Talk:Duriavenator/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't expect it would come so quick! Still need to finish the intro, and was thinking of adding some other stuff, but thanks! I have a bad habit of starting GANs before I'm done because I expect the waiting time to be long... FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, I'm already through. Looks complete and ready though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've expanded the intro, as well as made some additions to the rest of the text. I've included a few features under classification that distinguish it form Megalosaurus and identify it as a tetanuran, but just a sample, as I'm not sure how much we should go into such details. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duriavenator; the generic name means "Dorset hunter". – Not sure, but maybe "specific name" and "generic name" can be avoided in the lead? For example, "with "hesperis" meaning "the West" or "western", and Duriavenator, which means "Dorset hunter"?

Just said "this name means". FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not ideal to have two different "million years ago" statements in the lead, maybe remove one?

It was a leftover from before I expanded the intro, now gone. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

making it one of the oldest-known Tetanurae. – Maybe introduce that group first?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Cleminshaw obtained skull bones – that sounds as if he bought them. But it seems he had discovered them himself?

The source doesn't go into more detail, only says "Acceptable, therefore, were the additional cranial and dental evidences obtained by Edward Cleminshaw, Esq., M.A., E.G.S., of Greenhill, Sherborne, Dorset, from the freestone of the 'Inferior Oolite,' near. Sherborne. Blocks of this stone were in course of preparation for a building, when, indications of imbedded fossils being detected by Mr. Cleminshaw on fractured surfaces of the quarry-stones, he withdrew all such from the building-yard and transmitted them to the British Museum for identification." FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surangular seems to be missing from the skull diagram?

Good spot, I'll try to include it (I didn't make the diagram, but I've already added two teeth to it). FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added it, but had to make the jaw deeper to accommodate it, not sure if it's convincing. If IJReid is still around, he might want to give it a shot (his diagram). FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name remained unpublished until the American amateur palaeontologist Stephan Pickering sent copies of a revised version of the manuscript to some colleagues, – but that does not make it published, its only sending around an unpublished manuscript?

I replaced "until" with "while" to make it vaguer. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

an invalid nomen nudum. – maybe "a nomen nudum, and therefore invalid" for clarity? Otherwise, I fear that readers think that there are valid nomina nuda, too.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

derived feature – link?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unnamed tetanuran (a diverse group of theropod dinosaurs). – that could be slightly misleading, since Tetanurae includes the majority of theropod taxa (including birds).

It now says " (a diverse group of theropod dinosaurs that includes modern birds)", if that's enough. It is explained in more detail under classification. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and the two processes above form a subnarial process (below the nostril). – But that makes two processes in my count, not three. There should also be the nasal process (above the nostril)?

The first process is the palatal process mentioned earlier, and the two others are those that together form a subnarial process. But the nasal process is not discussed because it's not preserved in the specimen. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

continued into the foramen on the surface of the maxilla – "a foramen", as not previously mentioned?

That's because this foramen is on the maxilla, which is discussed in a later paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

holotype – link in image caption maybe, or avoid there?

Where is this? It's linked in the first image caption in the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, didn't see the first image caption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to a structures – not sure if singular or plural here.

Ugh, should have proofread before I nominated, removed "a". FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pneumatic chambers – we really need an article where this can be linked to it seems.

Linked pneumatic to skeletal pneumaticity for now, do you mean we need a new article? FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect; was looking for that one but couldn't find it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in those they two semioval excavations – can't follow here.

Oops, missed the word "form", added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vomer is similar to that of Allosaurus. – Is it possible to phrase it as "similar to that of other theropods such as Allosaurus", as I fear that otherwise the information could appear a bit random to a general reader who is unable to interpret it that way.

The source only says "The anterior portion of the vomer is preserved. It is similar in morphology to that of Allosaurus". I've added "morphology", but yes, it doesn't say much, but doesn't either in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Serration" and "sulci"; these are explained in the dinogloss, if there isn't anything better.

I intent to link everything to the dinogloss when I'm done with the rest of the fixes. Linked these two for now. But doesn't seem sulci links to anything yet? FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sulci" just means "grooves" and can refer to anything. Link to "interdenticular sulcus" or "blood groove". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The interdental plates are roughly pentagonal and unfused – "unfused" with what, which each other or the jaw?

The source only says "The interdental plates are sub-pentagonal and unfused." I assume it means not fused to each other. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

much less distinct than that of Allosaurus – less "distinct" in which way? Smaller?

No more details in the source, which only says "The symphyseal region at the anterior end of the dentary is poorly preserved, but appears to have been much less distinct than that of Allosaurus (Madsen 1976)." FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were three front and upwards curving ridges on the dentary, – can't follow here, where on the dentary?

The source says "A series of three anterodorsally curving ridges oriented parallel to the anteroventral surface of the dentary is present. This is similar to the arrangement in Magnosaurus (OUMNH J.12143) and other spinosauroids." I'm actually unsure what this is when looking at the figures, have any ideas? FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. I don't have the paper, but they don't seem to tell if on the medial or lateral side, hmm. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Meckelian groove which runs along the outer surface of the dentary – usually it is the medial surface.

Right, changed to inner surface. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The left dentary is less complete and preserves fewer sockets – I found it confusing that general information on the completeness of the left and right dentaries are given in the last paragraph although the penultimate paragraph was already about more specific details on the dentary.

Removed info on the condition of the left dentary, as this is already given under discovery. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until it was re-described and moved to its own genus in 2008, the higher level classification of Duriavenator was unclear – Duriavenator didn't exist prior 2008, so maybe write "of the species" instead?

Yes, I had been thinking the same, changed to species. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, Benson stated it was important to confirm the tetanuran status of early members of the group – Why "therefore"? I do not see any reason provided?

Because the issue was so unclear at the time, but I just removed "therefore", not necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(which had formerly been called Spinosauroidea) – "which had also been called Spinosauroidea", since both names existed earlier?

Changed to "which had also been called Spinosauroidea previously", since it's important to note it's not used any more for the group. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

basal, link to Basal (phylogenetics)?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and that these lineages extended much farther back in time – than what? than "previously assumed"?

Than what the fossil record preserves, tried with "and that these lineages extended much farther back in time than what is indicated by the relatively poor fossil record of this period". But not sure if I'm interpreting too much, the source says "Given the relatively poor Early Jurassic record, it is certainly possible that these lineages extend considerably farther back in time." FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section Palaeoenvironment does not contain anything on the palaeoenvironment sensu stricto; seems to have been a shore deposit?

Changed to "Palaeoecology", it has been very hard to find any detailed information specifically about the Upper Inferior Oolite... FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok and sufficient, was just wondering if there might be something more available. I think that Palaeoenvironment still fits better, though, as in palaeoecology I would expect something about the ecology of the genus, its interaction with the environment, which is missing as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, changed it back. Will of course add more info if I can find any. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, I like the historical component. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, I wanted to tackle the issue of Megalosaurus and get a megalosaurid to FAC, without having to deal too much with the mess that is Megalosaurus itself... FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be addressed now, Jens Lallensack (though not everything is solved). FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a bit more info with this[1] edit, including a bit from the Wiehenvenator description which I overlooked. Perhaps I should use the cladogram from that paper instead, not sure, it's not that much different, but includes a few newer taxa, but leaves out subfamily names and some other taxa. I also discovered there is apparently an old newspaper article that reports the original find[2], but I don't have acces, will try to request it before FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]