Talk:Rhinesuchidae

Rhinesuchidae has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 12, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Rhinesuchidae is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rhinesuchidae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

What's the tabular bone? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've elaborated a bit, basically just one of the bones at the rear edge of the skull. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Otic notch section, the text says the convention 'membrane' is used in a lot of studies because it was thought they housed eardrums, but I don't see that in the source. Did I just glance over it or something? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added source: Watson (1962). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Palate and braincase section, you start describing the parasphenoid bone, then in the next sentence you start off as if you've never mentioned the parasphenoid bone

Rearranged the paragraph to mention the parasphenoid before the palatines. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Palate and braincase section, the second section more talks about taxonomy than description User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote it to seem less taxonomy-heavy, expanded the first paragraph of the classification section a bit to account for the change. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Palate and braincase section, "These ridges may have anchored muscles capable of maneuvering the head on the neck," does not have a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added source: Watson (1962). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the Paleobiology does not have a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a source, I forget exactly where this info came from. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've found many sources which I used to expand the first few paragraphs of the paleobiology section. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused on what Bystrow's paradox is User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted an explanation, basically just a matter of perspective messing with paleontologists. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Gills section, instead of saying, "In conclusion..." you should probably say, "They concluded..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Classification section, "...while others consider it an archegosaurid outside of Stereospondyli entirely," has no ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know a source. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proficient enough in phylogeny to understand "...the clades were 2 evolutionary steps more complex..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a huge explanation of bremer support values in the classification section. Phylogeny statistics are very complicated. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After fixing some typos and wikilinking a couple terms, I think the article's good to go after the above. In the future, be more liberal with wikilinks, like with bones of any-size name User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to link as many bones as I can, but unfortunately many important bones have tiny pages and some don't even exist. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the own-work pictures provide a source, so there's no telling if they're anatomically accurate or not, but that's more of a problem with FA than GA User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used several sources, and I'll put them in the image description in the future. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, as usual for palaeo article, it's best to have photos of actual fossils or reconstructions of them in the taxobox, since they are more reliable/less hypothetical. Likewise with the rest of the article; if we can show the actual evidence, we should as much as possible. Restorations are just eye-candy of sorts. FunkMonk (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there isn't much recent open-access imagery for this group (although there are some very old illustrations which may be public domain). I'm not too knowledgeable on what qualifies as public domain, but I'll look into it. The only thing close to a rhinesuchid fossil on Wikipedia is this: [1], and it looks like a deformed cast (note how asymmetrical the rear part of its skull is). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lower image here[2] doesn't seem too shabby to me, but of course, it's maybe not so nice that some of the rear is missing. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "This ability may be the reason why rhinesuchids were rather successful at the end of the Permian," but you should probably reference the Great Dying or some such other at this point User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just from all the rearranging, first paragraph of the Classification section has no ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced it using the major recent analysis on rhinesuchid classification. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Classification section, "Bremer support inquires how clades are distributed," I feel like some punctuation or something's missing here User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the sentence although I'm not sure if the grammar is improved. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's MPT? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An acronym for Most Parsimonious Tree. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm reading the entire thing, is the whole Bremmer-support-value thing really all that necessary here? I feel you could just take out, "although three clades did have moderate Bremer support values of 2," and the next paragraph and leave it at that (but you don't have to do this, it's just a thought) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major conundrum in my opinion. I can leave out any mention of bremer values, but then I would have to resort to vague wording like "moderate support". Bremer support values are the actual quantitative measurement for support used by the paper. The term needs a lot of elaboration but I still would like to reference it. If you feel that it seriously jeopardizes the flow of the classification section, I could rewrite or remove it, but I prefer that it stay. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]