Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mosasaurus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 July 2021 [1].

Mosasaurus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Macrophyseter | talk 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article will be the first article about a mosasaur (or any extinct marine reptile apex predator) to receive a FAC. It is about the type genus of the mosasaurs, which is one one of the largest marine predators in history. It is also quite culturally significant. The stories of its fossils are historically and culturally significant in the Netherlands and France, and they stood alongside the mastodon and Megalosaurus as the pioneering fossils that helped develop concepts like extinction and the precursors of evolution. Thanks to films like Jurassic World the genus today is among the most iconic prehistoric creatures. In addition, we know a substantial deal about the biology of the animal, which I've summarized the spectrum of breadth of in this article, covering just about every published literature that touches on the genus. Given that Mosasaurus is not the only mosasaur with such a depth in history and scientific knowledge, starting with the most famous of them all can set a great model for how others can be written. Macrophyseter | talk 17:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lythronaxargestes

[edit]

I left extensive comments on this article in a peer review and I was fairly happy with it the last time I looked at it. I'll take another look through next week given the recent revisions for and after the GA, but I expect to support once I've done so. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks to have stabilized so I'll make good on my commitment this week. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some follow-up comments to my PR, in light of recent changes...

I don't think I've ever reviewed the lead, actually. My bad.

Lead
  • "The earliest fossils known to science": of Mosasaurus.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discovered at around 1780": Just "around" should suffice.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and transported to Paris": This doesn't strike me as a particularly important detail.
Replaced with "seized by France" for context. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I'm not sold on how you've incorporated the Classification section into the lead. Yes, the position of mosasaurs relates to the early confusion over the identity of Mosasaurus, and yes, the alpha taxonomy of Mosasaurus is relevant to its morphology, but neither of these connections is made very well. For the latter, I would probably move the last sentence first, e.g. "Each of the currently-recognized species can be distinguished based on anatomical characters, but ambiguity over the diagnosis of M. hoffmannii led to historical confusion", etc.
General format suggestion done. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second works better now. Something like "Although Mosasaurus is agreed to be a reptile, its exact affinities remain controversial"... for the first? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The skull of Mosasaurus, which was either broad or slender depending on the species": I'd take the species-level discussion out from here.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paddle-like fluke that bent downwards": I think "fluke" would include the soft tissue fin, right? The downturn is restricted to the caudal vertebrae.
Swapped wording to remove context confusion. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unclear diagnosis of the type species": A brief parenthetical note like (description of distinguishing features) might help, for the anti-jargon crowd on here anyway.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and another five species still nominally classified": Sentence is getting too long so probably put a break just before this.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each species was variable with unique anatomical features differentiating them": Too verbose and kind of redundant.
Simplified. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientists believe that": I might have missed this previously, but I'm a bit allergic to the word "scientists". It has the same kind of air as "boffins". Personally, I would substitute "researchers", but I'm not beholden to this change.
Changed to "paleontologists." Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cephalopods": Link.
Fixed.
  • "faunal assemblages": Link.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several discovered fossils illustrated": I'm not sure "illustrated" is the right word because they record the aftermath of an attack rather than the event. Maybe reword to something like "suggested that some Mosasaurus individuals were deliberately attacked..."
Changed to "document." Macrophyseter | talk 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Research history

Good summary of your original text. Some minor points:

  • I feel like there's room for a sentence or two about "M. dekayi".
There's already a note about M. dekayi. Do you think there should be more? Macrophyseter | talk 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's of historical interest, so at least another footnote in this section would be helpful. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Macrophyseter | talk 20:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are broad, flat, and form a paddle": Break run-on sentence here.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "collection of sculptures of prehistoric animals on display at the Crystal Palace": This goes for your spin-off page too - maybe de-link "at the" and have a separate link for Crystal Palace (Park).
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more.

