Talk:Cimoliopterus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• premaxillary crest – needs at least a link.

There's no specific article about the term "premaxillary crest", so just linked premaxillary to premaxilla. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There is an article for Crest (feathers), but its about feather structures in birds... Then there is also Sagittal crest, which was used in some 80s sources for the jaw crests, but not sure how appropriate it is... FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• and was made the holotype specimen of the species Pterodactylus cuvieri in 1851. – Since it is the lead, maybe we can avoid "holotype" here? Just writing "and was described as the new species Pterodactylus vuvieri in 1851" or similar might do the trick as well, but in a more accessible way?

Did as suggested, also for C. dunni. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• The specific name – I would repeat the specific name here ("specific name cuvieri"), so that the reader sees what the specific name is, so that they do not have to look up the term.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• whereas the genus was then used for many different pterosaur species – which genus? Cimoliopterus or Pterodactylus? Again, I would repeat the name here so that it is totally clear what you are talking about.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• the generic name – ditto

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• C. cuvieri is estimated to have had a wing-span of 3.5 metres (11 ft), and while C. dunni is thought to have been of similar size, its wing-span has been estimated at 1.8 metres (6 ft). – Isn't that just contradicting? 1.8 vs. 3.5 metres in wing span is not a similar size.

Changed "similar" to "smaller". JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Changed structure --> C. cuvieri is estimated to have had a wing-span of 3.5 metres (11 ft), while C. dunni is thought to have had a smaller size, with an estimated wing-span of only 1.8 metres (6 ft). - Changing "similar" to "smaller" caused a bit of confusion. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it's because the sources actually do contradict each other. In the paper, Myers states the holotypes of the two species are of similar size, but he doesn't give a size estimate. But then in the press release, he gives that smaller size estimate for C. dunni, without referring to earlier estimates of C. cuvieri. So I'm not sure what to do, but we can't change "similar" so "smaller", because the source actually says similar, and are not consistent with each other... So I guess we have to choose whether we want to say similar and not give an estimate for C. dunni in the intro, or remove similar, and just give the two estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hm, considering the holotypes of both animals are quite similar in size, we could perhaps opt for not giving the estimate, though it may still add confusion in the description section. We should obviously still be as neutral as possible on structuring it, though... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the size estimate of C. dunni from the intro, as the description section gives some more context to as why they're different estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Related ornithocheirids show that the group were fairly large pterosaurs, – a bit awkward, since the "group" (Ornithocheiridae?) was not introduced. Maybe simply "Related genera were fairly large pterosaurs" to avoid this?

Yes, this is even more iffy as there is some confusion as what exactly to call its group, as Brazilian and British workers use different systems... I tried with "More completely known related genera were fairly large pterosaurs" there and under description. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• It was thereafter considered an ornithocheiran, and Cimoliopterus was – why first "It" and than explicitly mention the genus nonetheless? Maybe just remove "Cimoliopterus"?

This is also a bit tricky, because the first part of the sentence refers to the species cuvieri (before the second species was known), and the second to the genus as a whole. I tried to split it like this: "The affinities of C. cuvieri were long unclear due to the fragmentary nature of it and other English pterosaurs, until more complete relatives were reported from Brazil in the 1980s, whereafter it was considered an ornithocheiran. Cimoliopterus was moved to the family Cimoliopteridae within the clade Targaryendraconia in 2019, with its closest relative being Camposipterus." FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• C. cuvieri was found in the Grey Chalk Subgroup, whereas C. dunni was found in the Britton Formation. – This looks a bit "attached". If you just want to mention these formations, maybe do so when the specimens themselves are introduced? Or give a bit more information on the formations here so that the sentence does not look so attached? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Moved to first paragraph before locations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• pterosaurs (an extinct group of flying reptiles) – just my personal opinion, so feel free to ignore, but I wonder if it makes sense to define this very central term in the article body but not in the lead. The lead should be the most accessible section. So, ideally, we should either put this explanation right into the first sentence, or not explain it at all. Maybe I would go with the latter option.

