] to medium-sized member of Pliosauridae." Was?
Well, technically it still is. I think that present tense is better here simply for consistency (although I definitely do need to improve the consistency of this elsewhere in the description). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Size comparison" Maybe add "of two specimens"?
 Done
  • "While the holotype of Peloneustes lacks the rear portion of its cranium, many additional well-preserved specimens, including one that has not been crushed from top to bottom, have been assigned to Peloneustes." I don't think you have to repeat the genus name at the end. You could leave it out entirely or write "to the genus" instead?
 Done
  • Why say both crania and skulls? I know they have slightly different meanings, but you use the words in a way that could e interchangeable.
When talking about only the upper part in the description, I've replaced "skull" with "cranium" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Peloneustes bore an elongated skull, which slopes upwards towards its back end." Why mix of tenses?
Rephrased --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Define premaxilla.
 Done
  • "While it has been stated that Peloneustes had nasals" Define nasals, and is this really true? Sounds unusual, but maybe it is widespread among plesiosaurs?
Peloneustes really does seem to lack nasals, and this seems to be pretty common (if not universal) in pliosaurids. It's discussed in some detail in the last paragraph of pg. 643 in this paper. I've given a rough definition of nasals. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also define frontals, lacrimals, jugals, etc., doesn't have to be detailed, just where they are located on the skull.
Defined those three (as well as coronoid) based on rough location --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "cultriform" Define.
Glossed cultriform process. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The premaxilla bears six teeth, and the diastemata (gaps between teeth) of the upper jaw of Peloneustes are narrow" Would probably make more sense to mention the genus name at the beginning rather than the end of the sentence, such as "The premaxilla of Peloneustes".
 Done
  • " NHMUK R3318, the mounted skeleton in the Natural History Museum in London, is 3.5 metres (11.5 ft) long,[13] while the mounted skeleton in the Institut für Geowissenschaften, University of Tübingen measures 4.05 metres (13.3 ft) in length" Do any isolated jaws or other bits indicate larger sizes, as is the case for other pliosaurs?
I'm guessing so - "GPIT uncatalogued 1" is not the longest mandible of Peloneustes. However, I don't know if this has ever been explicitly stated to indicate significantly larger individuals in the literature (I can't find any mention of this). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "making it an autapomorphy of Peloneustes" Perhaps say "unique feature" in parenthesis?
 Done
  • "Peloneustes had heterodont dentition, that is, it had teeth of different shapes. The larger teeth are caniniform" There is some inconsistency in tense throughout description, should be consistent where it can be.
Fixed this particular instance. I'll look over the section in more detail tomorrow to weasel out any other cases of this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've addressed some of the new comments above. I'll get to the some more of them tomorrow. I'm thinking of taking this to FAC once this review's done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that I've addressed all of the new points. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Cervical, dorsal, etc. could be explained.
Explained each of the vertebral types. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder if calling the "Postcranium" section "Postcranial skeleton" instead would be more reader friendly?
 Done
  • Are there no more recent assessment of vertebra number than 1913?
Not that I can find. This paper lists a count of 21-22 cervicals, though cited to Andrews (1913). Not sure if that might be worth mentioning?
  • The levels and tint could maybe be whitened more in the old, orangey images?
I'll see what I can do, though this is a bit trickier for non-line art. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
FunkMonk, I've uploaded a retouched version of the two crania: File:Peloneustes Crania and Teeth.jpg, how does this look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, perhaps the same could be done to the other such images? FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I've done this for the image to the right of the Lydekker paragraph. For the tooth illustration, I can't seem to figure out who the author is, so I'm not sure what to do in this case (I've cleaned up the image but haven't uploaded it because of this). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's annoying that these old papers rarely credit the artists. This[6] image could maybe be less unwieldy if you arranged the parts horizontally, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
What should be done in this case (with the tooth) then? Is "unknown" an acceptable credit for the author field on Commons? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I imagine PD UK anonymous[7] would suffice? FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 Done
  • "Other plesiosaurs have also been hypothesised to have caudal fins." Aren't impressions known from at least one taxon?
Er... sort of? The holotype of Seeleysaurus did preserve a caudal fin, but the soft tissue impressions were subsequently painted over, so, frustratingly, this can't be confirmed. I added "with impressions of such a structure possibly known in one species", though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Explain scapula as shoulder blade.
 Done
  • "The tibia is larger than the fibula" state these are bones of the lower "leg".
 Done
  • "The radius is approximately as wide as it is long, unlike the ulna" State these are bones of the lower arm.
 Done, hopefully the way I phrased it was clear (same goes for the above)
  • " The metacarpals, metatarsals, and the proximal manual phalanges" State these are "hand"/flipper bones.
Added "some of the bones making up the outer part of the paddle"
  • Perhaps the last, large image in the compilation under Classification should be the one of the body? I see it makes sense to show the tail last due to the order, but there is probably more interesting stuff to show as large in the body image?
 Done
  • There are still a bunch of unlinked terms in image captions.
I think that I've got them all now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe link buoyancy?
 Done
  • "leading palaeontologist Judy Massare to propose" When? Also give dates to other such claims.
Gave the date here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "utilised all four of their limbs, but not the tail, for propulsion" May seem obvious, but can we say how this is known?
I've slightly reworded this to include the entire vertebral column and noted proposed alternative functions of the tail. Is this an improvement, or should I see if I can find something that explains this more explicitly? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "at the time, the scope of genera was similar to what is currently used for families" Does the source say this specifically? Usually they'd just call them wastebasket taxa.
