Talk:Peloneustes

Peer Review continued

Sorry for being late on this; will continue my review here first, but maybe we should just move over to the Paleo Peer Review?

• There is some image WP:SANDWICH going on; this could be solved by using the "multiple images" template; see example in the Paleobiology section of Lythronax.

Cool, I didn't know about that parameter, I've used it on the limb girdles. I still have 3 or 4 images I'd like to try and fit into the article, so that is a useful trick. I've also moved up the Leedsichthys image. Are there any other glaring cases of sandwiching? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• (meaning "power-loving", possibly due to its large, powerful skull) – this is important information; I don't think it is ideal to just have it within brackets. Also, it is not clear if this refers to Plesiosaurus or philarchus.

 Done

• pectoral girdle – "shoulder girdle" to avoid the technical term?

 Done

• distal – I see that "lower" does not work here, but this should at least be linked. Thinking about it, you can avoid it and just say "other limb bones", since you mention humeri and femora, and all other limb bones are distal to those in any case. Or another possibility: "limb bones of the paddle"?

I've changed it to "other" on first mention and linked it when talking about phalanges. Technically the propodials are also "of the paddle". --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• but a worker named in Lingard – what is Lingard, a name?

Oops... removed "in". Yes, Lingard is a name. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to these limb girdles – "the" limb girdles?

Changed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Lydekker identified NHMUK R1253 – maybe "identified this specimen" for easier reading? The reader will not remember those numbers.

 Done

• After studying this new specimen, in addition to others in the Leeds Collection, – maybe "after studying this and other specimens in the Leeds Collection"? Currently it does not read as fluently as it could.

 Done

• However, Peloneustes gained wider acceptance, and has been used extensively in the literature since – bit repetitive. Maybe just "Peloneustes gained wider acceptance since"?

 Done

• Among these was the holotype specimen of Peloneustes philarchus, CAMSM J.46913 – maybe add "which today is the holotype specimen of Peloneustes", to make clear that the genus did not yet exist when that specimen was excavated, as we are out of chronology here.

 Done

• Harry Govier Seeley described the specimen as Plesiosaurus philarchus – Maybe it would be good here to properly introduce Plesiosaurus, making clear that it is a new species of an already existing genus. All these names that start with "P." can easily be confused; during the first read, I did not even notice it was saying "Plesiosaurus" instead of the expected "Peloneustes", and was confused later.

I tried to make it clearer that Plesiosaurus had already been named, is this sufficient or should I describe it in more detail? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• encourage by John Phillips – "encouraged"?

 Done

• continued gather fossils – "to gather"?

 Done

• After studying this new specimen, in addition to others in the Leeds Collection – it would be ideal to introduce the Leeds collection first.

 Done

• assembling the aforementioned Leeds Collection – see above, this reference ("aforementioned") is not ideal and is usually avoided in Wikipedia articles. Would it still flow if you just swap the second and third paragraph, and place Charles William Andrews somewhere else?

 Done

• Jaccard – Jaccard was not introduced, do we know his full name?

Yep, his given name's Frédéric. Implemented. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• In 1907, Jaccard published a description of two specimens in the Musée Paléontologique de Lausanne. – Also from the Oxford Clay? Maybe add "Switzerland" to make clear we are no longer in England?

Yep, this one's also from the Oxford Clay. Added the country for the museum. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Since the specimen Lydekker described was in some need of restoration, and missing information was filled in with data from other specimens in his publication, Jaccard found it pertinent to publish photographs of the more complete specimen in Lausanne to better illustrate the anatomy of Peloneustes.[10] – I don't really get this; he did not publish a description but just the photographs? Why are the photographs so important?

I reworded this, Jaccard did describe the specimens (albeit cursorily). My French is a little rusty, but it seems like he found the photographs important for showing Peloneustes' anatomy and thereby allowing comparisons with previous restorations. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• The second volume described the anatomy of the Peloneustes specimens – exclusively those specimens, or among others?

Swapped the order to clarify this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• restored – Could it be that you use this word in a different sense than you did before? Here, you mean that missing parts are supplemented?

Yes. Rephrased, hopefully this is clearer. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Tübingen and Stuttgart, I would add "Germany" here, maybe not everybody knows these towns.

 Done

• Did the "continental" museums (Germany, Switzerland) bought the specimens from Leeds, or how did they got them?

Not sure for the Swiss ones (I can't seem to find a source in Jaccard's paper), I can't seem to find any information on this in Linder's description either, although the 2011 paper makes it sound like the specimens housed in Germany were also from the Leeds Collection. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Only the rear part of the cranium was in good condition, while the mandible was mostly undamaged. – "and" instead of "while"

Changed to "but" - "and" feels a little clunky here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• The specimen included a mandible – specimen does not exist anymore? You are a bit inconsistent with tense when referring to specimens.