I added it there because someone asked me to explained it during a FAC of another pterosaur. I don't really think it's necessary, just did it to be safe. I can drop it if we think it won't be a problem? FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't even asked to explain what a sauropod is in Bajadasaurus, and don't think that such things should become standard. But this GAN will not depend on it of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Just removed it for now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• The history of Cimoliopterus – specify "history of research" as opposed to evolutionary history for extra clarity.

Added "taxonomic history", as that's what it's specifically about. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• The holotype specimen (which the scientific name is based on) of P. cuvieri consists of – Not sure if this is easy to follow. It doesn't sound like you are referring to the same snout you mentioned in the previous paragraph. With this intro ("The holotype specimen") it appears as if you would introduce another specimen, because there is no connection. Maybe get rid of the term "holotype" here, maybe add it as a separate sentence afterwards (e.g., "It forms the holotype of …".)

What if I said something like "the specimen/fossil that was made the holotype (specimen) of P. cuvieri"? Could also fix the issue below? FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, somehow get the snout in there (e.g., "Bowerbank's snout"), I just fear that the reader will not get that you are talking about this previously introduced specimen. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Changed to "The snout which Bowerbank made the holotype specimen (which the scientific name is based on) of P. cuvieri", does that make sense, or is it too complicated? FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• A minor point regarding above sentence: I think it should be "C. cuvieri", since you describe the holotype in present tense ("The holotype consists of").

Ah, this is tricky then, because I think it would seem incongruent with the rest of the text, as "chronologically" it wouldn't be called that at the point it was made the holotype. What if I left out the binomial? If the alternate wording suggested above doesn't cut it, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much, never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• right first tooth socket (at the front of the snout), – "first right"? Not sure if "(at the front of the snout)" is really needed here.

Changed to "first right", but as for removing the explanation, I could imagine some readers wouldn't know that "first" automatically means at the front of the snout? If their main reference is human teeth, it would be very difficult to figure out what "first" means? FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• for which the known jaw material proved its validity[19] – dot missing

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Franz Nopcsa von Felső-Szilvás in 1924, who found the skull reconstructions "worthless".[20] – I think it should say "some skull reconstructions", since he only commented on some of them as far as I can see, O. cuvieri not included.

Added "some of the". FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• showing that they too had premaxillary crests – not clear on what "they" refers to. The Brazilian pterosaurs, one might assume.

The English, actually (so it was confusing it seems), changed to: "the discovery of the related and much better preserved Brazilian species made this clearer, showing that the English species too had premaxillary crests at the end of large, long skulls, though this had not been previously recognised." Better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• When Anhanguera was described in 1985, it was thought to be the only pterosaur with such a crest known until that point (then referred to as a sagittal crest). – I found this to be confusing, probably because it is out of chronology (the previous sentence was about a 1987 paper). Maybe just remove?

Maybe it can be simplified, but the reason it is included, and in this manner, is because it's the only source that states Anhanguera was the only pterosaur known with a premaxillary crest until that point, but the source itself therefore does not connect it to any other pterosaurs, including cuvieri, so if I mentioned it first, it would be difficult to establish why it was relevant. Any alternative suggestions are welcome, but I do think it is relevant for context to show that even when the first pterosaur with such a crest was found, it wasn't recognised that others were already known? Especially since cuvieri was subsequently even assigned to that genus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, I would leave as is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ornithocheirus had become something of a wastebin – Since "wastebasket taxon" is a defined term, the "something of" seems redundant. If he said it was a wastebasket taxon, than we can say just that.

Removed "something of", but do you suggest I also change it to "wastebasket taxon"? The source only says "a wastebin". FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Wastebin is fine I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• He considered it the most common pterosaur of its formation, – Why "its" formation? The species is known from other formations as well?

