Talk:Romerodus/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:52, 30 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) 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will start in the next few days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is not known if these specimens do indeed belong to the genus Romerodus, or represent a similar, related animal. – needs inline citation.

Sentence was initially added to try and clarify the meaning of "cf.", although since that term is blue-linked to its own page I don't think this blurb of text is even necessary. Other than "cf. Romerodus sp." being present at the site and most found remains being badly weathered, no additional details are provided on classification. I've removed the sentence. Gasmasque (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but Zangerl illustrates the eye sockets as being very large. – Just checking – he does not directly state they are large? Is a secondary source stating that he illustrates them as large?

Sentence is probably not worth keeping. Caseodonts as a group are cited as having large eyes in Resurrecting the Shark, but they are not mentioned as a feature of Romerodus in particular. It would probably be best to cut this whole sentence, as the skull being "poorly defined", in retrospect, is also not explicitly said and is only illustrated. I've tried to remove any other examples of "citing based on looking at figures" which was a problem earlier versions of this article suffered from, but this specific example has slipped by. Gasmasque (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which may have bore shark-like gill slits as in the reconstruction seen in Zangerl (1981) – same question as above.

This one I can provide a more robust citation for, as Mutter & Neuman's 2008 description of the Sulphur Mountain caseodonts explicitly states that the authors believe they had five to six gill slits. The Resurrecting the Shark citation corresponds to the opinions expressed by Lund and Grogan, which in the book was not given a specific date or corresponded to a specific paper. I can do some general tidying up of this section in particular and add a few more additional sources. Gasmasque (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which may have bore shark-like gill slits as in the reconstruction seen in Zangerl (1981) or a chimaera-like operculum (gill cover) as has been suggested by the researchers Richard Lund and Eileen Grogan. – minor nitpick, but it is inconsistent to provide years for some papers (Zangerl) but not for others (Lund and Grogan).

Section of the article has been rewritten somewhat. Gasmasque (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Handbook of Paleoichthyology, Volume 3D, Michal Ginter and coauthors; also "published in Handbook of Paleoichthyology, Volume 3A" – Why is mention of the handbook's name warranted here? You don't give titles of works elsewhere.

Good catch! I've removed the full title for consistency. Gasmasque (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You link "batteries" to durophagy, but that article does not mention the term. Also, tooth batteries are not necessarily related to durophagy (we have them in some dinosaurs as well, see dental battery). I suggest to add an explanatory gloss.

Again, good catch. I can carry the gloss definition used for tooth batteries on Ornithoprion over here, as The term is applied identically in this case. On the topic of this section, would it be worth trying to create a line drawing of one of R. orodontus' crushing teeth based on the figures provided by Ginter et al. and Zangerl? No photos of them are available on Commons. Frustratingly, no information on the actual nature of this animal's whorl of teeth is actually provided, other than Lebedev (2009) saying that it's there and that it's 25% of the skull length. Gasmasque (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

around than 7 meters or so – not sure here, "lengths around 7 meters"?

Just a good ol' fashion spelling error, it looks like. Fixed. Gasmasque (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all! Excellent article, and again one that could be suitable for WP:FAC pending some reference formatting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked the description section a fair amount to avoid anything that could be considered original research/not explicitly stated in the text. I'm really, really hoping this taxon gets a redescription at some point, it deserves it. I've cleaned up a few spelling errors as well, and everything should be in accordance with your feedback. Also, I've nearly finished drawing a scale diagram for several members of Caseodontoidea, which I think can help flesh out the "Description" section. Gasmasque (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Promoting now, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:52, 30 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.