This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey guys, new around here. I decided to work on expanding this article because of the surprisingly (previous) little writing on it and the relatively good coverage in literature about Garudimimus. Surely, I should have prepared the article before the GA nomination, so I'm here kinda rectifying my fault. As discussed with Jens Lallensack, there are several issues across the article that may be quickly fixed with more editors here. Don't bother on fixing the plural as I'll be doing it. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't expect to do a fuller breakdown of the article, but I'm not fond of how much the deinocheirid placement is favored over the Hartman et al. garudimimid arrangement. The lead states that "This deinocheirid placement of Garudimimus has been widely corroborated in most subsequent analyses.", the taxobox puts in it Deinocheiridae, and the classification section gives the garudimimid idea about two sentences before essentially dismissing it as if it has been rejected or something. As icing on the cake we get two cladograms for the deinocheirid idea, which both seems unnecessary and further reinforces it as the "correct" position. What is never mentioned is how Hartman et al. found it being related to Deinocheirus to be extremely unlikely, with 14 steps necessary to force them together. I also cannot find any trace of them finding Garudimimidae to be "non-monophyletic". Now, yes, more studies have included it in Deinocheiridae, but that is merely because that's been around for more years (the two studies cited for "However, the deinocheirid placement of Garudimimus has been widely followed and/or recovered" are not taxonomic in nature and merely went with the only idea of its position that was published at the time). The newer placement is based off of more a more recent, robust matrix which merely has not had time to impact other studies. I would clear out references to it definitely being a deinocheirid (the lead, taxobox), give a more fair balance between the ideas in the classification section, and remove the Paraxenisaurus cladogram. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Good to know that someone has concerns about this topic. I reflected the deinocheirid placement mainly because of the same reason you mentioned (more time around), but despite this, I have re-read Hartman et al. and the respective posts of Mortimer so the current idea of the article may look a little bit off. It would be wise to have a balance between the two placements so I'll be cleaning that out, however, something that confuses me is the current validity of Garudimimidae, does it have a new definition or follows that of Barsbold 1981? or just none...? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe there is a definition in the supplementary material of Hartman et al.. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Funk
Yeah, this is certainly a good place to start. At first glance, I'm wondering if the article goes a bit too off topic in places. The whole Social behaviour section does not seem to be about it at all, for example, but about other ornithomimids, which we don't know whether we can infer anything from for this genus. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Mmmmh most likely no, just wanted to include the paleobiological influence of the Bayan Shire bonebed somehow. Should this section be expanded? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I think what FunkMonk meant is that this paragraph, up to "cursorial capacities in adults than in juveniles", is about ornithomimids only, and therefore not necessarily true for Garudimimus. The evidence of gregariousness in ornithomimids could be relevant as background information to what follows, but I would make clear that you are talking about the other family here. The part "Additionally, the increase in the tibia-femur ratio through the ontogeny of Sinornithomimus may indicate higher cursorial capacities in adults than in juveniles.", on the other hand, is misleading as it may not apply to Garudimimus at all, I would remove this one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Like Jens said, as it reads now, it's as if you're applying this social behaviour info to Garudimimus. That would be fine if we had any indication that the two were closely related or that this behaviour was widespread among ornithomimids, but as is I think it might be a bit misleading. But it's certainly up to discussion. I also included a lot of general info on oviraptorid reproduction in the Nemegtomaia article, but that was specifically because a nest is known for this genus, and because the info is thought to apply widely within the gorup. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
By several times Garudimimus was recovered as the sister or at least closely related taxon to Ornithomimidae, moreover, Kobayashi and Barsbold have pointed out the likely similar feeding habits between Garudimimus and ornithomimids, so they could have been similar in other ways. Not necessarily saying that we should assume gregariousness in Garudimimus as there are no credited evidence and the Bayan Shire bonebed remains undescribed. Despite this, I would like to mention the results per Hartman et al. 2019 which have recovered Archaeornithomimus within the Garudimimidae. Now, if we take a look on the current evidence, gregariousness was certainly more widespread among ornithomimids with Gallimimus, Sinornithomimus, Archaeornithomimus and a bonebed from Alberta as examples. However, the major problem here is the deinocheirid classification of Garudimimus... PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, but I'm not sure that justifies having a whole section based on sources that don't mention this taxon, and which is basically not about it. Looks more like something that should be in the ornithomimosaur article and the Sinornithomimus article. At most, I think it warrants a sentence under paleoenvironment, stating that another ornithomimosaur from its formation is known to have been gregarious. But I'll return to this later, seems Jens does not take as much issue with it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with FunkMonk, I don't think this information belongs in this article. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Now it looks very unrelated to Garudimimus so yeah I agree. I would probably move the section to the Ornithomimosauria article. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure crania is plural (of cranium), just calling the section "skull" would be more comprehensible for most readers. FunkMonk (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Done Already fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Link terms in captions, such as holotype, arctometatarsalian, Deinocheirus, Bayan Shireh Formation, etc.
