Jump to content

Talk:Irritator/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 14:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up this review! It's a long one, so take your time, I'm in no hurry to get this one through. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I welcome your choice of placing the history of discovery first. This way the succession of information is more logical (first you discover, than you describe, than you classify and only then you draw paleobiological implications), and will not overload the reader with anatomical details at the start.
Placing the discovery section first was actually Lusotitan's idea, but it was good move either way! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is known from a nearly complete skull found in rocks of the northeastern Romualdo Formation, belonging to the Santana Group in the Araripe Basin. – Not sure if the "belonging" is unambiguously referring to the Formation (it rather seems to refer to the skull). Maybe use "which belongs".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • northeastern Romualdo Formation – confused: can you really muddle political borders with parts of geological formations?
Hmm, Brazil itself is also a political border, but this is maybe cutting it a bit too close. Removed link from lead and put it to better use under History of discovery. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its hard to establish encyclopedic relevance for living paleontologists when there is a lack of independent sources. Recommend to unlink Martill.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the new genus Irritator, whose name reflects the feelings – I would add the etymology here (language and the exact word the name is based on).
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The epithet of the type species – this is correct, but for the lead, I would avoid technical terms like epithet as much as possible; here you could simply use "second part of the species name". Only a recommendation, its your decision.
Done, I think someone else added this in, I had a feeling it was too esoteric as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • honors Professor Challenger – how can you possibly honor a fictional character?
Changed, is this better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur Conan Doyle's novels – I thought it is only one novel ("The lost world"), and I would also mention this novel.
Apparently he's a reoccurring character in many of his science fiction stories, The Lost World just happens to be the most popular of them. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might be, but in the first description the name is explicitly related to the Prof. Challenger from the novel "The lost world", and this should be reflected here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you already changed that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to preparation, the fossil had been mistaken for that of an early pterosaur, and later a maniraptoran dinosaur closely related to the feathered ornithomimids and troodontids. Later research identified the animal as belonging to the Spinosauridae, a family of large and likely semiaquatic predatory dinosaurs. – prior to preparation: do you mean prior to the restauration mentioned in the sentence before? Was it Martill who thought it was a maniraptoran, and only after the restauration it was considered a spinosaurid? You could make these connections to make it much more informative.
Done, I also noted in the lead that Kellner was the first to point out that it was a spinosaurid. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • spinosaurs – maybe use spinosaurid for clarity if this is what you meant.
Changed, even though both can be used interchangeably, like tyrannosaurids or tyrannosaurs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is not unambiguous; who says it is not referring to Spinosaurinae, or to individuals of Spinosaurus? "Spinosaurid" is the safer choice imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A generalist diet, like that of today's crocodilians, has been suggested for Irritator; in which it would have – reads strange, is it correct form the grammatical point of view? Maybe replace the part after the ; with "it might have been preyed on …".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both animals hail from the same stratigraphic units of the . – ?
Added Araripe Basin, don't know how that got deleted. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main text

  • Maybe worth mentioning that there is another species from the Santana Group hinting at Arthur Conan Doyle, which is Arthurdactylus conandoylei.
Interesting! And by the same authors as well. Added it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Martill reconstruction image, it can be misleading to have an outdated reconstruction as the first reconstruction in the article. Maybe it would be clearer if the outdated live reconstruction (does it really add much?) would be replaced a the current interpretation of the skull. But unsure, you decide.
I feel like we already have enough skull images in the article as it is, so doing that would be a bit redundant and/or repetitive in my opinion. I further emphasised the reconstruction's inaccuracy in the caption, will this do? Typically historical reconstructions go in this section anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • a large skull with lower jaws, which were flattened somewhat sideways – seems a bit weird to have that degree of detail already here ("flattened somewhat sideways"); maybe move to discussion of the skull preservation, as it is not pertinent to the poaching history?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • to Rupert Wild of the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart. – I would add Germany for clarity.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was named in honor of Professor Challenger; a character in – in honor of … I also think you should replace the ; by a ,
Both done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above suggestions have been answered, with some comments. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The buyers were unaware of the modifications to the illegally collected specimen – Please make sure you cite all sources used in all instances. Here you lack a source stating that fossil collection (not just trade) is illegal. Just cite the nature paper again. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment Why wouldn’t osteosclerosis affect buoyancy in theropods?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77 It does, but according to Henderson, only to a very miniscule amount. To quote "exceptional evidence would be needed to demonstrate that the increase in body mass by a few percent by having denser limb bones would significantly affect the ability of a Spinosaurus to immerse itself.". Perhaps I should elaborate on this more in the article? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
is he saying the bones weren’t dense enough to make any impact? Does he give any reason why the bones are osteosclerotic if not for buoyancy?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "History of discovery" section is very long and contains several different aspects: First the research history of the Irritator fossil, then the discussion regarding the possible discovery site, then a short mention of Oxalaia, and then a discussion of the possible postcranial material. 1) I would suggest to move the Oxalaia to somewhere else, perhaps the systematic section. It seems to be out of place in this section that focuses on the Romualdo Formation. Furthermore, it is irritating that Oxalaia is mentioned before Angaturama is, which was discovered earlier. 2) With Oxalaia moved out, I would include an additional heading for clarity (e.g., "site of discovery and postcranial material"). 3) I would name the section "History of research", as it includes much more than just the discovery.
