Talk:Paranthodon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll review this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the intro is too long for an article of this length, should probably be cut down by half, and should be split into perhaps two paragraphs. For example, you don't need names of scientists and dates of various things in the intro, too much detail. It is only supposed to be a brief summary. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cut lead by some percent.

Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image caption should probably say "grey areas based on related species" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Didn't specify source genera.

"a matrix with impressions" Impressions of what?

Specified, also, the matrix had fragments figured in the article.

Some of the sentence structures struck me as a bit German-like, but since I assume these were written by MWAK, likely Ducth. I have changed some to more conventional English.

Not sure how to fix these, but I think I got one corrected. IJReid (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under description, no anatomical term are linked, but they should be.

Link some terms.

"those of a member of the Pareiasauria and a dinosaur jaw." What did the pareisasaur fossils consist of?

Specified, although it would probably be a given that it was Anthodon.

Oh, I meant what elements were represented, not which genus. FunkMonk (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, makes more sense. The info is not in any of the current refs, but I could add the original description of Anthodon by Owen, which has that info. IJReid (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a good way to solve it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. IJReid (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the teeth of the lower jaws are unknown, why are they not grey in the diagram?

They are actually known, mentioned in article now.

That's about it, looks good generally. I'll read the lead once it is shortened. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, I will get to the lead last. IJReid (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions different definitions of stegosauria, but does not explain them, could that be done briefly? What is the modern sense compared to the old one? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was only one definition, which is now mentioned, but it is mentioned that older references to the group were pre-definition. IJReid (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good now, I think. Maybe there could be some explanation of what features make this classifiable as a stegosaur? FunkMonk (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to find this, as none of the current sources have any such information. IJReid (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'd assume the Nopcsa or Peter Galton sources would cover this? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just rechecked Galton & Coombs, and the article doesn't mention Huayangosaurus at all and barely mentions Stegosauria. As everything other than Huayangosaurus is a stegosaurid (I known there are exceptions), and it isn't mentioned, I do believe that there would be no reason to mention any features if they are not compared to Huayangosaurus. I will check all other sources in the article. IJReid (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, no big deal if it can't be found, this is only a GA after all. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found another source that explicately states that the material bares no stegosaurian synapomorphies. However, many phylogenies have found the material stegosaurian, and according to another study by the same author, it definitely is. This is OR, but personally I believe that lack of synapomorphies is due to the fact that little cranial material is known, and that just none have yet been published. IJReid (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Seems no more can be found, so I'll go ahead and pass. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]