  • Typo in ref 7: "Halle" P. Street.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Ikejiri and Lucas on the M. conodon skull": Suggest rewording to "skull of M. conodon", this makes it sound like there's one.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "evidence of a walking ability": Suggest dropping "a".
The "a" was intentional as "walking ability" is intended as a noun. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"an ability to walk" then? Reads awkwardly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed as suggested. Macrophyseter | talk 02:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The model was deliberately sculpted incomplete": "as" incomplete?
I think the original is still grammatically correct. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inaccurate, even at the time": "for" the time?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEW POINT - Some refs out of order... at the end of both paragraphs in §Discovery and identification.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "derived mosasaur, a latecoming member": Might want to add an "or" in there - not clear that "latecoming" is intended to clarify "derived".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a streamlined body, elongated tail": "an" for grammatical parallelism.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the ratio from Russell (1967) was applied": Clearer to say "they applied the ratio..."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their skulls typically measures": "measure".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have not been recorded in scientific literature": "the" scientific literature reads better.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In M. hoffmannii, this rostrum is blunt": The word "rostrum" is not defined before now, only linked. Suggest adding parenthetical note to "snout".
Replaced everything with snout. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are of a pattern": "form" a pattern?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the top margin is slightly curved upwards": Clarify that this is the dentary (?)
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this is also so": Suggest "also the case".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "21–24% of the skull length": "skull's length" reads less awkwardly.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "than in all other mosasaurs except Goronyosaurus": If it can be done concisely, clarify the condition in Goroynosaurus.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can differ by species": Suggest dropping "can" - they do differ.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Footnote) "serrate-like features": "serration-like"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Footnote) "scientists have expressed likeliness": "the likelihood"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "largely consistent in size and shape with only minor differences throughout the jaws": This is linked to heterodont. Suggest adding the word "homodont" in parentheses and linking there. Otherwise it gets confusing.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the most complete skeletons": Suggest "Mosasaurus skeletons". I know it's clear from context but it's awkward.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs out of order for the same sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another similar point for Research history above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Footnote) "The number of caudal vertebrae is not fully certain": Is that just the preceding species or does it refer to all Mosasaurus? (It would seem to not gel with M. lemonnieri.)
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which soft tissue evidence": "in" which?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The life restoration of M. missouriensis has a significantly larger tail bend than the text would suggest. Not a deal-breaker but maybe some of the WP:PALEOART folks can help out on this one.
Posted a request in Paleoart review. Macrophyseter | talk 01:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a fix if anyone wants to have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that bends near the middle of the tail": Should be "bend" for grammatical parallelism.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a pair of distinct articular facets": Maybe clarify the bones these are intended to articulate with.
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supported with four sets of digits": supported "by"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some new issues but also some that I missed previously. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classification
  • "19th century scientists did not give Mosasaurus a proper diagnosis during its first description": A "first description" would presumably have a fixed set of authors, no? Or do you mean "initial descriptions"?
Clarified with the latter. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to become wastebasket taxon": "a"
I'm suprised I overlooked this. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Footnote) "therefore not yet formally valid": Suggest "is not yet", awkward otherwise.
I think "therefore" should be kept, as the context is a product of Article 8, not a separate understanding that the suggestion might unintentionally imply. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to clarify, I mean "therefore is not yet formally valid". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What determined your choices of whether to punctuate footnotes with full stops or not?
It's based on whether the footnote represents a complete sentence or not. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I thought I saw inconsistencies but it's good as of the current version. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who proposed that Mosasaurus evolved": Run-on sentence, split here.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three instances of out-of-order citations in the paragraph "Bell's study served as a precedent for later studies..."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This led to a number of issues": Clarify that this is the reliance on Bell.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been behind the genus's unnatural status": Not clear what this means to me.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on soon... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paleobiology
  • Misplaced period in first sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its reconstruction was largely based": Clarify this refers to musculature.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the nature of muscle scarring": "nature of" feels a bit redundant?