This confused me in the source, but I've now made it clearer that the assigned specimens was from another formation: "He assigned 23 jaw fragment from the Cambridge Greensand Formation to A. cuvieri , and considered it the most common pterosaur of that formation." FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Chalk Group, Grey Chalk Subgroup, Chalk Formation: Maybe need to explain what the difference is, or simplify if possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This is confusing because there is no single usage throughout the historical sources, and the terms have only been consolidated recently. This is explained under palaeoenvironment, I think it would maybe be confusing to explain it earlier than that? The issue is similar in Podokesaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we should always use the currently accepted term, and should not care too much about outdated terminology. If it is important, maybe give the current (previously introduced) name and than a gloss like, e.g., "at the time known as …"? As it currently is, I think it is very confusing, it is not even clear if you are talking about the same set of rock units or something entirely different when you switch terms. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I went and called it "Grey Chalk Subgroup" which is the current name, so the first mention says "which was found in the Lower Culand Pit in what is now called the Grey Chalk Subgroup at Burham, Kent". FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• The article is currently undergoing a copy-edit, so it's convenient this review is on temporary hold. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The CE is done, but I have some corrections to it I'll do today. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Now fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• partial dentary symphysis (of the lower jaw) – you previously used (and explained) the term "mandibular symphysis", why not sticking with this term? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the other source used the other term, so I wondered if there was any distinction, but there probably isn't, so now used the same word. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• In 2015, Myers stated the holotypes of the two species belonged to individuals of a similar size – The two Cimoliopterus species, I assume? This should be clarified, as you just talked about two different species (Ornithocheirus colorhinus), and the reader might assume you refer to them.

Named the species. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• The subtle sideways flare on the snout tip – I suggest "This subtle sideways expansion of the snout tip" to use consistent terminology, which makes it much easier to follow as you are totally clear you are talking about the same feature mentioned in the previous sentence.

Changed two places. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• it is very dissimilar to the pronounced snout expansions of other pterosaurs like Anhanguera, Coloborhynchus and Ornithocheirus. – somehow repetitive; you already state unlike in many other toothed pteranodontoids where this expansion is more pronounced. I also see no need to use such a strong word as "very" here.

Removed, added the examples to the other sentence. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 04:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• As pterosaurs, Cimoliopterus would have been covered in pycnofibres (hair-like filaments), – "As a pterosaur"?

It was written so it would include both species, but it probably makes it more confusing, so I made it singular. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• with proportionally large skulls, with long jaws and tooth-rows, often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws – Does not sound like a grammatically continuous sentence. Formulate it like an enumeration, maybe?

Changed to with proportionally large skulls, long jaws and tooth-rows, and often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 04:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• As pterosaurs, Cimoliopterus would have been covered in pycnofibres … – This whole paragraph provides good context unspecific for the genus. I would therefore expect it to be the fist paragraph of the description section. But if it was, I would mention the pycnofibers only later, and start with the most obvious features.

I moved the part about pycnofibres and wing-membranes last in the paragraph, but since there is so much unspecific info about the wider group in the paragraph, I thought it would give it undue-weight to have it first in the section? FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• The front portion of the ridge of the palate reaches the level of the third tooth pair. The palate itself is curved upwards and there is no expansion of the jaw at the front. The second tooth pair is about the same size as the third, and both are larger than the fourth tooth pair. Towards the rear part of the jaw, the distance between the teeth gradually increases. – all of this is just repetition of what was already mentioned. I am not a fan of the structure of the description section. I think a single section on the skull, where both species are discussed together on a feature-by-feature basis, might be easier to read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

While I recognise that there is some repetition due to shared features, I have two issues with this approach. One is that I think the description will be very difficult to parse, as the two species would be discussed together, making it more difficult to figure out what info refers to which species. Then there's also the issue that the two species are kept in a single genus on somewhat shaky grounds, so in the case C. dunni is split off into a new genus, it would be much easier to separate the info as it is structured now. Perhaps another solution could be to reduce additional repetition by moving all info on shared features to the upper level description section (where I thought it already was), which now has the diagnostic features of the genus as a whole, removing or rewriting it somehow? Perhaps the sections could just do with less detail? FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I just see it from a reader's perspective. Yes, restricting the species paragraphs to features specific for that species could work as well. In general, you have a whole lot of text for two jaw fragments, and condensing it would certainly make it nicer to read for general folks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Just removed a lot of repetitive text, and one of the problems is for example that the source had listed the same features as diagnostic for each species, and I must have been unsure if it would then be improper for me to not mention it, but since it is already mentioned for the genus too, it should be ok. Do you think the removal of this is enough? FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to think about these two last ones later today, because I'm not sure it's a straightforward fix, I'll be back... FunkMonk (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Haven't had much brain power the last days, but now I've answered the last two points. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging JurassicClassic767, as much of the rest is from "his" sections, I may not have as much familiarity with the sources used. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Description

