Talk:Ornithoprion/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Gasmasque (talk · contribs) 16:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now, will comment soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for picking this review up! I would be more than happy to send over .pdfs for any of the harder to obtain references used, if you think that's necessary. Gasmasque (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to remove the technical terms "monotypic" and "type" from the lead. We should try to make the lead as accessible as possible. Both terms are not really needed, since "only species" already implies that it is monotypic and the only species would be the type species.

~~For the same reason, replace "anterior" with "front" in the lead.~~

Done. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletal reconstruction of Ornithoprion, with known material represented in white and implied/suggested material represented in gray – In this image, one fin is in gray and the others in black, but as far as I understood the article, all of them are only implied and none is represented?

It is debated whether eugeneodonts possessed a pair of pelvic fins, and I decided the best course of action was to have them be translucent on the outline. Unfortunately, this makes them appear gray in front of a white background, but I hope the text in the description section clarifies that pelvic fins are only "implied" for the group as a whole. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~"dermal armor" is an unexplained term that is also not linked, any chance to make this more understandable~~?

Changed to "fused bony scales". Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single specimen was also collected from the Logan Quarry – is that also in Indiana?

It is indeed. Clarified in the article. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a homocercal caudal fin, – "homocercal" needs link or explanation (I suggest "a homocercal (symmetrical) caudal fin".

Clarified as "crescent-shaped". Terms like this are definitely a bit technical. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mandibular rostrum is connected to the Meckel's cartilage (lower jaw) – Isn't the rostrum part of the lower jaw?

It is not, and I have clarified so in the lead. This is seemingly a novel structure in Ornithoprion which is not homologous to any part of a shark's lower jaw. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

chondrocranium – term could do with in-text explanation, since the linked article is on human embryology

Changed to "cranium". Chondrocranium is literally just "cartilaginous cranium" in this context, and many of the used sources use it interchangeably with neurocranium or cranium. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An indentation set far forward on the snout is reported by Zangerl to have likely held the nasal capsule,[2] although it is unpreserved. – "it" here refers to "indentation", but maybe you wanted to say "the latter" instead?

Changed. I agree that the wording was pretty clunky, it resulted from me cutting that section down to avoid coming across as original-researchy. It originally also referred to a scleral ring which was unpreserved as well, which is never mentioned in the sources and does not warrant inclusion here. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to the rest of the article later! It reads very well overall. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which typically share its thin, band-like shape and limited articulation – bit unclear hear what you mean with "limited articulation" (I assume its the articulation with the chondrocranium?), and you didn't mention before that the articulation was somehow limited ("weak"?).

Clarified both instances of discussion about the vestigial(?) upper jaws. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

batteries, polydontode – also terms which warrant link or explanation

Desperately tried to rephrase tooth battery and tooth pavement to be less jargony. These terms are pretty much standard in references to extinct shark teeth, but are difficult to explain without derailing the article. I hope its clear enough that they are simply meant to mean "rows of flattened, crushing teeth in durophageous fishes", it would feel wrong to cut them from the article. I am interested in creating a dedicated Wiki page for tooth battery/tooth pavement myself at some point, if you think that would be noteworthy enough to warrant it. Clarified "polydontode scales" as a term for a distinct kind of denticle present in these fishes. Please let me know if this section meeds further work. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not clear enough. Sometimes it is possible to replace a technical term with more common words or an explanation, and we should do that where we can, but we should not sacrifice precision. More often, we keep the term and add a gloss (an explanation in a bracket), for example tooth batteries (rows of flattened, crushing teeth in durophageous fishes). If that explanation becomes too long, it is even possible to add an explanatory footnote. We don't need to do that for all terms; links are often sufficient. For guidance, a good concept is WP:ONEDOWN; we explain those terms that the target audience is unlikely to know, to not make them chasing wikilinks too much. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a gloss for tooth batteries. Gasmasque (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"tooth whorl", "symphyseal whorl" – I assume this refers to the same thing? Always use the same term for the same thing, as clarity matters most.

Clarified in this section in particular, but there may be other instances of this. I'll keep scanning through the article to make sure my use of "tooth whorl" is consistent, as that is the accepted technical term for the symphyseally positioned fused/connected teeth. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with the largest figured whorls spanning approximately 1 cm (.39 in) in length – why "figured", did you measure these by yourself?