Done
"(note the incorrect caudal vertebrae)" If this is to be mentioned in the caption, it would have to explain why it's inaccurate.
Done Now explained.
"Mounted holotype skull without the now inaccurate "nasal horn"" I'd say that goes without saying.
Done Removed.
"Size comparison of MPC-D 100/13" Why not just say holotype here, as you do in the other captions?
Done
It seems the restorations in the article have not been reviewed? Some of the claws seem very curved, for example, while ornithomimosaurs are known for their straight claws (except maybe the hand-claws of Deinocheirus).
Submitted to Image Review.
"Sclerotic ring in a specimen of Prosaurolophus" It pretty pretty tangential to show a completely unrelated dinosaur fossil here just because it's mentioned in the same study? It wuld seem even more relevant to show for example a modern analogue.
I've seen the supplemental info [1] of the paper and there are way too many avians to pick one. Probably a ratite like an emu or ostrich? These two were found to be mesopic as well as Garudimimus. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, if you can find a good photo of a head maybe. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have just added the skull of a common ostrich for a better explanation. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Some paragraphs are very long walls of text, could benefit from being broken up.
Done
I'll read further soonish, PaleoNeolitic, I assume you're still working on this article? FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm back as well, sorry for letting you wait with this! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Yep still here, a little bit inactive though, but let's continue. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why specimen numbers should be bolded, or if it is necessary.
Just to make a small focus on the historical relevant/first specimen. I can remove it if it's not that required.
"during a Soviet-Mongolian expedition" Add that it was a paleontological expedition.
Done
" The remains are catalogued as MPC-D 100/13 (originally GIN 100/13)" You could spell out the institution in the parenthesis.
How about now?
Looks good, link the place too? FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Done
"In the same year this specimen was formally and briefly described by the Mongolian paleontologist Rinchen Barsbold as the holotype of the new-named", "new named" is redundant, you state in the same section what it described that year, which makes it inherent that it was a new name. You could also just say "was described and named".
Done Removed new-named.
"of the new-named type species Garudimimus brevipes" You could just say that both the genus and species were named. It goes without saying that the only species would then be the type species.
Done Fixed.
"and a Latin" Why "a"?
Done Oops, removed.
"Barsbold identified Garudimimus as an ornithomimosaurian taxon but noted it was more primitive than ornithomimids" Taxon names need links.
Done
I think the known elements of the holotype could be mentioned earlier under history, closer to the paragraph about its discovery and naming.
Is this better?
Yeah, I wonder if " the skull in its entirety" could just be the more concise "the complete skull"? FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Done Now changed.
arctometatarsalia and taphonomic need explanation.
Done
"who referred the metatarsus of MPC-D 100/13 as Oviraptor sp." Referred it to?
Done Is this better?
Yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"Thomas R. Holtz followed this interpretation" When?
Done Added year.
"An early interpretation was made by Philip J. Currie and Dale Alan Russell" State when instead of "early"; which means little to the reader.
Done Fixed.
" Currie and David A. Eberth claimed" When?
Done Added year.
"that part of the Archaeornithomimus material" You need to explain what Archaeornithomimus is.
Done
"They claimed a similar trait in Garudimimus which was represented by a nasal horn" But this is not the first time the crest was proposed? Greg Paul illustrated it in 1988, so the idea must have floated around long before.
That means I missed some papers; working on it. Any link for Paul 1988?
It's in his famous 1988 book "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World", reply to the email I sent you then I'll hit you up... But I'm not sure if he was the first to propose it, doesn't the original description mention it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have checked Barsbold 1981 and (apparently) he did not mention a nasal horn. I suppose then, there were some authors discussing it within the seven years of difference between the description and Paul 1988. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find relevant literature related to this horn, so I added a cite for Paul 1988. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
"note incorrect caudal vertebrae; only four are reported in the holotype" If it's the number that's incorrect, specify "incorrect number of". But what are they then, if they don't belong to the specimen? They may just not have been listed?
They are most certainly the first missing dorsals in the mount, just misidentified back then I guess. I should probably rephrase it...?
Hmmm, is it not known for sure that they used the wrong vertebrae in the mount? Could it be they're just not listed in the literature? FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
It's possible considering the lack of formality surrounding some Mongolian specimens (e. g., the holotype of Achillobator or the obscure Adasaurus specimens) but judging by their neural arches and spines I would say these are dorsals. Sadly this is not 100% accurate. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Why are family names bolded in the cladograms?
I used to edit like that. Fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"During the same year" Since this is at the beginning of a new paragraph, I think it would be better to list the year again, or it will be harder for the reader to find where the year was mentioned before.
Done
I think it's best to name the subject of the article at the beginning of each section, now the description section begins without it, for example.