• as well as various bones possibly belonging to C. cuvieri Bowerbank – comma missing, otherwise it reads like the full scientific name (with Bowerbank as naming authority)

Added. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Mix in thense, e.g. "the palatal ridge (which ran along the middle of the palate) extended" while other parts are in presence

Fixed, it seems to have been restricted to the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• unlike the "spoon-like" expansions seen in many other toothed pteranodontoids, such as Anhanguera, Coloborhynchus, and Ornithocheirus, where it is more pronounced. – "where it is more pronounced" seems superfluous and was slightly irritating.

Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• "More completely known related genera were fairly large pterosaurs" – what speaks against having this section as the first in the "Description"? As a general introduction, it makes sense to place it before all the detail.

I personally try to put size info first in all the article's I've written (I think), but I've now moved it before the genus diagnosis. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The second and third sockets are similar in size and larger than the fourth" and "The second tooth pair is about the same size as the third, and both are larger than the fourth tooth pair" is repetitive

Removed, just left the one where general characteristics are discussed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

One thing that was similar, but not repeated, was also removed, though: Note that for C. cuvieri it is "There are almost three sockets per 3 cm (1 in) of jaw margin towards the front and two sockets every 3 cm (1 in) towards the back.", but for C. dunni it is "with three sockets per 3 cm (1 in) of jaw margin towards the front and three sockets every 3 cm (1 in) towards the back". FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I've just re-read the Myers paper where this is stated, I apparently made a mistake putting "three" twice, it's actually just "two". The difference though it that in C. cuvieri, it states "almost", while in C. dunni it states 3 cm flat, I think it should still be changed either way. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit difficult when the features are so similar... FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Changed to this: "There are three tooth sockets per 3 cm (1 in) of jaw margin towards the front of the jaw in C. dunni, while in C. cuvieri there are almost three sockets per 3 cm (1 in). However, towards the back of the jaw, there are two sockets every 3 cm (1 in) in both species." Even though there's a slight difference, I don't think it's worth discussing it separately in their respective subsections. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• "cuvieri also does not have a fourth and fifth pair of tooth sockets that are smaller than the third and sixth" – I fear that this could be misunderstood in a way that it did not have a fourth and fifth pair at all.

Changed to "also does not have its fourth and fifth pair of tooth sockets smaller than its third and sixth" to indicate possession. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• "contained a new tooth" – "newly erupted tooth"?

Changed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 09:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• the old teeth – "fully erupted"?

Also changed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 09:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• "from where they would have emerged" – I don't get this part, delete?

Deleted, I think it just meant they would have emerged from these inner walls. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "revealing they were composed of compact, hard dentine, sheathed by a thin coat of enamel." – "that was sheated by a …" for better flow to make it easier to predict the sentence structure? This disrupted my reading flow abit.

Done. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Fine, unequal longitudinal ridges" – "unequal" in what way? Irregular?

Added, in length. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• You provide a full differential diagnosis (comparing the species in detail with related species). This is very short-lived information though that will soon be outdated. I therefore suggest to use author attribution, also to give it a "time stamp".

There are basically two diagnoses, from 2013 and 2015, so I've added mention if these at the first genus diagnosis, then the reader should know it is these the rest of the descritpion section is based on, to avoid repeating it? This is what I've written: "Rodrigues and Kellner provided a single diagnosis (a list of features distinguishing a taxon from its relatives) for the genus Cimoliopterus and species C. cuvieri in 2013, which Myers amended in 2015 when including C. dunni." FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The cortical bone (the hard outer layer of bones) is well-preserved in C. dunni, however, on the left side of the crest, the conjoinment between premaxilla and maxilla is not visible. On the right side, there are several regions where cortical bone is damaged or missing." – This might qualify as excessive detail, especially the second sentence. Are you discussing the cortical bone in general (I thought you do) or just that of the crest? If you decide to keep it, consider to also state the implications (why is it relevant).