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possibly to allow the animal": Should be plural?
I think singular might be better because the context seems to specify a single skull for a single animal. But maybe not? Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a grammatical parallelism issue: "In modern lizards... possibly to allow the animal". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not too lengthy, maybe add something about the specific skeletal differences that resulted in one less pivot.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was relatively unimportant when hunting and feeding": Clarify, e.g. "to its hunting and feeding"; "when the species was hunting and feeding", etc.
Going for former. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "used jaw adduction to assist in hard biting": Does this mean that adduction was only used for when it was biting hardly and not softly? Maybe clarify a bit.
Removed "hard." Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enormously powerful bite forces": Is the superlative necessary?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "best seen today in mackerels": Similarly, not sure "best seen" is the right word choice - maybe something like "exemplified by".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an enhanced ability of rotating the flippers allowed by modified joints": For parallelism, maybe reword to "modified joints that allowed an enhanced..."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the bone's head from the rest of the bone": "of" the bone's head.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between the leatherback sea turtle and the ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs": A bit hard to understand. Probably better to restate in terms of higher or lower than.
Attempted clarification. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "that of the leatherback sea turtle and that of ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs" would work better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but alternatively allowed excellent processing": "nevertheless" might work better?
They are implied to be somewhat mutually exclusive; a three-dimensional focus doesn't view its side surroundings as well as a two-dimensional focus. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would comment on "virtually nonexistent" but I see Jens also did so.
Addressed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cranium of Mosasaurus skulls": Should be plural (crania), right?
Fixed for now. But do you think going plural might erroneously imply that one individual had multiple crania?
I might just drop "skulls" (maybe qualifying "crania" with "fossil"). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which control the function of smell": Specify "both".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lack a number of components": Any sense of what they do functionally?
Doesn't specify in the source. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that M. hoffmannii lack": Should maybe treat the species as a singular as you do elsewhere.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dated about 75 million years old (Ma)": First - not sure "dated" is needed. Second - Ma only abbreviates "million years", not "old".
Removed Ma because it's not brought up again. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of other large mosasaurs like Prognathodon [...] coexisting with M. missouriensis": Could simplify to "The coexistence of other large mosasaurs..." Also, you have a formatting error.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the nautiloid would have been facing": Probably clarify that this is the soft parts? Otherwise a bit hard to define directionality.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alternate source of prey": Perhaps say "viable" instead? Unless the source makes a claim about the genus' main foodstuff.
"Alternate" is how the source puts it. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "giving the possibility that attacks on smaller, weaker individuals": "Giving" seems like a non-standard word to use here. "Leading to"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out-of-order refs for following sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the individuals may have had an efficient process of immobilizing the fracture": If this is not a behavioural mechanism but rather a physiological one, I wonder if it would be appropriate to remark on it at the genus level?
Going with "species." Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reduced to abscess": Plural?
The wording of the phrase is supposed to be similar to "reduced to dust." Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Avascular necrosis has been reported by many studies": Refs out of order for this sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the appearance of such conditions as being due to non-adaptation of the animal's anatomy": I don't get the reasoning for this. If they have well-adapted eardrums, it stands to reason that there would be other deep-diving adaptations to mitigate the bends, right?
The entire passage of the source is worded a bit confusingly:
"It is parsimonious to presume that non-adaptation is the original state and that the animals with disease were deep or repetitive divers without appropriate physiological or behavioural adaptations. Vaughn and Dawson (1956) have described calcified tympanic membranes in Platecarpus, Tylosaurus and Plioplatecarpus. They probably had thick cartilaginous eardrums, filling the external auditory cavity, in place of a simple membrane, for better protection under undue pressure of the water in deep diving. This condition has been interpreted as an adaptation to deep diving by protecting the eardrums from the large ambient pressure and prevented the stapes from being driven forcibly inward during rapid increase in the external pressure (Vaughn and Dawson 1956). Decompression illness seems to have been common in the mosasaurs."