McHenry states "Victorian taxonomists were fond of creating new species, doing so with almost every new specimen found, but were reluctant to create new genera - their concept of the genus probably equates with our modern concept of the family." Wastebasket taxa aren't actually mentioned in the reference, and I seem to remember that being an issue when I used that term without it being stated in the source when working on Tatenectes. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks good then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The snout contained elongated bones to help prevent bending and bears a" Two different tenses.
I think that I've ironed out the grammatical issues in this subsection. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "was a piscivore" Explain.
 Done
  • "The front regions of the jaws of Peloneustes indicate" How?
Specified that it's due to their elongation. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Peloneustes has also been suggested to have inflicted bite marks upon a specimen of Cryptoclidus." By who and when?
Added. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "cataloged as" Catalogued in UK English.
 Done
  • Link, British Museum of Natural History, Lydekker, and Oxford Clay Formation in captions.
Done with Lydekker, the British Museum of Natural History and the Oxford Clay Formation were already linked in preceding article text, though, should they still be linked in the captions? (Come to think of it, my linking of Liopleurodon in its image caption might be superfluous.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The article and the captions are separate, like the intro, so terms should be linked at first mention in each. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Done, also linked mandible, cervical vertebrae, shoulder girdle, pelvic girdle, and Cryptoclidus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "bituminous", " fissile", "benthic", "epicontinental" Explain?
 Done
  • The "Contemporaneous biota" section goes into an unusual level of detail ("Ophthalmosaurus was well adapted for deep diving, thanks to its streamlined, porpoise-like body and gigantic eyes, and probably fed on cephalopods."), I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I wouldn't have "demanded" it as a reviewer. Meaning you wouldn't have to be as detailed when writing a future article, but if you like writing it, it's nice to have.
Since niche partitioning is a rather important palaeoecological theme here, I thought it would be good to explain what everyone was in the business of eating here and how (also, there's a lot in the literature about ecology of the Peterborough Member, so that definitely helped with all the detail). I'm glad that it isn't coming off as too much, although I will probably not be quite as detailed for creatures from more poorly understood ecosystems! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "indicating that they fed on different prey, thereby avoiding competition" Link or mention niche partitioning?
Mentioned. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Liopleurodon ferox is a large, powerful pliosaurid" was? There is a good deal of such tense jumping in the latter part of the Contemporaneous biota section that could be sorted out.
Changed to "The large, powerful pliosaurid Liopleurodon ferox appears to have been adapted to take on large prey,". The problem here is that while the anatomical features still exist, the pliosaurids aren't still hunting prey. I did find a couple of incorrect tenses used though, please let me know if there are any others that I missed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Are full binomials needed for all the other plesiosaurs mentioned in the biota section? You don't do it for other organisms mentioned. It makes sense for "Pliosaurus" andrewsi, of course.
Since I did it for "Pliosaurus" andrewsi, I felt it best to be consistent in the paragraph. I can shorten the other names if desired, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Not a big deal, though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The front ends of each side of the mandible (lower jaw) of Peloneustes are fused into a long unit called a mandibular symphysis" But isn't this true for most vertebrates? Seems a bit odd that this is important enough to mention in the short intro summary.
Well, it seems to be rather variable. However, mandibular symphyses of pliosaurids are distinctively long (and receive a good bit of attention in the literature). I'm not totally sure how to put more emphasis on "long" here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Then the emphasis should be on the length. For example, state the mandibular symphysis was long, with an explanation of what the symphysis itself is in parenthesis? Because now the sentence just reads as if it states the animal had such a structure, not why it is distinct. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Changed to "The mandibular symphysis, where the front ends of each side of the mandible (lower jaw) fuse, is elongate in Peloneustes, and helped strengthen the jaw." --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link basal in the intro.
 Done, also glossed it and linked it in the article text. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The article looks pretty nice to me now, and I'll support at FAC. There is still some image text sandwiching which may be brought up at FAC, but not by me... FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Is there a way to immediately archive a section on this page (as the WP:FAC page states "Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.") --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Since this isn't part of the "standard" PR page, it shouldn't be necessary, but if you don't want to wait for the bot, I guess you can manually archive it the same way as on the paleoart page. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that I'll archive this section tomorrow unless anyone objects. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Life has been really busy lately, so I'm probably going to hold off nominating this for FA (and archiving this section) until I have more available time. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, who knows, maybe someone else will come by with comments in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Found many more free photos here, Slate Weasel, of course not room for many of them, but maybe some are of significance:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that at WT:PALEO. It looks like they've got a picture of the 3D skull, which definitely would be good to include. I'll see if I can upload and fit in a few more images over the next week or so, perhaps they could fit next to the Leeds paragraph in Discovery, the first paragraph of Other Assigned Species, the cladogram, or the first paragraph of Feeding Mechanics. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to sneak that image of the uncrushed skull into the Discovery section, I'm not sure how effectively this has been done... unfortunately there's not much space left for left-aligned images. I'm considering moving it down to feeding mechanics... any thoughts? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, could maybe be on the left at the top of the feeding section? If you want to cut down on images, I just realised the isolated tooth drawing is right under an image which already includes very similar drawings of isolated teeth... FunkMonk (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I've relocated the new skull image. I think that I'll keep that tooth for the moment, as I can't think of any advantage of removing it at the moment, though it's good to keep in mind should a more relevant image appear. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, about the tooth, another solution could be to rotate it so it is vertically oriented, and make it a double image with the vertical skull plate from the same article... FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I should have much more available time for the next month or so, so I'll archive this section tomorrow and then nominate it for FA, unless anyone objects. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Peer_review/Archive_3&oldid=1029609578"