I shortened it much and moved it up to where the condition of the fossil is mentioned, as "The cortical bone (the hard outer layer of bones) is well-preserved, though there are several regions where it is damaged or missing." Maybe it's not needed at all, not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I added that part to give a bit more info about the crest. I think it doesn't really matter if it gets removed or not, it's just a small piece of info. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "the point where a curve changes from convex to concave" – "the point where the surface changes" to be more relevant to what you describe in this article?

Changed, I just put the definition of "inflection point" there before, so it may not be that understandable. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The second and third sockets are similar in size and larger than the fourth" – this is now repeated for the third time, and as I reader, I would expect to find features distinct for the species (C. dunni) at this point, since this is how you opened the paragraph.

Removed, same as with the other repeated one. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Classification

• "to a group he referred to as Dentirostres" –shouldn't be in italics if higher as genus

Removed italics, but I have no idea what it's supposed to be, it is written with italics by Owen[1], but it is not given any rank... The term was apparently coined by von Meyer, but it may be too much of a sidetrack if I include more info about it? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Hooley named this group "Group No. 1" and designated the genus name Ornithocheirus for it." – But it was stated earlier that already Seeley (1870) had the genus Ornithocheirus.

Hooley just used the name "Ornithocheirus" for his "Group No. 1". JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "subcircular (nearly circular)" – you could write something like "near-circular", avoiding the term and explanation.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• link sister groups

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The phylogeny of Cimoliopterus has since been complicated further due to the inclusion of C. dunni in 2015." – Do you mean "The taxonomy"?

Changed. But I wonder if it is unnecessry editorializing, as the source doesn't exactly state this outright. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed it for now, since the source doean't phrase it like that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• (formerly assigned to the Ornithocheiridae[37]) – I think you don't need "the"

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• sister group, sister taxon – stick with one term

Doesn't it depend on what they include? For example "with it and "Ornithocheirus" polyodon forming a sister group to the new clade Anhangueria" would work best with group as it is plural, but "with C. dunni as the sister taxon of this clade" can only work with taxon, as it's a single species? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• "a result recovered if the character coding of teeth texture was scored as ambiguous." – These are details of the methodology of a particular study. This (and related sentences) become highly detailed. In the next paragraph, you say "Myers's phylogenetic analysis indicates the genus Cimoliopterus is paraphyletic (an "unnatural group"), but this result fully relies on the coding of C. dunni's tooth texture." – I think this is all information we really need regarding this aspect.

I assume you meant "don't really need"? I think it's important to note how little it takes to keep the two species from being sister taxa, but it is probably too complexly written. I've tried to simpllify it as: "The arrangement of the resulting cladograms ("family trees" showing interrelationships) depended on how the uncertain tooth texture of C. dunni was interpreted; if it was coded as "ambiguous", C. dunni became the sister taxon to a clade composed of C. cuvieri and Aetodactylus halli, and if it was coded as striated, C. dunni became the sixter taxon of C. cuvieri, with A. halli as the sister taxon to that clade." FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Aetodactylus contains parts of two teeth, one of them which does not have surface texture, and another that shows visible striations (series of ridges or margins). Thus, the lack of striations on the" tip of C. dunni's tooth crown does not necessarily indicate they did not appear on fully developed teeth.[7]" – I remember that this was mentioned earlier already, in a much shorter form.

I changed this to: "Aetodactylus contains parts of two teeth, one of them which does not have surface texture, and another that shows visible striations, unlike in C. dunni's tooth crown." - I removed the earlier statement of Aetodactylus and just kept the info about the lack of strations in C. dunni in description. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I've simplified all of this further so that it doesn't feel as repetetive. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The characteristic of having increasing tooth socket size towards the rear part of the skull in the upper jaws of C. dunni and C. cuvieri differs notably from the decreasing tooth socket size in the mandible of Aetodactylus towards the back of the skull. Additionally, the height of the jaws in Cimoliopterus and Aetodactylus is noticeably different; the height of the upper jaw (the crest excluded) of Cimoliopterus is slightly greater than its width, which is unlike the shallow lower jaw of Aetodactylus, where its width greatly exceeds its height" – This is all differential diagnosis again, which you already provide in the "Description" section. Keeping differential diagnoses at one place seems better.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• "though it is still possible for it to have a close relationship with Aetodactylus" – already mentioned

Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The cladogram of their phylogenetic analysis is presented below on the left.[34]" – I think there is some policy that we should avoid referring to figs in the text.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• "presented new interrelationships of the group Anhangueria," – The interrelationships themselves stay the same can can't be "new"?