Oof I kinda don't get this point. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I mean mention the name of the genus. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh I see, it appears that I fixed this at the start of the Description section without realize lol. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
"a gently larger size" Kind of unusual wording, how about "slightly" or "somewhat"?
Done Changed for "slightly".
Woah, I hadn't seen this[2] paper before, I only thought there was the 2012 paper about feathered ornithomimids.
Just sick, with both papers we have four described specimens with feather integument. Also the 2016 reconstruction is very illustrative about the feather pattern for ornithomimids! PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
There are many terms that need further explanation to the lay reader under description, even something like sclerotic ring, I'd say.
Done Now explained.
Personally I always try to translate anatomical terms of direction to something most people can understand. Up to you what you choose, but it's probably easiest for most people to read.
Partly done
As an example of the two above points, this sentence needs both explanations and perhaps alternate direction terms to be understandable to most readers: "The edges of the premaxilla are edentulous, thin and sharply developed, and on the lower lateral surfaces numerous foramina can be found." So it would be good to look throughout the article for more terms.
Done I'll be working on these above points. Also, that sentence is now separated for a better understanding. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
"This premaxilla borders" Why "this" and not "the"?
Done Oops, a typo. Now fixed.
"The edges of the premaxilla are edentulous" I think the fact that it was toothless should not just be a byline to the description of the premaxilla, but should be stated in the very first sentence of the skull description where you also mention the preserved sclerotic rings.
Done
"joints with the lacrimal" Should be "joins", but more importantly, lacrimal needs to be linked and explained.
Fixed. Is it really neccesary to explain what the lacrimal is? After all it's just a bone in the skull. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you could explain where on the skull it is, "in front of the eye opening" or such... Same for other skull bones. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
You could link terms to the Dinogloss, so they are explained more specific to dinosaurs instead of humans.
I was thinking about this but wasn't sure. Should I link the most human-explained terms? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Probably, if not all. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Done
"When retrodeformed" This probably needs brief explanation. Right now, you only explain it far below the description section.
Done Removed.
The description seems to be hyeperdetailed; while I tend to write pretty detailed descriptions as well, I try to keep out information that either doesn't tell us what distinguishes the animal, is similar to other animals, or doesn't give an idea of its more general look. It's a tough balance, but I wonder if some info here could either be simplified or pruned. For example the following, what context is it important in? "On the posterior surface, the quadrate preserves a large depression that is positioned at its mid-height. This depression is oval in shape, measuring 1.2 cm (12 mm) long and 0.4 cm (4.0 mm) wide. A pneumatic foramen is also present in the bottom area of the depression.[19] Near the bottom region to the depression, the lateral border of the quadrate has a tract for the paraquadrate foramen."
Partly done I added it to have some sort of connection to the quadrate image. Just like the points above, I'll be working on the description section as it seems to have major issues. Also, sorry for the lack of activity here, university keeps me busy! PaleoNeolitic (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
No problem, PaleoNeolitic, I'm also pretty slow. Ping me when you're done, then I'll continue. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
FunkMonk Howdy! I managed to put my hands again on this article and did some tweaks in the skull subsection. How does it look now? I'll continue with the postcranial skeleton as soon as possible, and also link dinogloss terms. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks better at a glance, I still wonder if you should give locations for some bones, for example "The lacrimal bone was semi T-shaped and inserted into a depression on the prefrontal. The prefrontal bone was a thin", I'm not sure most readers would know where these are located, same for "postorbital" and so on. You could just say the lacrimal is in front of the eye, for example, simple but helpful. Also, I talked with Jens Lallensack about whether we even need to use technical terms for features that have widely used common names such as eye socket instead of orbit. It would help reduce words, and make it more comprehensible, but the technical article could still be pipelinked. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I see, so it would be more handy to use a shorter yet comprehensible term? like, should I replace eye socket for orbit and explain the latter term at the beginning, and so on? Still working on those locations. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, or you could just link orbit from eye socket, I don't think any explanation is needed for such a common term. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Just finished some tweaks on both skull and skeleton sections. Is this better? Also linked dinogloss terms. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"On the inner sides, the parietals are flattened in the posterior portion of the skull roof. The skull roof is more wider than long though." Not sure why "more" is needed in front of "wider", as the word "wider" itself should indicate it is more so. And what is the "though" for?
Done Fixed.
" The edentulous lower jaws are very complete and well-preserved." I think it's redundant to state again here that it was edentulous.
Done Also removed the whole sentence.
" and is more thickened to the posterior end" At the posterior end?
Done
"Given that Garudimimus had a downturned dentary, the jaws do not occlude across" Why change of tense?
Inadequate wording. I'll be changing verbs to the past tense.
"and is side to side rounded" Rounded from side to side?
Done
" The symphysis (bone union)" I think this needs a more specific definition, such as "where each half of the mandible connect" or similar.
Done Added.
