Talk:Megacephalosaurus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aven13 (talk · contribs) 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I'll review this article.

From a first look-through, good job. The article seems thorough and comprehensive. I have only a few minor fixes and then we should be able to promote to GA.

• In the lead; "by 2013 it has been understood". Grammar issues.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• "consistently sized teeth suggests that it may have preferred a diet". You don't need the may here; "suggests that it preferred a diet" is fine.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Megacephalosaurus was one of the largest marine reptiles of its time and its estimated length measures between 6–9 meters (20–30 ft)". Connect these two sentences; say that "Megacephalosaurus was one of the largest marine reptiles of its time with an estimated measure of 6–9 meters (20–30 ft)" (or something similar).

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Remains are mostly represented by fossil skulls". In the lead section, since there aren't that many specimens, is it possible to simply say "Remains are represented by two fossil skulls, three ribs, and a neural arch"?

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the paragraph under "description" beginning with "The snout is very elongate", you have an extremely long paragraph with only two sources at the end. I it possible to split up the inline citations through the paragraph?

Wouldn't be pretty. Each sentence in that paragraph would be cited by both sources (one source makes the main points and the other elaborates on some or all of it). Otherwise, I would be making citations for every single point. Macrophyseter | talk

Fair enough.

• "and it has previously been thought". This sentence is technically correct, but it isn't worded very well. Something like "it was previously thought" or even just "it was thought" would be better.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• "was discovered two teenage brothers". Needs a "by".

Now how did that happen? Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• The "initial identification" subsection lacks any inline citations. I know that adding them in isn't exactly fun, but there should at least be a source that says that two boys discovered the fossil. There are many of them out there, like this.

It was supposed to be cited by ref number 2; somehow I didn't put the citation in. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The history of the paratype skull UNSM 50136 has been unclear when it was first examined" replace with "was unclear when it was first examined".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the evolutionary tree, you should red link 'Pliosaurus' andrewsi and 'Pliosaurus' irgisensis (remember: red links are not only acceptable, but needed), and for the other links, make it so that it redirects you to the section of the pliosaurus article with that actual species.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Link "polycotylids".

I already linked polycotylid before (in front of Trinacromerum), wouldn't that make it a double wiki-link? Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad.

• And on the talk page, FunkMonk makes a good point. I'm aware that you didn't upload the image, but another source needs to be found if the photo is to be used. (Of course, other photos may be used in the intro too, it's just that one photo.)

I'll try looking into it. However, it should be noted that the other skull image in the article is the only other free image of a Megacephalosaurus I can find. I'll discuss this more in FunkMonk's thread. Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Macrophyseter: That's all I have for now. Nice job. Aven13 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! A quick question, do you think an article of content (not quality, as that can always be improved) like this may have any sort of chance at passing FA? Macrophyseter | talk 19:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as long as you're willing to put in the work. You know by bringing Cretoxyrhina to FA that it is an extremely difficult task, but as far as I can tell, the content of this article would be just fine for FA. The only thing standing in your way right now would probably be a lack of citations, but those are easy enough to add, and you don't need too many - an article like Oxalaia only has 27 citations, so if you feel that you can get it up to FA, go for it.

Do you mean citations as in the sheer number of sources in the refs, given your example for the Oxalaia article? That could be a bit of a slope there, to be honest considering that there are only a few papers that mentions Megacephalosaurus and fewer papers that focus on it. Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a few more things to go, then GA.

• "The cladogram below is modified from the majority rule consensus tree of an ordered parsimony analysis from a multi-method phylogenetic study by Madzia et al. (2018)". This sentence is rather convoluted and technical - terms like "ordered parsimony analysis" and "majority rule consensus tree" can be taken out to make the sentence more readable.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "one uniting characteristic between all is known; this characteristic being the possession of..." This can be shortened to "one uniting characteristic is known; the possession of..."

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "All strict consensus methods recovered Megacephalosaurus from a polytomy clade that only shared by..." should be "that is" or just "clade only shared by".

I'm wondering why I am having so many typos. Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "was performed by a 2012 study led by Roger Benson". Probably should change to "performed in a 2012 study."

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Macrophyseter: And that's all I have. After these are done and the image is sorted out, the article should be ready to promote. Aven13 20:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The image part might take a while. I'll see if I can try reaching out to one of the authors of the taxon for information. If they don't respond, it's possible that we may have to throw in a non-fair use rationale (if possible) or delete it outright and only use the reconstructed skull image. I don't think any other free images exist yet.Macrophyseter | talk 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aven13: I have decided to purge the image from the article and replaced the taxobox image with the reconstructed skull. Do you think that there is still enough images to satisfy GA criteria? Macrophyseter | talk 20:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. As I cannot see any further things that need fixing within the article...

Conclusion

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: The only part of this review I'm slightly hesitant about, article contains relatively few inline citations. However it is good enough for GA, so it's good enough for me.

   C. It contains no original research:

   

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass. Nice job on promoting another paleontology-related article to GA. Aven13 23:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for the review! Macrophyseter | talk 23:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)