Talk:Ohmdenosaurus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Finally! I'm currently a bit swamped in FAC reviews, but will return as soon as possible, but I have some comments in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! And there is absolutely no rush, after me taking years to finish this little article … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• There are a bunch of duplinks which can be highlighted with the usual script.
  • Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• If this is going to FAC, it will probably be asked that the restoration has sources. You don't need to know what the artist used, just something that confirms the anatomy and environment.
  • Hmm … not sure, just cite Shunosaurus? Is not a perfect match though. These egg clutches are a bit problematic though, sauropods didn't had open clutches … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe some source that states they were related? As for the eggs, I could make a version without them. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Went for Tazoudasaurus now and added the info; hope this would work now? And yeah, removing these eggs would certainly improve it if you can do it? Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine, and as you saw, the eggs and signature have been removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• If Slate Weasel is around, we should try to see if we can get the size comparison diagram[1] more in line with published estimates so it can be used. Or we can make a new one?
  • I checked this, and Slates estimate makes more sense to me than the original one. Getting it down to 3–4 m would be quite a stretch. Not sure if there is anything we can do.
• Some citations use full names, some don't.
  • Fixed.
• The Taphonomy paragraph is pretty chunky and therefore hard to parse, perhaps split in two?
  • Yes, done.
• The intro could perhaps also be split in two.
  • Also done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "(fossil deposit of exceptional importance)" Or exceptional preservation?
  • "Exceptional importance" is correct, that was the original idea of the term "Lagerstätte". In this case, however, we have a "Konservat-Lagerstätte" – a fossil deposit that is important because of its exceptional preservation. There are, however, also "Konzentrat-Lagerstätten" that do not necessarily show exceptional preservation. (And yes, I think the definition in the Wiki article is not correct).
• "Together with his son, he opened a local museum in Holzmaden, the Urweltmuseum Hauff, to display the finds." Perhaps give a date?
  • Found and added.
• Link dinosaur in article body too.
  • done.
• "and conducted additional preparation" Link fossil preparation?
  • done
• Some measurements are abbreviated, others not.
  • Hope I got all.
• Link cartilage?
  • done.
• Link basal.
  • done, and explained.
• "argued that the Early Jurassic Ohmdenosaurus must have been a basal sauropod because its limb was clearly columnar" And because of its age, I guess? Implied, but not stated outright now.
  • I removed the "basal", because I think it is clearer to focus on the point that it is a sauropod for now.
• " Wild concluded that Ohmdenosaurus shows a mosaic of primitive and derived features and probably needs to be placed within a new family of sauropods.[2]" Why change in tense?
  • From my feeling, this sounds correct. The fossil shows this mosaic of features, and he argued that it needs to be placed in a new family. But please proof me wrong.
• "tentatively included Ohmdenosaurus in the Vulcanodontidae,[4] a group that later fell out of use" On what grounds was it assigned?
  • Added.
• "Although roughly contemporaneous with Ohmdenosaurus, they cannot be directly compared to the latter because they do not include elements of the hind limb." But what do they include?
  • Added.
• From reading the article, it doesn't appear Tazoudasaurus is very related after all? Compared to the image description "Animals reconstructed after the related Tazousasaurus".
  • Tazoudasaurus is just the only early sauropod that is complete enough to be reliably reconstructed. So I hoped it is close enough …
• "in an subtropical" In a?
  • done.
• "as an unique" A unique?
  • done.
• You mention many marine reptile groups in the history section from the same deposits, but not under paleoenvironment? Maybe you could go more in detail about specific genera there.
  • Under paleoenvironment, I thought we should restrict ourselves to the environment of Ohmdenosaurus – the terrestrial flora and fauna. The flying animals come from the landmass, as do the plants. We need to stress the point that this dinosaur does not belong where it was found. But let me know if you disagree. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You have a point, but personally, following this text "Wild, however, considered it more likely that scavengers such as crocodiles or plesiosaurs brought the specimen to its final site", I'd like to know what kind of creatures it could have been, as they seemingly interacted with the carcass at least. You could say "marine animals known from the same sediments the holotype was deposited in include" etc. But it's up to you, it won't hold promotion back. FunkMonk (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The fossil has originally been identified as a plesiosaur." Was originally?
  • fixed.
• The last point is optional, so I'll go ahead and promote this now, nice stuff! FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)