Hm, some of the interrelationships are a bit different than in previous studies, but I think this should be discussed better in the Anhangueria and not here. To avoid confusion or irrelevance, I just changed it to "presented a new study". JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• "This characteristic can be seen in all species assigned to the Targaryendraconia" – redundant, you already said it is characteristic for the group.

Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• several synapomorphies (shared derived trait) – traits

Fixed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "including a small front projection of the snout tip above the first pair of tooth sockets, the front end of the palatal ridge reaching a certain level between the second and third pair of tooth sockets, the first three pairs of tooth sockets being closely packed together, and the first pair of tooth sockets separated by a layer of bone." – repeating features over and over again makes it very difficult to read. In this aspect, the article feels more like a journal article than an encyclopedic treatment directed to the general audience. In this instance, I would simply move the information to Cimoliopteridae, as this seems to be the right place.

Removed from here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Lonchodectes most likely also represents a targaryendraconian, because the proportions between the long axis of the tooth sockets and the width of the dentary sulcus (potential space between a tooth and the surrounding gums) seen in Lonchodectes matches well with those seen in targaryendraconians. The slender dentary symphysis with parallel margins as well as the deep dentary sulcus are other features that demonstrate that Lonchodectes may indeed be a possible targaryendraconian, or even synonymous with C. cuvieri, though this is impossible to determine due to the lack of overlapping bones between the two." – Why is all of this relevant here?

Removed, as it is already mentioned more briefly under history. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Rest

• "showing that the pterosaur faunas of Europe and North America retained palaeobiogeographical (geographical distribution of prehistoric animal groups) affinities by the mid-Cretaceous," – why not simply "showing that the pterosaur faunas of Europe and North America were similar by the mid-Cretaceous"?

I just wanted to get the term palaeobiogeographical in there with a link so readers could go on to that subject, but I tried a compromise described below... FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Adding the similarity between Aetodactylus (also from Texas) and Cimoliopterus, Myers concluded that though the North Atlantic Ocean went through an ongoing widening in the mid-Cretaceous, the similarities between North America, Europe and northern Africa continued" – this again reads repetitive and overly wordy again. In case you take my suggestion above, you could amend that sentence to "showing that the pterosaur faunas of Europe and North America were similar by the mid-Cretaceous despite the ongoing widening of the North Atlantic Ocean", and remove the sentence completely.

I tried to fix the two points above, while also retaining some information that would otherwise be cut, but which I think was important. The new sentence reads: "In 2015, Myers stated that the discovery of C. dunni in North America extended the distribution of the genus Cimoliopterus, showing that the pterosaur faunas of Europe and North America were similar by the mid-Cretaceous despite the ongoing widening of the North Atlantic Ocean. That pterosaurs retained palaeobiogeographical (geographical distribution of prehistoric animal groups) affinities by the mid-Cretaceous was also supported by other related pterosdaurs identified in North America, Europe and northern Africa, such as Coloborhynchus and Uktenadactylus." FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• second paragraph of "Feeding" lacks citation.

Whoops, added... FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Veldmeijer and colleagues noted that since the bodies of these pterosaurs were very small," – Is "very" really appropriate here? And maybe remove the "the bodies of"?

Removed "very", but I think we need to say "bodies", because the point is that the bodies were small compared to the big heads (the heads could obtain bigger prey than the bodies could contain). But if I said "they were small", it would look like the entire animal was meant. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• "helped distance the body from the water's surface" – "from the water surface"?

Changed, but I think both would work? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• "high-modulus material" – link?

I'm not actually sure what it is, but I linked to Elastic modulus? FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "94 million year ago" – years

Oops, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Coprolites (fossil faeces) attributed to fish is also known.[47]" – are --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Jens Lallensack, I think all the points have responses now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice, looking all good, promoting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)