Specifically, it's unclear which definition of "parsimonious" is used here between "frugal" or "the simplest explanation." Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My takeaway from this text is that the vast majority of mosasaurs (including Mosasaurus, excepting the named ones) did not have specially-adapted eardrums and were susceptible to the bends. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the source also notes invariable avascular necrosis for all genera explicitly mentioned to have the developed eardrums, which indicates that it doesn't address the condition. As a nominal fix, I'll say that the author considers non-adaptation as the most likely reason but also note that they were still adapted to a degree. Macrophyseter | talk 02:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange. I'm OK with this fix. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Footnote) "previously thought but no longer recognized to be present in": Probably add an "is" before "no longer" for clarity.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "basal mosasauroid Carsosaurus": Mosasauroidea isn't introduced before this point, and so there's limited context about phylogenetic position. Drop qualifier altogether if too hard to explain.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not exhibit the bone mass increase": Should be present tense following your other text?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are solely shallow ocean deposits": "solely" in the sense of "all"? Better to be direct.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paleoecology
  • "ecologically diversified throughout the seaway. [89]": Space before ref.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, there is some inconsistency between past and present tense. You should probably stick with one.
^ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I use present tense for any description that can be tangibly observed right now (i.e. description of bones that still exist with their characteristics preserved) and past tense for about everything else. Do you think I should simply put everything as past tense instead? I've made a few tense corrections, but I'm not sure where there are more inconsistenties. Macrophyseter | talk 02:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. I mostly meant this section. A few examples that stand out to me involve dominant taxa. Unless it's dominance in terms of fossil abundance only, I would say that these should be past tense:
  • The two mosasaurs Mosasaurus and Prognathodon appear to be (have been) the dominant taxa
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • other Mosasaurus species such as M. lemonnieri have been found to be (have been) the dominant species in certain areas
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
  • the confirmation of paleogeographical affinities extends (extended) this range
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biogeography of the region was (has been) generally subdivided into two Interior Subprovinces
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Known fossils of Mosasaurus were typically (have typically been) recovered
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related point while I'm here: "In recent studies, the confirmation of paleogeographical affinities" should be cited with author and/or year given MOS:RELTIME. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mediterranean Tethys during the Maastrichtian stage": Link stage here (as opposed to "faunal stage" later). Also in lead.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Halisaurus arambourgi and Platecarpus ptychodon were also the common mosasaurs": Drop "the". What does "also" mean? In addition to Globidens?
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bordered around modern-day Kansas": First two words are redundant to each other.
If I cut one of the two words, it would imply that the provinces border Kansas when the context is supposed to be that the border between the two provinces are located in Kansas. Attempted clarifying in a different way. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a faunal stage known as the Niobraran Age": Add "during" before.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and many genera of fish including": Drop this. This list item is ostensibly about chondrichthyans and does not cover all fish.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deeper water deposits": Add dash, "deeper-water".
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Changing temperatures": What does this mean? Seasonally?
That's how the source puts it without explaination. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should tie back the discussion about δ13C and habitat to the last section by noting this as another explanation.
^ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the average δ13C values between the two species were generally different": The average is one value so "generally" doesn't make sense. "On average"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicative of a diet specialized in softer prey": Comma before.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up soon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction
  • "at a height of evolutionary radiation": "the height of their evolutionary radiation"? Unless there was more than one "height" (which I don't think there was?)
Fixed.
  • "the amount of available habitats": I wonder if this should be singular. Otherwise replace "amount" with "number".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in southeastern Missouri": Move to the start of the sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vertebral fossils from the layer": Referring to M. hoffmannii vertebrae? Or vertebrate fossils?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The deposition of the layer itself was likely a tsunamite": Is the layer itself not the tsunamite? Something like "The layer was deposited as a tsunamite"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formed as a result...": This clause is hard to parse. Suggest breaking sentence here and rephrasing; in particular, "formed as a result... as direct consequences of" is awkward.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One enigmatic occurrence is of Mosasaurus sp. fossils found in the Hornerstown Formation": Also awkward. Suggested rephrasing: "One enigmatic occurrence of Mosasaurus sp. fossils is in the Hornerstown Formation".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "strong impact event such as a tsunami": I assume "impact" doesn't mean "extraterrestrial impact" here. The overloading of the term is confusing, suggest rewording.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were forced out by... was subsequently refilled": Grammatical parallelism.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 07:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the article body. I'll take a pass through refs once JJE is done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJE has not replied so I will go ahead with a pass through refs in two or three days' time. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I got distracted by other things. Feel free to make your pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of some outstanding points above. In the meantime...