"The splenial has its deepest at the posterior end" Is deepest?
Done
"A second large mandibular element is represented by the surangular." This seems a bit convoluted. Could be simpler like "the surungular was the second large mandibular element" or such.
Done Changed.
"structure to joint with the mandibular condyle of the quadrate" Joining or that joins with?
Done
Not sure if you saw the latest points, PaleoNeolitic, but here's a ping. Will continue with the rest later. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! didn't notice them. I'll catch them up during the following days. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Jens
However, Barsbold did not specify the exact material and claimed that no caudal vertebrae were actually preserved. – I would remove this, it is not relevant what he did not state, especially when not stated by any other source.
Done
Barsbold identified Garudimimus as an ornithomimosaurian taxon but noted it was more primitive than ornithomimosaurs – ornithomimids?
Done
Though the specimen was given a partial illustration in the original description, – again, I would remove, it conflicts a bit with WP:EDITORIAL
Done
Barsbold provided additional remains – "described additional remains of the holotype specimen"? The reader might think that he had a second specimen.
Done
in 1983 and later in 1990 with Halszka Osmólska. – maybe reformulate to make clear that only the 1990 paper was with Osmólska, maybe a "," will solve it already.
Done
An early incorrect interpretation – there are no incorrect interpretations, only refuted ones. Just remove "incorrect" here. I think we still have this problem in various places in the article.
Done
who depicted the metatarsus of GIN 100/13 as Oviraptor sp. – not sure what this means? They referred it to Oviraptor sp.?
Done Oops you are correct, now changed to "referred". Got words mixed up.
and giving it an arctometatarsal condition – "reconstructed it with an"?
Done
arctometatarsal condition – "arctometatarsalian". Also fix in the remainder of the article. It would be great to briefly explain what this means here.
Done
could have been arctometatarsal – as above
Done
based on the arcometatarsalian statement – "assumed arctometatarsalian condition"?
Done
presence of the vestigial digit I – "vestigial" needs at least a link.
Done Now added.
They pointed out that the metatarsals were crushed – Tense is somewhat inconsistent; you usually choose present tense, therefore "are crushed".
Done. Fixed.
GIN 100/13 was first described in detail by Yoshitsugu Kobayashi in 2004 – no, "first description" is what Barsbold did while naming the species. Maybe "re-described in detail by"
GIN 100/13 was first described in detail by Yoshitsugu Kobayashi in 2004,[9] which was formally published on works by Kobayashi and Barsbold in the following year. In this comprehensive redescription – I don't think this is relevant, and it doesn't say much. Less is often more. Instead I would just write "In a comprehensive redescription in 2005, Yoshitsugu Kobayashi and Barsbold …"
I have removed the entire sentence by now, but maybe the cite should be kept as it was the one of the first extensive works on Garudimimus. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This redescription corrected numerous of the previous inaccurate statements, – again, as above.
Done
Despite being first labelled as GIN 100/13, the holotype has been consequently recatalogued as MPC-D 100/13. – Maybe remove this sentence here and write "The remains are catalogued as MPC-D 100/13 (originally GIN 100/13)" in the second sentence of the History section to have it more condensed, and the information together. We usually do not have the specimen numbers in bold also (if anything, the current number should be bold I think).
Done Moved.
composed by – composed of?
Done
may potentially be known among – "be present among"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Done
Though the holotype specimen is a sub-adult individual, its length is estimated to have been around 3.5 m (11 ft) weighing approximately 98 kg (216 lb). – I do not understand why this sentence starts with "though". I don't think it is unusual that size is estimated for sub-adult individuals?
Removed.
sub-adult status – "stage" instead?
Done
The sub-adult status of the holotype may indicate a gently larger size in adults. – I can't find this in the given source.
A mistake from my part. I forgot to add the cite and can't exactly recall the reference for this line as it was a quick read.
postorbital bar – try to explain as many terms as possible, or, in this case, give the region where this structure can be found, to help the reader with understanding. I should add this term to the Dinogloss also.
Done
openings on the base of the supraoccipital top projection – the source says "fossae", which means "depression", not opening (which would be "foramen" or "fenestra"). I would just word it "depressions on the upper surface of the supraoccipital at the back of the skull"; you only loose minimal precision but it will be easier to follow.
Done Replaced.
anterior caudal vertebrae neural spines – You tend to queue words like this. I would word it "neural spines of the anterior caudal vertebrae".
Done Now that you're mentioning this, it looks weird; I'll try to catch them up.
You are also a bit inconsistent with terminology; you mostly avoid terms of direction (e.g., dorsal, posterior), but in the last example you use "anterior".
I tried to avoid terms like dorsal or ventral as they seem to be more technical than anterior or posterior.
pedal phalanges III-1 and III-2 – I would write it out for clarity ("first and second phalanxes of the third digit of the foot").
