Talk:Trinisaura/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) 17:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Heya, Augustios! I'll be reviewing this article, and I hope to be pretty quick about it.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Everything is cited to scientific journals, so no issues here.

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I checked with Earwig and got nothing significant.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments:

• (6b concern) I'm guessing there are no (available) pictures of the Trinisaura fossils, which is why Talenkauen is shown instead?

• "It is known from a single, incomplete postcranial skeleton of a subadult individual that includes..." is it necessary to say it is subadult here, when you repeat that in the next paragraph?

• "It lived in the lower layers of the Gamma Member of the Snow Hill Island Formation," - I'd suggest rephrasing that to "It was found in the lower layers..."

• "In field visits prior, material of the other dinosaur genus Antarctopelta were unearthed in 1986 in addition to fragmentary fossils of a sauropod and other ornithopod." -> "During prior field visits in 1986, material of the dinosaur genus Antarctopelta and fragmentary fossils of a sauropod and another ornithopod were unearthed."

• I'm a bit confused by that sentence and the one immediately after it, though, because it seems to be saying there's another ornithopod but then immediately goes into a list of what I assume are the 2008 Trinisaura fossils without a clear transition.

• "Later, however, more fossils including the left scapulacoracoid and additional vertebrae were noted to be known." And what does this mean? They found and described more fossils found later? They later noted that more, undescribed fossils were known?

• "The specimen was then deposited at the Museo de La Plata under catalogue number MLP-III-1-1, later the holotype (name-bearing specimen), and briefly described by Coria et al (2008), but received a complete description in 2013." - This is also mildly confusing: what specimen? After the confusion of this entire paragraph, I'm not sure if there's a single Trinisaura skeleton with only some parts described and other parts not, one described skeleton and also some random undescribed bits from another skeleton. And why is the phrase "later the holotype (name-bearing specimen)" stuck randomly in the middle of the sentence? Please elucidate.

• The second paragraph is somewhat better, but: "Several other ornithopod remains have been described from the Snow Hill Formation, including the well preserved partial skeleton of an ornithopod from Vega Island which bears similarities to Trinisaura." Were these other ornithopods described but not named? Though I assume at least one is Morrosaurus mentioned next...

• "The much larger genus Morrosaurus was dubbed in 2016 of which it has been suggested that Trinisaura is a synonym of, though several characteristics differentiate the two genera." Alright, what? This seems to imply that Morrosaurus was named in 2016, which would make it a junior synonym of Trinisaura if the two are synonyms, but you say the opposite. Perhaps rephrase to ""The much larger Morrosaurus, named in 2016, has been suggested to be a junior synonym of Trinisaura, though several characteristics differentiate the two genera."

• Only one issue under the Phylogeny section: "In 2015, it along with several other Patagonian and Antarctic ornithopods was found to be a part of the basal group of iguanodonts, Elasmaria in polytomy with other South American ornithopods and Morrosaurus." is not cited. I'm guessing it was supposed to be [8] like the cladogram right below?

• "The vertebral column is incompletely known, with only an incomplete dorsal (trunk) vertebra,..." - you repeat incomplete too close together, maybe change the second instance to "partial" and clarify that only one is known? (I.e. "with only one partial dorsal (trunk) vertebra..")

• "with the neural spines being posteriorily projected" - could this be rephrased to "with posteriorly-projected neural spines" without changing the meaning?

• "Here, the scapulacoracoid contacts the humerus..." - "touches the humerus". No need to use the fancier "contact".

• "The humerus is fragmentary, missing the proximal and distal ends, but is knowingly gracile and laterally bowed." - What does "knowingly gracile" mean?

• "The proximal end is anteroposteriorly and transversely expanded with a shallow, thickened deltopectoral crest on the lateral side of the proximal end." - you just said the proximal end of the humerus is missing, so how do we know this?

• "The pelvis is incomplete, with both ilia, the right pubis, and right ischium described." - so the left pubis and left ischium are missing? If so, add "The pelvis is incomplete, with both ilia, the right pubis, and right ischium described; the left pubis and ischium are missing."

• "The sides are flat but concave in cross-section due to be a point of connection with the anterior sacral ribs." - What is that "be" there for? Is it supposed to be "being"? Or is it a leftover artifact of an earlier phrasing?

• Overall, the Description section is everything I'd like to see in a more obscure dinosaur with few known specimens: the opening paragraph adequately summarizes the overall shape and size for the common idiot, while the subsections go in enough depth to explain how it differs from other dinosaurs, with enough links that a determined enough layreader can decipher the necessarily-dense writing.

• "Additionally, it was found the animals reached their sexual maturity well before their skeletal maturity, and ceased growth at a later point than did,..." - than who or what did??

• "The distinction between fauna of this part of the world as compared with the northern hemisphere equivalent Laurasia had long been noted, but evidence was traditionally lacking for a biogeographic link for dinosaurs between the different Gondwanan regions." - this needs rephrasing, the whole bit about Laurasia is confusing and "but evidence was traditionally lacking for a biogeographic link for dinosaurs between the different Gondwanan regions." should be changed to "but evidence was traditionally lacking for a biogeographic link between dinosaurs on different Gondwanan regions."

• "These discoveries of connected endemic Gondwanan ecosystems have overturned the traditional view of the southern continents, including the fauna seen in Late Cretaceous Antarctic, acting as a refugium for animals more successful elsewhere earlier in the Cretaceous." - I don't think the interjection in the middle is needed.

• "The foral composition..." Is that supposed to be "floral"?

Once you respond to the above points, this article should be good to go. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

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.