Changed to "includes" in both instances. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• There was once a tendency to name pliosaurids based on isolated fragments, creating confusion. – A bit vague, when was "once"? Before Tarlo's study?

Changed to "Many pliosaurids species had been named based on isolated fragments, creating confusion.". --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Inaccurate descriptions of the material and paleontologists ignoring each other's work only made this confusion worse. – Did Tarlo word it like this? Then better attribute to that author.

 Done

• Since the previous anatomical studies, – this does not help; what is included in the "previous studies", the 2011 paper?

The 2011 paper specifies those of Andrews and Linder, so I have likewise specified them now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• So far for now. Sorry for the long list, but I'm already nitpicking at FAC level. It reads very nicely, I particularly like the way how you introduce things, including the context the reader needs to know, and then guide the reader through the text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented some of the above reccomendations, I'll get to the rest later on. I'm glad you found this readable, at over 70,000 bytes, this is easily the largest solo project I've tackled (in terms of paragraphs, the first section is nearly as long as the entire Tatenectes article!), and the subject is pretty complex, so readability was a major concern (I actually rewrote most of the article after my first attempt, and the first part of history got rewritten twice!). FAC level comments are fine, as I intend to eventually bring the article to FA status. As for bringing it to PALEOPR, I'm currently undecided as to whether or not I should just bring it straight to GAN after this. I look forward to further feedback! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I will try to finish reviewing quickly. You should certainly go straight to GAN after this review, but that does not mean you can't list it at PALEOPR! Listing it there can only give you more attention, and, when at GAN, we can advertise little bit in your reviewing section at PALEOPR so that it will hopefully be picked up quickly at GAN. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that I've addressed all of the above comments so far, though I feel like I've missed one of them. I also re-ordered some additional stuff (since the core of the history section comes first but was written last, the location of some links and explanations is a little weird). Can an article get multiple reviews at the same time? Either way, I'll definitely be looking for feedback post-GAN, as I'm not really sure what to do afterwards but before FAC. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course! You can keep it listed at WP:PALEOPR while at GAN (while leaving a note there), and again leave a note when you are preparing for FAC and are looking for more comments. Or you can list it after GAN is completed, depends on you! Btw, I am ready with the review of the rest of the article already but I am not at home at the moment, will post it as soon as possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Another of the species described by Seeley in 1869 was Pliosaurus evansi, based on specimens in Cabinet III. – I would repeat the museum here to indicate what Cabinet III means. But why is the cabinet not given for the specimens mentioned earlier? Consider removing for consistency.

Clarified museum, removed cabinet. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• He considered the larger specimens distinct – specimens of what, of P. evansi?

P. evansi. Clarified. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• to intraspecific variation – Maybe "variation within species" and link that to intraspecific variation, for accessibility?

I glossed instead of replacing it, as the intraspecific variability article currently redirects to "genetic variability". --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• PIN 426 had heavily suffered from pyrite damage – probably requires some explanation!

Explained (even cited it in this case, just to be safe!) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• pliosaurid specimen from the Lower Jurassic of Germany – Why not give the formation as you do elsewhere? Posidonia Shale I think.

 Done

• (forwards and outwards) are located on the posterior half of the skull. The – "and" missing

 Done

• The premaxilla bears six teeth, and the diastemata (gaps between teeth) of the upper jaw of Peloneustes are narrow, characteristic features of this pliosaurid. – I think we need something like "narrow; these are characteristic features".

 Done

• including the internal nares – maybe add little explanation, e.g. "the opening of the nasal passage into the mouth"?

 Done

• making it an autapomorphy – You use different wordings for the same thing, e.g.,"diagnostic". I would stick with one, and link the first to the article apomorphy.

The other characteristics aren't sufficient to distinguish Peloneustes on their own though (it's the combination of them that's unique), though, whereas the ridge on the symphysis is unique to this genus. Am I misinterpreting what "diagnostic" means? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, you are of course correct, and I was just confused. Never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• mandibular glenoid (jaw joint) – not precisely; it is only part of the jaw joint, maybe "socket of the jaw joint"?

 Done

• Strangely-shaped ribs – what does this mean? Wording sounds strange.

This is how Andrews described them. I can remove it if that's preferable. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe "unusual" is a better synonym. But here again: The paper is from 1913. Would a modern researcher, more than 100 years later, who saw MUCH more plesiosaur fossils that have been discovered since, still describe it as "unusual"? I have serious doubts here. If you keep it, you would need to attribute it to Andrews, 1913, I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I just removed it. I don't think that the pliosaurid tails and rumps of the time were very well-known. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• After these vertebrae are the dorsal vertebrae, – I am not a native speaker, so feel free to ignore this comment, but would "following behind these vertebrae" be better?