Done
with identifiable cranial elements. – Not sure what this means/what it adds. Maybe remove.
I think it may be synonymous with "well-preserved" so I'll remove it.
Although the left side is more damaged than the right one – suggest to remove "one".
Done
Given that the right side is less damaged, the description was more focused in this side – This is personal taste for the most part, but I would consider this excessive detail, since it is just the methodology of the paper and does not directly inform us on the dinosaur. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll follow your earlier suggestion "less is often more". Removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I've just published the article for Cretacladoides, and I want it to be as good as possible. What should I add/change? Thanks in advance! Borophagus (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
This looks like a good start! I'm not that knowledgeable about chondrichthyans, but I'll give this a shot:
Measurements should always have conversions (Template:Convert is helpful for this).
Per WP:LEADCITE, if statements in the lead are included in the article below, then they don't need to be cited in the lead.
"Cretacladoides was a possible genus of falcatid chondrichthyan found in France and Austria." - I'd personally use "is" instead of "was", as the latter could imply that a falcatid identity (or even validity!) is no longer viable.
"While some of these had already been described" - Prior to extraction from the matrix?
For terms like lingually, I've usually been told to either define or replace them with more familiar words.
Perhaps an image of Falcatus could be added somewhere to give readers an idea of what a falcatid looks like?
As for what can be added, a section on its environment and contemporaneous fauna would be good (pal(a)eoecology/pal(a)eoenvironment). If it's ever been in a published cladogram, that could be included as well. Hopefully these comments are helpful! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
All right! Thanks for the comments. I'll get to work on it now (if I can figure out the citation template!) Borophagus (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
How does it look now? I've incorporated your suggestions, apart from the citation templates (still trying to wrap my head around them), terminology (can't find an equivalent for lingually) and the ecology stuff. Can't find much about that, so I'll keep looking. Thanks for your help! Borophagus (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
It looks good. Perhaps "inwards" or "towards the mouth" could be used to describe lingually? Also, I see that I left out "Link" in one of my above comments, sorry about that (fortunately it seems like it still made sense)! If the fossils were recovered from a named formation (or other geologic unit), one can usually find information on its environment by researching that unit. If not, then there's probably not going to be a lot of information available, although there's still a chance that some information may be out there. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the "lingually" thing. The sample locality is apparently Klausrieglerbach, which has no information besides being dysoxic, bearing ammonoid fossils, and possibly being deep-sea. I've added a bit to "Late Survival" discussing the Klausrieglerbach, but would it be worth writing an entire palaeoecology section? Borophagus (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
It would probably be worth it to mention the presence of ammonoids. This paper ([3]) seems to mention some other sharks from the same Austrian locality (it's paywalled, unfortunately, but the abstract seems to provide sufficient information), and this publication ([4]) looks like it may have more information on invertebrates from there. I think the information on environment and coexisting fauna could possibly be put into its own paragraph after some expansion. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll have to work on most of that tomorrow, but the extra sources will definitely help. Thanks! Borophagus (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I've worked on the article a little more. How does it look now? Borophagus (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks pretty good! I wonder if a link to aptychus could be somehow sneaked into the palaeoecology section. The only major point I have left is that the lead could be expanded more now that the article's grown. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
All right! I'll figure out a way to incorporate aptychus, and I'll expand the lead a bit. Thanks! Borophagus (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I've done some more work on the lead and tried to include aptychus. How is it now? Borophagus (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Are lower beaks not aptychi (I only proposed adding it because I was under that impression)? Currently the article makes it sound like they're different. I haven't dealt with ammonites for quite some time, so my knowledge of them might be a little rusty. "of the genera" is used more often than "in the genera", I think. I'd also recommend adding some information on description and environment to the lead. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know too much about ammonites myself, to be honest. I'll have to sort that and the other things later, but thanks! Borophagus (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
ETA: It seems that they're either a bivalved closing hatch for ammonite shells or a double-plated beak structure. I'm not entirely sure. Borophagus (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The main reason I proposed including reference to aptychi might be beneficial as ammonite jaws were mentioned (Lamellaptychus), it seems that I may have been a bit rash my assumptions, though. However, on second thought, the wording doesn't really feature any implications as to whether or not aptychi are jaws, so if apytchi of the other taxa are known, mention of them may as well be left in. It seems like at least some of the Lamellaptychus material belongs to Karsteniceras, though, so it may be pertinent to specify this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Got it. I'll work on that later today. Borophagus (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
"Cretacladoides is a possible genus" Isn't it technically a genus whether it is considered valid or not? And I don't see any explanation in the article of why its validity would be disputed? FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Bad wording on my part. I meant to put something along the lines of, "a genus of chondrichthyan, possibly a falcatid." Borophagus (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Jens
There is this article that can be incorporated. It also has free images which could be used. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Perfect! Not sure how I can crop the photograph of the holotype, but this will help a lot. Thanks! Borophagus (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
One thing you can do if you don't have image software could be to upload the full image to Commons, and then use the Commons croptool to make a new, cropped file. But I think you shouldbe able to crop images even with the most basic software? Even just the Windows image viewer has the ability to crop. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
How's this? Holotype of Cretacladoides noricum (NHMW 2017/0055/0001) in profile view for demonstration of the section planeBorophagus (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Looking good, coincidentally, my answer to your original comment was "I'd just include the B, it doesn't really hurt, and can always be painted out later." FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I changed it because I didn't think the wording made much sense, but I'm glad to hear it's okay.