I did indeed, no measurements are explicitly stated other than those of the entire skull (only labeled scale bars). I've removed both this measurement and one discussing the height of the upper tooth "whorl" as they may stray too close to original research, in retrospect. Zangerl was kind enough to have provided scale bars for all of his photos and illustrations, but I'm inclined to say "I looked at the labeled rectangle" isn't a sufficient source. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are a few aspects here. First, scale bars in articles are more likely to be inaccurate than written numbers (based on my own experience, getting scale bars wrong is very easy). Second (not in this case, but in general), if something is not directly stated anywhere, it is often a sign that it is simply not relevant. Third, the reader will assume that these numbers can be found in that paper – but they cannot, so it can be misleading, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the only two instances of given numbers being obtained from scale bars, the length of the skull is explicitly stated as "some 100 mm long" by R. S. Miles (1971). I've refrained from including self-guesstimated measurements in any subsequent articles. Gasmasque (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tooth crowns on the lower whorl – this implies there is an upper whorl too, but none is mentioned? Edit: You mention it later, but I think it makes sense to introduce this hypothethical upper whorl right where you speak of the whorl for the first time in that paragraph; makes it easier for the reader.

I've reworded it to make it clear I'm moving from talking about the lower jaw in its entirety to the upper... divot(?) as their own sections. This animal functionally lacks an upper jaw, which makes accurately wording this section tricky. Let me know what you think of how I've adjusted it. Also, the Kansas University Natural History Museum apparently has numerous specimens of Ornithoprion teeth, so once they get around to posting their vert paleo collection of GBIF I may be able to add illustrations for clarity here! Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is thought that pointed, v-shaped teeth up to 4mm (.16 in) in height were present in another symphyseal row attached directly to the chondrocranium. – Are these teeth known, but the upper whorl is unknown?

These teeth are indeed known, but are disarticulated. Their formation into a second whorl is supported by Zangerl (1966, 1981) and by Ginter et al. (2010), but I am iffy suggesting it as an objective fact Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

many denticles form fused, compound, polydontode scales. These compound denticles – "compound scales", not "compound denticles", right?

Denticle links to fish scale elsewhere in the article, I believe. Clarified that "polydontode scale" is the specific scientific term for the fused denticles of Paleozoic shark-like fishes. Similar clarification is made when discussing these structures on the page for Helicoprion, for reference. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

he honors Hertwig's hypothesis in the name of the type species – Just checking – I may overlook something, but the source only says "in honor of Hertwig", without implying that it was named because of this hypothesis?

Near the conclusion of the 1966 description, there is a dedicated section titled "Hertwig's Theory of the Origin of Dermal Bone, where Zangerl states "It is thus of considerable interest to find an animal that illustrates Hertwig's theory most beautifully." and "It is of notable interest, however, that Hertwig's speculations have indeed gained a basis in fact: dermal bone can, and did arise in the mode proposed by Hertwig in Ornithoprion. Whether it arose in this fashion in other groups of vertebrates, remains an open question."

I don't think this section's inclusion and Zangerl's statement that Ornithoprion illustrates Hertwig's hypothesis "beautifully" could be interpreted any other way. Maybe this section requires slight rewording to avoid coming across as original research, but I would argue it is fine as it and is thoroughly supported by the 1966 description. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this falls under WP:Synth. Zangerl does not state that he named the species because of this particular hypothesis. It could be that he is very found of the hypothesis, but named the species for Hertwigs contributions in general. I personally don't really see the connection between the quote you provided and the naming of the species. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the section to give an explanation of the hypothesis and to say Zangerl honors Hertwig. It no longer explicitly says it is named as a result of this particular hypothesis. Gasmasque (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During the 1990's, edestid specialist Svend Erik Bendix-Almgreen, in personal communications with artist Ray Troll, expressed – just checking: if the source says "Ray Troll, personal communication", then the idea comes from Troll, and Bendix-Almgreen is only reproducing it (in this case, you may obmit the mention of Bendix-Almgreen altogether).

The source is "Bendix-Almgreen, Personal Communication" and is a transcribed letter sent to troll as correspondence by Bendix Almgreen. I tried to reword it somewhat to clarify, but let me know if this is still confusing. Bendix-Almgreen did not provide Troll with his reasonings for believing this, hence why I added an additional sentence on him specifically separately. Troll himself apparently subscribed to Zangerl's classification scheme, but I don't consider that notable here. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeneodontida is regarded as a monophyletic stem group – A stem group can't be monophyletic, per definition. It is always paraphyletic, since it does not include the crown group.

Reworded to "a monophyletic group on the stem of holocephali (sometimes defined as euchondrocephali)". Eugeneodontida itself is here considered a monophyletic clade, but it is outside the crown holocephali as defined in the given sources. I do understand the distinction between stem and crown groups, apologies for the poor wording. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is based on the bulbous, rounded shape of the dentition – do you meen the pavement teeth here?