Done, although I was a bit unsure on the most proper placement for the Oxalaia mention. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in all spinosaurids, the maxillae (main upper jaw bones) extended below the nostrils in a long, low branch that divided the premaxillae and nasal bones in that location. – Appears to be imprecise and confusing. The maxillae do not only extend below, but anterior to the nostrils? Do you mean they extend dorsally to contribute to the lower border of the nostrils, separating premaxilla and nasal?
Reworded, is this clearer? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sales & Schultz 2017 is defined twice, and in one instance the link is pointing to a reference.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you elaborate? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You listed the paper twice in the references. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sinuses of Irritator's maxillae bore a large oval opening, as in Allosaurus. – Sinuses are openings already, you can't have an opening in an opening. If you want to keep this sentence, it would be good to explain where on the maxilla this opening is located.
Added location for the sinuses. I'm not certain about your other suggestion though. In Sues et al. it reads "The medial wall of the maxillary antrum is perforated by a large oval opening, as in Allosaurus" and that's what I wrote, am I misinterpreting something? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They say "the medial wall of the maxillary antrum has a oval opening", and you say "the sinus has a oval opening". Its like saying "the nostril has a oval opening" (in fact, it would be the nose, if anything). Furthermore, I would link "sinus" to a more general article on sinuses, not on the mammalian maxillary sinus, as I don't think that structure is homologous to that of theropods. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the wiki page, maxillary antrum is just another term for maxillary sinus. Is this incorrect then? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit too quick I guess: Never mind, you are correct. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irritator's nostrils were smaller than in Suchomimus and Baryonyx, but larger than those of Spinosaurus – proportionally smaller?
Actually, they're both proportionately and absolutely smaller, added that in. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was very large; while the – I think you use too many semicolons. When using while, you don't need one, just use a comma. Use semicolons as a weaker version of the colon.
Hehe, I think I've fallen into the classic trap of semicolon addiction. Typically I add them in to avoid too many commas, but there's a point I use so many of them that I forget how they properly function. Going to have to try and refrain from that. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ellipse-shaped – elliptical?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like others in its family, Irritator possessed a long and bony structure on the roof of its mouth called a secondary palate; a feature observed in extant crocodilians, but absent in most theropod dinosaurs – Could be more precise: why note state "separating the oral from the nasal cavity"? Also, I would use , instead of ;.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • only partially divided basipterygoid processes – what do you mean with "divided"? Divided into two halves??
Replaced with "diverging" as the orignal source states. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irritator's holotype is unique in that it is one of the few non-avian dinosaur fossils found with a preserved columella (equivalent to the stapes in mammals). – In dinosaurs you call it a stapes, and I would not introduce words here that are not used in the field ("columella").
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of this Irritator specimen's death, the hindmost tooth of the left maxilla was still being replaced, and only the tip of it was visible. – do you mean "was not yet fully erupted"? Why do you need the first part of the sentence at all? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another drive-by comment, while reworking Baryonyx, I noticed that Sales and Schultz discuss the implications of nostril size in Irritator for olfaction and hunting in or outside water, which doesn't seem to be mentioned here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I remember reading something about that, but forgot to add it in somewhere along the way. Thanks for reminding me! Will implement it soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added information on olfaction from Sales and Schultz. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lip region was curved at the sixth premaxillary tooth – not sure what this means (lip region?). Looks like the lower margin of the bone was concave, with the concavity reaching its apex at the sixth tooth, is this what is meant?
Done, that sentence was there from before. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The frontmost upper border of the premaxilla had a small bulge that overhung the base of the crest. – overhung the crest? So above the crest? Don't get that.
Nothing gramatically or physically wrong here. Take for example this photo [1], in which the rocks above are overhanging the base of the structure. The same thing occurs in Angaturama's snout, in which a small anterodorsal projection also overhangs the base of the crest, making the front margin of the snout somewhat concave. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's how I understood it. Still sounds like a taphonomic artifact. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • to tenth maxillary positions. – I thought only the first three maxillary teeth are preserved?