ETA: how does it look in the article? Borophagus (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, of course a shame with the line over it, I wonder if its purpose should be explained in the caption, but probably not necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The line isn't really elaborated on in the paper, so to be honest, I don't know what its function is. I agree that it would look a lot better if it wasn't there, though. Borophagus (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Got right to work on this, I think I've comprehensively covered the taxon; there seems to be little written about the Ulansuhai Formation to support a palaeenvironment section. Would have been funny to nominate an article for GA the same day the genus in question was named but I figured I should run it through here first, especially given my obvious poor skill at writing Description sections. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 14:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Jens
Nice! Will add points below as I read through.
the oldest known pachycephalosaur and falls within the subset of the family – do you mean "oldest known pachycephalosaurid", as you refer to a family? Pachycephalosaur would be Pachycephalosauria?
It is older than Wannanosaurus so per current consensus on pachycephalosaur phylogeny the distinction is meaningless, though I suppose amending it to pachycepahlosaurid for the offchance Stenopelix or something does end up back in the group wouldn't hurt.
It consisted of a parietal bone, largely complete along its midline and right side but missing part of the left. – Just checking: Actually a single parietal (either left or right), or both together? If the latter, I think it should be "the fused left and right parietal bones" or something similar.
I think to say it is fused would be correct yes; it's generally just called the parietal in a singular fashion in my experience with the literature.
were returned to Sweden for study in Uppsala. – They were "returned" to China later, so maybe say "brought" or something similar here?
Reasonable change, yes.
on North America pachycephalosaurs – "North American"?
Whoops, I'll fix that.
as a valid species below the family level. – Species are always below family level. Say "taxon" instead?
Sounds good.
noting it likely belonged to Asian genus like Prenocephale – doesn't make complete sense to me: of course it belonged to an Asian genus, since it is from Asia. Maybe "belonged to a known genus, possibly Prenocephale"?
Sullivan's logic for singling out Prenocephale was that it was Asian and Stegoceras was not, and so the indeterminate bexelli was more likely the former than its traditional placement as part of the latter. Therefore the specifier of Asian is necessary to communicate what he was trying to say.
Ok, maybe add "to a established Asian genus such as Prenocephale", for extra clarity? In any case, there is still the "a" missing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Any idea who Eric Stahl is? A preparator?
The paper says he "described a new method for moulding and casting vertebrate fossils" but it seemed like it would be clutter to include.
The Swedish Wikipedia has an article on Eric Ingemar Ståhl.--MWAK (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
based on how the specimen had been talked about in the literature, – "talked about" sounds a bit colloquial. "discussed"?
Alright.
its place within Pachycephalosauridae – "position"?
Either seems fine to me but I'l make the change.
Position is just the correct technical term that is equally accessible to lay readers, so I would prefer this. But it is a very minor point, I agree. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
S. bexelli locality – I suggest to stick with Tsondolien-Khuduk locality, otherwise readers may get confused and assume that this is a different locality.
I was doing it to avoid the paragraph getting a bit repetitive but clarity should come first, yes.
The Dinosauria ascribed the rocks – I would name the authors of the respective book chapter, and not name the book, as done elsewhere. Reader will not now what "The Dinosauria" is.
Fair enough.
is the prominent embayment on at the back of parietal. – on or at?
Either seems to work, I'll cut "at".
along this parieto-squamosal shelf. – a bit confusing since "this parieto-squamosal shelf" was not mentioned. Just say "at the back of the skull" instead?
Is that specific enough? It seems like a loss of information.
I was mostly concerned about comprehensibility, since "parieto-squamosal shelf" comes out of nothing. What about "along the protruding rear of the skull, which is known as the parieto-squamosal shelf" or something similar? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Its parietal anatomy is overall an intermediate half-step between – I can't follow this one; what half-step? And from which view are we looking at the bone here?
Half-step was my attempt at making it clear what "intermediate" means in a phylogenetic context, I have my doubts just it is intermediate would be clear to lay readers. I'll just quote the sentence of the paper I'm trying to adapt here, if you have a better suggestion of how to word it I'm open to suggestion: "The lateral profile of the parietal of Sinocephale resembles Acrotholus audeti and suggests a weakly developed parietosquamosal shelf intermediate in morphology between the horizontal posteromedian extension of the parietal in the aforementioned Stegoceras-grade taxa and the smoothly rounded parietal morphology (sometimes referred to as “down�turned”) of Sphaerotholus spp. and Foraminacephale."