Zangerl doesn't specify, but I'm almost positive he means the teeth of the syphyseal tooth whorl. I also didn't specify as that would be original research. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent researchers treat the conditions which formed the Mecca and Logan sites as distinct from those which formed deep-sea shales such as the Stark Shale, and continue to accept a very shallow water environment.[39] – Is this really an established consensus as you imply in the text, or is this based on the opinion of just one study ([39])?

An additional source cited in the paragraph also support this, I will add that to the closing sentence as well. I have reworded the section to indicate that there is not a single consensus, although Zangerl and Richardson's work remains by a long shot the most comprehensive. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do worry a bit about the "significance" section, but I did not look into the sources deeply enough to see if this is a definite problem. Be careful not to give WP:undue weight to Troll. Also, the genus is certainly "significant" for other reasons too, so think about choosing a different, more specific title for the section. Also, the personal website of Troll does, I think, not qualify as a reliable source in Wikipedia, and the Tapanila study does not really support the text as far as I can see.

The Tapanila paper uses artwork drawn by Troll (exhibiting the stated features) which were originally for the exhibit, as a figure, but I have removed that citation as the paper does not explicitly say anything about Ornithoprion. Troll's gallery has been removed as a citation, as well.

The significance section was added because originally all that this article said was that the animal was used to reconstruct Helicoprion and was created to source that claim. Undue weight to Zangerl and Troll (who was close friends with Zangerl and sourced him extensively when creating his work) is definitely something to be concerned about here, but unfortunately they are the only people who have written extensively on this animal, and so it ends up being somewhat unavoidable. I am in favor of keeping the "significance" section under whatever name suits it better, because as unfortunate as it is a large portion of the published mentions of Ornithoprion are simply one-off sentences likening it to Helicoprion as, to quote Richard Ellis "another -prion". The subsequent writings regarding its sternum-like structure and bony armor, I think, are extensively covered elsewhere, so this section is very much meant to focus on its utility as an analogue to its larger relatives. I don't think it would fit comfortably into any of the other sections. Gasmasque (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, an excellent, very readable article and well illustrated, on a topic that is quite underrepresented in Wikipedia – we need more of these! Most of my comments above are minor quibbles. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the glowing review! I've reverted one of your edits regarding the scapulocoracoids, as in Ornithoprion these represent the entirety of the pectoral girdle and can, in my mind, be considered synonymous with the structure as a whole. Another article I've submitted for GA, Romerodus, has many of these same minor problems, so I can try to rework that article in anticipation of a review if you think that's reasonable. Regarding your concerns of undue weight and poorly defined terms (polydontode scale/denticle, tooth battery, pavement teeth), there is unfortunately not a ton I can do about that given what information exists on this woefully understudied fish, but I've tried to retool what I can to make it more clear. Hopefully all my provided rationales for changes or additions make sense, please feel free to ask if you have any further questions about the article or animal! Gasmasque (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, I may actually be willing to cut the "significance" section altogether. Compared to something like Romerodus where a significant amount of literature on it is devoted to using it as a measuring stick, Ornithoprion's relevance to Helicoprion really does just amount to Troll's account, which I don't think warrants an entire section (if even mention in the article at all). It feels out of place in an article that is otherwise much more focused on Ornithoprion as its own animal. I would be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter, or those of any other editors with a passing interest in these animals. Gasmasque (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, I was just wondering. I see this can be interesting information. Maybe leave it in for the time being, awaiting more opinions; I do not consider it relevant for this GA nomination. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gasmasque: A few replies from me above. With just a little bit more work, mostly formatting, the article would be ready for submission at WP:FAC, if you are interested in that. And btw, we just launched a new initiative today, WP:PALEOAW, which might be of interest! I will take your Romerodus for review, too – and yes, if you could do a copy edit with above points in mind, that would make reviewer life easier! Cheers. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I would want to submit this for FAC at the moment, but I may at some point and I'm glad to hear you think it's worthy. I've done some retooling following your above comments, let me know if there are any other things you take issue with. I've also replaced one of the citations in the "significance" section with one from another Tapanila paper, using the same reconstructed head and gills of Helicoprion and explicitly stating in the text that O. hertwigi was used as a basis. Romerodus is a good deal shorter than this page since there isn't very much published on it at the moment, so hopefully that's a relatively quick review. Thank you so much for your feedback, you've been great to work with! Gasmasque (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! And congrats for the GA! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.