Whoops, changed to "third maxillary positions". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though no skeletal remains were discovered with the original Angaturama snout tip, one partial skeleton (MN 4819-V) from a different location may belong to the genus. – Why only Angaturama here and not Irritator? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the sources only state Angaturama, so I felt like that would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems that you already made a quite bold decision by covering Angaturama and Irritator in the same article, thus implying synonymy. This does not appear to be consensus. Would it be safer from a WP:OR point of view to keep them in separate articles for now? Alternatively, you could make clear that the article covers both, perhaps by having Angaturama in bold in the lead as well? I'm not sure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having it in bold seems like a good idea, I did the same in Paraceratherium, as there are also conflicting views about taxonomy. As for splitting articles, since one type specimen is most likely destroyed, and recent sources at best consider them to belonging to different individuals, though perhaps of the same taxon, I think its best to keep them in one place. As I mentioned on the talk page, the fact that the Angaturama mount in the Brazil Museum clearly seems to incorporate the Irritator specimen, it seems they also considered them synonymous, despite using the "younger" name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bolded Angaturama limai in the lead. As for status of the holotype material, I thought that the Irritator skull was still in the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart and that Angaturama was in the University of São Paulo? Were the specimens moved? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irritator is in Germany, but there are rumous the Angaturama specimen was in the museum (not a good source):[2] Could be due to confusion with the mounted skeleton (which some mainstream/layman sources mention as if it was real), but who knows... FunkMonk (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I sure hope it was still in São Paulo. Spinosaurid taxonomy is already troublesome enough as it is, so the last thing we need is to be loosing more of the few fragile specimens we have. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to my information, Angaturama and Oxalaia were in the museum during the fire and probably got destroyed. Not sure about Thalassodromeus, though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and synonymized Irritatoridae within that family – "synonymized with that family" or "placed within that family"?
Removed the "in", very contradictory statement indeed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • by having almost half as many teeth in the maxilla – not sure about the exact meaning: less than half or slightly more than half?
Looking at the source again with the original wording, it should mean slightly over half, changed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the snout of Angaturama limai is generally narrower than in baryonychines, some of the extreme sideways flattening of the holotype may be due to taphonomy (changes during decay and fossilization); given that the specimen appears partly crushed and broken, with some of the preserved teeth having been sectioned off along their length. – This sentence is somewhat too long, and the semicolon is out of place. Furthermore, I think the evidence cited in the second part of the sentence is quite week or not relevant; physical breakage ("teeth are sectioned off") and deformation ("sideways flattening") are different things that can occur at different times during diagenesis.
I took a closer look at the source again and rewrote the sentence appropriately, since it looks like I misread some things (it was a very long paper). Is this better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that the Oxalaia does not quite fit into the systematics it seems … is there a better place to mention it? Maybe in its own little paragraph at the end of the "Synonymy with Angaturama", as that sections is about how many species have been present. I don't know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It actually it fits pretty well there! I also added in what autapomorphies Oxalaia has from Angaturama, since they're both known from snout tips. Should help make the paragraph a bit less "naked" and more informative as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2011 finite-element analysis study by British paleontologist Emily J. Rayfield suggested that Irritator's nasal bones may have chanelled certain bending stresses during feeding. The analysis, however, assumed that the sagittal crest was as thick as the rest of the skull, when it was in fact very narrow and fragile compared to neighboring skull bones.[51] – I would remove this whole thing, honestly. It sounds like you are criticizing this study. In fact, the study makes the point that crests in theropods, including those of spinosaurs, had no significant role in feeding (stress distribution). They acknowledge that the crest shape in Irritator makes this less clear, and that it is possible (more in the sense of "it can't be excluded") that the crest took some stresses, but then point out its small thickness. The short of it: They do not consider it likely that the crest had an effect at all. The short of it: they do not really give new information on Irritator.
Admittedly I had some doubts over whether or not this part was relevant and whether or not I'd worded it properly. This just confirmed my worries, removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • consisting of diagenetic limestone concretions – why "diagenetic" here, what does the source say precisely?
Removed, don't know how that got there. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • limestone concretions and calcareous concretions – best to use the same word for the same thing to improve comprehensibility.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and other uncertain forms – do we need a comma here? As is, the "uncertain" appears to apply to the whole preceding list.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarities between the fauna of the Romualdo and Crato Formations to that of Middle Cretaceous Africa suggest that the Araripe Basin was connected to the Tethys Sea, though this link was likely sporadic, because the lack of marine invertebrates indicates the basin had a non-marine depositional setting.[75] – Only of the fish fauna, right? A non-marine depositional setting for a lagoon? Not sure if that is possible. I suspect that there are two hypotheses: that it was a lagoon and that it was non-marine? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack Hmm, Aureliano et al. (2018) don't mention a non-marine depositional setting for the Crato, Romualdo, and Ipubi Formations. Admittedly this is one of my least favourite things to work on in dinosaur articles, since sediment interpretations can differ wildly between the analyses of different researchers. Also, being much more familiar with biology than geology, these issues are a bit more difficult for me to sort out, so pardon me if I get confused about a couple (or various) things. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review! Your comments are always quite valuable and thorough, especially when it comes to anatomical details. The Guild copyedit should occur sometime in the next couple days I think, but in the meantime I'll submit the article for Peer Review. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irritator/GA1&oldid=867760734"