Changed to "following" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• The pectoral vertebrae bear articulations for their respective ribs – I'm a bit worried because this whole paragraph is based on a 1913 paper only. No problem for the basic description, but the functional implications (although they sound logical) could be outdated. Do you know any newer sources that repeates these implications, maybe for plesiosaurs in general, that can be cited in addition here?

Is this a functional interpretation? As far as I know, it's just what a pectoral is (that's what this seems to say). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What I mean: "This configuration would have stiffened the tail, possibly to support the large hind limbs." and "This morphology may have been present to support a small tail fin." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, plesiosaur caudal fins have been discussed quite a bit in the literature, but no mentions of Peloneustes recently. I can't find anything about the supporting sacral ribs (although strong sacral ribs are apparently also present in Kronosaurus). I'm not sure what to do in this case, maybe these functional interpretations could be attributed to Andrews? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, with attribution and year directly in the text, this will not be an issue (something which I would do for alk other such speculation as well before going to FAC, as mentioned earlier). If you have a recent source on the caudal fins, I would maybe cite that in addition, even if it does not mention Peloneustes specifically. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I cited the Rhomaleosaurus zetlandicus paper and attributed Andrews' claims to him. Interestingly, R. zetlandicus appears to have had enlarged chevrons beneath its caudal node, and proportionately larger chevrons more posteriorly into the tail (although I think that mentioning this in relation to Peloneustes is a bit off-topic, not to mention OR). I'll try to add attribution for the other speculations as well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• The main joint between the scapula and coracoid forms the glenoid (shoulder joint) – Main joint, does this mean there is a second joint? Maybe, alternatively, "The shoulder joint is formed by both the scapula and the coracoid"

Well, in plesiosaurs, the ventral process of the scapula (that big, paddle-shaped part in Peloneustes) bears a prong on its posterior end, which sometimes articulates with the coracoid further medially (like in Muraenosaurus: [1]). It seems unclear whether or not this articulation is actually present in Peloneustes (the accompanying illustration in Andrews (1913) doesn't show it), so I've changed it to the suggested wording. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Peleneustes – typo?

Oops! I suppose that's inevitable when one types "Peloneustes" over a hundred times... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• The shape of the radii and tibiae is more like those of later pliosaurids than of Peloneustes' contemporaries – again, need to check if this could be outdated; if in doubt, maybe better remove.

Couldn't find anything solid on this, so I've removed it. 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• between Pliosaurus and earlier plesiosaurs, although he found it unlikely that the former was ancestral to the latter – Pliosaurus was ancestral to earlier plesiosaurs?

Peloneustes to Pliosaurus. Clarified. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Plesiosaurs were well-adapted to marine life. Plesiosaurs grew at – Maybe use "they" at the second instance, so that not every sentence starts with "plesiosaurs".

 Done

• The labyrinth – "bony labyrinth", and link?

Aha! For whatever reason I couldn't find an article on this structure to link. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• form to that of sea turtles. This shape – Always use the same term when you mean the same think. Mathematically speaking, form is shape + size, so these are not equivalent.

 Done

• late Lower Callovian to the early Upper Callovian – Substages are not capitalized per convention as they are not formally defined (i.e., needs to be "late lower Callovian").

 Done

• However, Marmornectes lacks many adaptations seen in the other, more derived pliosaurids of the Oxford Clay. – This does not tell us anything; is there any difference to Peloneustes in the context of feeding?

Removed, that paragraph was already pretty monstrous in terms of size. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• living outside of the Oxford Clay Formation, – outside of the depositional area of the formation?

Yes, clarified. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• That's everything! I think the article is more than ready for GAN. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the new comments! I've addressed most of them, the remaining ones will all require some more digging in the literature to resolve. I'll get to them soon, either later today or sometime tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that I've addressed all of the above points (correct me if I'm wrong). I think that I'll refrain from posting this at PALEOPR until after GAN, just so that all the feedback's in one place. After adding the size comparison, life restoration, and skeletal reconstruction from Andrews (1913), I'll nominate it for GA, which should be within the week unless something goes terribly wrong. Oh, and I also realize that I probably should make the citations more consistent too before FA, as some are still Last, First M. instead of Last, F. M. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dates and context in third sentence are inconsistent

The third sentence: "It was originally described as a species of Plesiosaurus by palaeontologist Harry Govier Seeley in 1896, before being given its own genus by naturalist Richard Lydekker in 1889.

Should the first date be 1869? -- motorfingers : Talk 01:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the date, thanks for pointing this out! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 01:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)