References
  • I'm running the citation bot.
It didn't work. I'll run section-by-section later, or you can run it yourself if you prefer. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reference format is occasionally inconsistent. Most of it is full first name, except 48, 56, 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 50, 60, 80, 84, 88, 99, and 115 (but I acknowledge that it's not given by the journal for all but the first two).
Fixed. There are some authors whose first names I can't identify because they go by their middle name instead. Macrophyseter | talk 18:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need spaces between initials in 43, 83.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 05:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 does not italicize Mosasaurus. Also book title is not appropriately capitalized.
Fixed. Italicization, although I had it unitalicized because of [sic]. Macrophyseter | talk 16:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent about full dates for web articles: missing on 18, 20, 35, 49, 53, and 59. Also, I think convention is to cite the last updated date instead of the original creation date (much like you'd cite the updated year for a new edition of a book).
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 43 should use {{cite conference}}. Also not appropriately capitalized and dashes should be em dashes (—).
Fixed cite conference and em dashes, but I don't see how it's not appropriately capitalized. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:TITLECAPS I would suggest "5th Triennial Mosasaur Meeting– a global perspective on Mesozoic marine amniotes" -> "5th Triennial Mosasaur Meeting—A Global Perspective on Mesozoic Marine Amniotes". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 51 lacks volume information.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Would another citation type (like {{cite act}}) be more appropriate for the ICZN (58)?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 59, Notes on should be italicized.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 63 missing year.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has Konishi's proposal (81) been published anywhere? If not then I wonder about the appropriateness of its inclusion.
I didn't realize that his same proposal is also briefly mentioned in the Science article. Added. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 86 should have an en dash (–) in place of an ampersand.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you miscited 90. 2002 probably refers to the year. Likewise for 99 and 100.
I always thought that some journals put their issues as years. Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some definitely do but I don't think that's what's going on here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 92 has a typo in Russell.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 102, Peritresius should be italicized.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 111's volume details look all over the place.
It's weird. I don't think there's much that can be done with that. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess that's genuine. Fine by me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 119 should cite Holtz's name. Also consider {{cite speech}}.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for refs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In principle there is nothing stopping me from supporting - it is a fine article. But I've marked a few unresolved points above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Macrophyseter, have these been addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet; I've been extremely busy the past few days so I've only been able to do a little at a time the past week. Since it's the weekend now I'll try to spend today burning out the rest of the remaining points after I'm back from work; there shouldn't be too much left to do. Macrophyseter | talk 16:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes I've finished responding to all the remaining comments I can find. Lmk if there are still some that I overlooked. Macrophyseter | talk 20:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I marked one point that we both missed. After that, I will support. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a fantastic article, good work! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IR by Buidhe

