Talk:Liushusaurus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've signed up for this review. Will have comments up in a few days. Sasata (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sasata (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lead is not currently functioning as a summary of the article. Perhaps move the etymology/naming and discovery information into a separate section and try to summarize the remaining section in 2-3 sentences each.
- I took the imitative and reworded the lead and added an etymology section. There is still much to be added though. --Kev min § 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea to mention (at least in the lead) the dates ranges for geological time years, to save some readers a click
maybe specify somewhere that the generic description is the same as the species.
"robustly built, with a thick tail and legs" I could get a better visual if some values were provided. How long were their tails? How thick?
a map showing collection site(s) would be great
In the description, why not give the length (66 mm) of the holotype specimen? I appreciate that this article has less jargon and is more average-encyclopedia reader friendly than the average fossil GA I've gotten used to reading lately (Hi Ucucha if you're watching), but on the other hand, comparing with Evans and Wang, 2010, it feels like there's lots of details left out.
there's some more interesting etymological info that could be included, like that the "willow tree" from which the generic name is derived refers to "willow leaf valley", where the fossils were dug up.
- I had to completely restructure the etymology sentences. No where in the paper is Liushusaurus called the "willow tree lizard" and direct Anglicizations as names are highly discouraged. I added the derivations, combination's, and reasoning's for the generic and specific names. --Kev min § 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned that the pigmentation is intact, but the color of the lizard is not mentioned
linking is on the light side in the description section. What's an orbitospenoid? Postcloacal? Should we assume everyone will know what "rhomboidal" means?
well preserved, and later "well developed", should be hyphenated
Ok, I see cloacal linked later on, but it should be linked at first mention. BTW, is it postcloacal or post-cloacal?
Scincogekkonomorpha is glaringly redlinked in the cladogram, and there's no discussion of what it is in the article text. How about a few words to explain, and perhaps a citation to Conrad, 2008?
"tubercular plantar digital scales" sounds cool - any more details?
what's the Jehol Group?

Any more progress on this article? Sasata (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like there's much going on here, so I'm going to fail this review. Feel free to resubmit after the above suggestions are addressed. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]