Ah! I thought that this half-step would describe the outline of the skull in some way. Yes, I think simply "intermediate" would be easier to understand. If you are concerned that the word is too technical, you could link it to Wiktionary just in case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
On the other side of the parietal – "front margin"?
I suppose? I was trying to implement a natural transition.
temporal chamber – link/explain?
I have no idea what a "temporal chamber" is even and google didn't seem to help, but the way it was talked about in the paper maked it seem significant to include.
If you send me the paper I could have a look. But it is a quite minor point only, unless you want to take it to FAC.
The dome at its rear sides overgrows the fenestrae supratemporales, forming vaulted spaces.--MWAK (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
et al. – I suggest to use "and colleages" throughout; this is just a very difficult technical term that can easily be avoided.
In my experience this terminology is widely used in dinosaur articles on Wikipedia.
If you aim for GA, it should be fine. You will get problems at FAC, though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
What speaks against a brief "Paleoenvironment" section providing a few infos on the formation and list other taxa discovered there?
It would not be anything further than a single sentence or perhaps two on a stretch, which seems insufficient for a top level section and the information fits nowhere else.
Considering the Ulansuhai Formation is already a healthy paragraph and list, I think it could easily be a paragraph. It's probably a matter of finding the right papers. And that article doesn't even go into what kind of rocks the formation consists of etc., so there should be plenty of untapped material to use. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
A bit unfortunate that all images are from other genera, and there is not a single one for Sinocephale. Maybe you can ask in the Paleoart review is someone can do a labelled sketch of the fossil? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding Viatkogorgon to prepare for GAN and FAC (and to prepare for the probably more complex Thylacosmilus), and it is waiting for a copy-edit as well. While it still needs other tweaks (paleoenvirnmen section, glossing, proof-reading, intro, etc.), I thought it would be a good idea to list it here, since I was not very familiar with gorgonopsians before writing it, and it appears it will be the first FAC about a stem-mammal, so extra eyes from palaeo-specific editors probably won't hurt. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The article passed GAN, which leads to an interesting issue; it is listed among the amphbians and reptile articles[5], but since it is strictly neither, it doesn't seem we have an appropriate category for stem-mammal GAs? Dimetrodon is in the same situation. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I fear I am the culprit here as I moved it into that category (because all other non-mammalian synapsid articles are grouped there as well). Non-mammalian synapsids are colloquially known as "mammal-like reptiles", so "reptile" is not used here in the strict phylogenetic sense. Still not ideal of course, but I'm not sure if there are enough articles to warrant a new category? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not something I feel strongly about, but I agree, with so few articles on this subject, it might just stay as it is for now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Jens
Optional: one of the most complete gorgonopsian specimens in the world – do we need "in the world"? I understand if a paper does this to emphasise the importance of the specimen, but I don't think it is needed? Or say "known"?
Good point, no gorgonopsians on Mars (I think), changed to "known". FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
lower end of the postorbital bar – add "(between the eye socket and temporal opening)"?
Expanded to "(between the eye socket and the temporal fenestra opening behind the eye socket)", because temporal opening/fenestra isn't explained until later, so I moved the explanation to here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Russian gorgonopsid discoveries began in the 1890s with notable finds such as Inostrancevia, one of the largest members of the group, but fallowed during the 20th century, with Viatkogorgon being the first recognized gorgonopsian from Russia since 1974. – If I recall correctly, gorgonopsians are almost exclusively known from Russia and South Africa? Maybe something to add for context here (i.e., why is it so significant that its the first from Russia for some time?).
Some of this is explained under classification, but I added "the only place outside Africa where the group is definitely known". FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Discovery section makes a heavy use of brackets. Maybe better to rephrase those that are not explaining terms?
Took two out of brackets, but the rest seem to be explanatory. FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
long including the skull, the skull alone is – dot or ; ?
Made "The skull alone" a new sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The jugal bone (which formed the lower border of the eye socket and part of the upper jaw behind the maxilla) – not sure if that region of the jugal belongs to the upper jaw. Maybe just remove "and part of the upper jaw behind the maxilla"), also makes it shorter.
It looks like it in the diagram, but removed anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Tatarinov noted in 1999 that Viatkogorgon could have pressed food against the concave, smooth areas between the palatine teeth with its tongue. – I think this might be difficult to follow for lay people if we do not add the "to do what?". To grind? I mean, a human can also press food against the palate, but this doesn't make sense when we don't explain why.
There is no explanation for this in the source. But some other papers state these palatal teeth may have been used to hold onto food, so I've added the sentence: "Palatal teeth are thought to have helped early synapsids and other basal amniotes (ancestrally land-dwelling vertebrates) grip food, but were lost in mammals which instead developed secondary palates." FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, if the above is about feeding, should it be moved down to where feeding is actually discussed? Looks a bit out of place where it is right now.
