Talk:"Pliosaurus" andrewsi/GA1

GA Review

Passed. grungaloo (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amirani1746, I'm going to pick up this review. I'll ping you in a few days once I've gone through it! grungaloo (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grungaloo, as you speak french, can we discuss in french about this ? Amirani1746 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to do the review in English since the page is in English, but if there's any confusion that comes up I can try putting it into French. grungaloo (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research History

I made some changes directly, mostly fixing some verb tense issues, some sentence reordering, moving some wikilinks, etc. Please take a look to see if anything is out of place [1].
The first possible mention of "Pliosaurus" andrewsi - Is "possible" needed here? Could it just say "The first mention of..."?
in which a certain John Phillips assimilated pliosaur fossils having been discovered by Charles Leeds in the Oxford Clay Formation, England - For simplicity I'd drop "a certain", and swap "assimilated" for "catalogued". Also I changed the page numbers to 316–318, the Oxford Clay Formation is mentioned on 316.
The specimen consisting of an elongated mandibular symphysis possessing 11 pairs of teeth, of which the fifth and sixth anterior ones are caniniform, Richard Lydekker referred the specimen to the newly named Peloneustes philarchus in 1889 - This sentence is a bit confusing because the ideas run together without proper conjunctions. I think it needs to be broken up. The first sentence could start "The specimen consisted of..." and then split "Richard Lydekker referred..." into its own sentence.
It also gives an anatomical description showing the main differences with other pliosaurs of the Oxford Clay Formation. - Following from the previous sentence this implies that the holotype is giving the anatomical description. I would suggest changing to "Tarlo also gave an anatomical..." or something similar, assuming that's what you meant.
After this discovery, the taxon was then renamed as "Pliosaurus" andrewsi in the studies published since, the quotation marks in fact its non-belonging within this genus. - A bit of a WP:OVERCITE at the end of this sentence. You could probably do away with most of the refs here and just keep one or two.
Still in his 1960 description, and those for some unexplained reason, - I'm not sure what is meant by "and those for some unexplained reason". It also doesn't seem necessary to understanding the point. You could drop this, or maybe try rewording?
In 2018, David Foffa and his colleagues showed that fossils of "P." grossouvrei present enough differences for the taxon to be seen as a synonym of "P." andrewsi, therefore being distinguished from this latter - Based on my read of the source, I think you're trying to say that the fossils showed that "P." grossouvrei showed enough difference to not be seen as a synonym of "P." andrewsi. Is that right? If so, the sentence needs a "not" added in there since right now it's written as though the species should be considered synonyms.

Description

A general note to try using simpler terms where possible so it can be understood by a broad audience. If you can, try replacing terms like "mandibular symphysis" (you could probably just drop the term and get the same intent), "caninoform" (could also link it), "articular surfaces". I get that sometimes you just need to use a certain word, so no worries if they don't all work out!
The teeth are round in cross section and the dental crown quite smooth, nevertheless having some longitudinal ridges on the latter. - This sentence only seems to talk about teeth, so it's not clear what is meant by "the latter". I'd try dropping it.
Unique case of dental wear among plesiosaurians, the crown has an abrasion which extends considerably further than any other known representatives of the group - WP:OVERCITE, Ref 6 p164 covers this entire statement, so you could do away with other refs on this sentence even.

Classification

From the first descriptions made on the fossils now referred to as "Pliosaurus" andrewsi, theses latter were classified in different genera of the Pliosauridae, - "theses latter were classified", I don't understand what's being said here, could you try rephrasing it?

Paleoenvironment

I made a few fixes here, mostly moving some refs after punctuation or removing duplicate cites in a sentence. Otherwise this part is really well written, no issues!

Hi again Amirani1746, I've finished my review. Overall this looks really good. All the citations I checked looked are valid, no issues with images, no copyvios detected. Most of the issues are general prose/clarity things. Let me know if anything I've said doesn't make sense or if you disagree with any comments. Otherwise, ping me when you're done! grungaloo (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello grungaloo and thanks your review. I will start correcting the details but i want to say something about the first mention : if i say "The first possible mention of "Pliosaurus" andrewsi", is that the first possible fossil reffered to this taxon is discussed about being a representative of this genera. For the rest, i will see what can i do. Amirani1746 (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way grungaloo, Unique case of dental wear among plesiosaurians, the crown has an abrasion which extends considerably further than any other known representatives of the group, it is a characteric that we found is some source describing the taxa. Amirani1746 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again grungaloo, I think i've finished the review. Amirani1746 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks for the fixes! grungaloo (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.