I've grouped the info chronologically and by author, I think the paragraph based on Antón is a bit too generally about gorgonopsians to be directly grouped with that specifically about Viatkogorgon, but yeah, it has been a bit hard to structure that section. FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
the largest predators of the Kotelnich Subassemblage, were relatively small and comparable in size to smaller predators of their assemblage, – so the largest predators of the assemblage are comparable in size to smaller predators of the assemblage? That doesn't make sense to me.
I think the point of the passage in the paper is to state that the size difference between the largest and smallest predators in the assemblage is negligible, but it says so ina convoluted way, but I tried with "were relatively small and not much different in size from the smaller predators of their assemblage" if that's any better. FunkMonk (talk)
stated that despite its small size, the then recently named therocephalian Gorynychus – I can't follow: the small size of Viatkogorgon or of Gorynychus? If the latter, should it be "smaller" (than Viatkogorgon)?
Reworded as " stated that despite the small size of the then recently named therocephalian Gorynychus from Kotelnich, it would have shared its niche as a dominant predator with Viatkogorgon". FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
There was a weak margin above the postcanine tooth-row on the maxilla – what do you mean with "weak"?
The source says "The maxilla is weakly emarginated above the postcanine tooth row, to a greater extent than Nochnitsa but not to the degree in Eriphostoma", not sure if it can be worded differently without losing the meaning? Faint? But I think that wording is just as vague. FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
which overlapped each other with no intervals – what does this mean? What kind of interval?
Changed to "gaps". FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
and the lower part of the ring was weakly flattened. – Is this indeed an actual feature or the condition of preservation of the holotype skull? This sounds like simple deformation.
I just removed it, ambiguous and not so important. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
and in having a very large sulcus (or furrow) at the back of the skull. – Actually, these are two furrows (one on each squamosal) if I understand correctly? If so, this sentence is quite misleading, as you think about a single sulcus (maybe along the skull midline).
Does "very large sulcus (or furrow) on the squamosal bone on each side at the back of the skull" look any better? FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
15-18 teeth – needs the proper ndash (–).
Changed both places it was needed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, will try to fix the rest of these soon, and also thanks to MWAK for adjustments to the text! FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Addressed the rest of the above. FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The copy-edit is almost done, so I'll probably move on to FAC soon. But perhaps the review can just continue there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Go ahead nominating at FAC, I will continue reviewing the article there shortly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Now at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Baryonychinae
I'm sure most who visit this page already know about the Baryonychinae article, so I'm just posting it here for if anyone wants to expand or 'polish' it. Two section that needs work are paleobiology and paleoecology. There's good information to trnasclude there from the corresponding sections in the Spinosauridae article. Also thinking of expanding History of disovery with a summary of undescribed specimens that can be taken from FossilWorks. Hiroizmeh (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Aiolornis
I'm currently working on a rewrite of the Aiolornis article, is there anything in particular i need to keep in mind while expanding it? Cheers, -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Nice, will keep an eye on it! I think that everything you do on this stage will be an improvement to the article. But just let us know if there are questions, you can't locate sources etc. Happy to look it over once your'e done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I’ll let you know once i’m ‘finished’ then. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I have finished the new article, if you have any pointers for stuff I could fix I'd love to hear it. Cheers, -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I would also like to request a quality assessment TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking good! I just did a copy edit, please revert if there is something you don't agree with, and let me know if you have any questions. Few points to ask you:
Its wingspan is estimated at up to 5 meters – but the source says "5–5.5 m" at the very end.
and its weight at around 23 kg – where is this given in the source?
Are you sure the holotype is a cuneiform bone? Isn't that foot only, while the holotype is of the forelimb?
If you want to take it even further, it would be nice to have some general background on teratorns in the classification section (and the lead), just one or two sentences. Also, there might be some information on contemporaneous fauna discovered in the same sediments, possibly enough for a brief "Paleoenvironment" section. But it is completely up to you of course, and the article already contains the most important things. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll make sure to edit the wingspan. Both it and the weight estimate were included in the original article, which is why i didn't bother to check them. The type specimen is stated to indeed be only a cuneiform bone in Hildegarde (1952). I'll make sure to take the article further with the tips you gave, and will proceed to add a small piece on teratorns in general. Cheers, and thanks for helping out -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Wingspan has been edited, I'll see if i can find a source for the weight estimate. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Amphicotylus quality
I'd like to request a new quality assessment for Amphicotylus, as I don't think it can be classified as a stub anymore. Cheers, -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Done. You can, btw, update the assessments yourself (especially since you are not the main author on this one). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, cool I'll keep in mind to ask for other opinions when im the main author. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Done Already fixed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Partly done