[edit]

Page size is 14434 words / 91 kB readable prose. IMO this is against length criterion (see Article size); in general, many FAC reviewers are looking for articles no longer than 10,000 words. I strongly suggest splitting the article or trimming on the order of 1/3 to 1/2 the content. One possibility for a spin off article might be Research history of Mosasaurus. This is a lot to do over the course of FAC so I would suggest withdrawing and re nominating once that's done. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Buidhe. Heartfox (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on trimming prior to FAC; I also was hoping if an exception could be made given the sheer scope the article covers like in the case of Maya civilization. I've lowered the prose count to around the 10k range; I don't think being a few hundred above exactly ten thousand would be problematic, but I can try to trim more if so. Macrophyseter | talk 07:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The condensed summary in the article right now fits awkwardly. You should have a paragraph, however brief, mentioning the other species by name so that the rest of the article has context. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for the size, my calculator script says "Prose size (text only): 66 kB (10361 words) "readable prose size"", which I think is within acceptable range. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded Research history to summarize all other confirmed species. Size-wise, my script says 10775 words, which I think remains acceptable. Macrophyseter | talk 16:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image licensing is good. I do think there are still some parts of the prose that go into a lot of detail, and might be better moved to sub-articles, but paleontology isn't the focus of my editing so I'll see what others have to say. Without the research history section it's a lot more manageable. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Screen Shot 2021-05-28 at 7.35.35 AM.png
Jumping in here, I saw a comment about too many images on the right, which was then turned into a gallery, but what guideline is that based on? Aesthetically, it looks much better to fill out the white space left by the current cladograms, as it doesn't break up the text (like the current gallery does), just fills empty space. I've never seen such a suggestion before (having made similar white space filler in several FAC articles), and I do think the former version looked much better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like FunkMonk comments faster than I do, lol; the way the images in "Phylogeny and evolution of the genus" were clustered before your (Buidhe) edit was an intentionally planned format as a way to present the diversity of species without interrupting the prose read. Is there a reason as to why that would not be an appropriate format? Macrophyseter | talk 14:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some FAs have imagery which consist entirely of a row of right aligned images, such as the recent Ring ouzel, so I'm not sure what the problem is. As long as there isn't WP:image sandwiching, I don't see what the guidelines would have against this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was that it's wrong to have three right-aligned images in a row, but that the images were in excess of the text (see screenshot). According to MOS, the solution to excess images are use less images or combine them somehow (multiple image template, gallery, etc.) so as to avoid leaving a lot of whitespace. (t · c) buidhe 14:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another formatting option is to combine all four images in the section into one vertical multiple images template, which would not leave much whitespace. (t · c) buidhe 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, doesn't look like that on my screen, it just fills up the white space. There is a way around this that we've used elsewhere, Lythronaxargestes or IJReid I think might know. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the same issue here[2], buidhe? I think it can be solved by making the cladograms less wide. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Depends on exactly how wide the browser window is. It either looks like this (just fine) or this (because the topology + image together are too wide for the window, they separate). Different viewers will see one or the other depending on browser settings. (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is how I see it[3], and how it was intended. It is odd that in your screenshot, the text associated with the cladogram doesn't reach the images, yet it still creates the white gap. Pinging Jts1882 too, who might know something. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some investigation and that situation only appears when the window displaying the article is scaled to a certain small width range due to the cladogram blocking the images (narrower, and the text fills up the white space; wider, and the cladograms stop blocking the images). The same situation exists for [4], and probably any image that appears side-by-side with any cladogram. Moving the images up a few paragraphs (like to the second) fixes this issue, although some might see the resulting narrow spacing between the left image as a borderline sandwich. I'm still against a gallery format because it distracts from the content of the text. Macrophyseter | talk 15:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative way could also be what I've done at quagga (by the cladogram and under description), where multiple images are collected horizontally on the right, without disrupting the text like a gallery. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with that is the image dimensions are very different, so you end up with a tiny square-ish image and a gigantic rectangular image in the cluster. Do you know if there are any formatting solutions to that situation if I go with the quagga example?Macrophyseter | talk 15:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No sandwiching if all images are aligned on the same side. (t · c) buidhe 15:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you had a fourth image in the row once, maybe it could help with balance? It can be a pain unless you find that sort of stuff funny (which I do), but I just experiment with different layouts and numbers of images, as in Cimoliopterus or Dilophosaurus I've been working on lately. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth image was the hoffmannii skeleton that's now in the taxobox. It was there because I originally had a picture of another skeleton in the taxobox, but I had to take that down because the CC license was incorrect. Macrophyseter | talk 16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to ping. It's a bit difficult to comment as the page has changed as the discussion progresses, with the images now in a gallery. I assume the two cladograms were put in a table that was set to a maximum of 75% screen width to allow images to be floated to the right. The problem with this is it is it needs a wide screen. If the images don't fit in the 25% left for them, the cladogram gets moved down leaving white space. This also leaves the cladograms slightly scrunched even when there is white space to the right. One solution would be to float the two cladograms so they are displayed vertically on narrower screens (not ideal for the comparison, but maybe OK in portrait mode on a phone). {{clade gallery}} is responsive (e.g. Neoaves). I've made this edit (now reverted) to show the cladograms in a responsive gallery with the images are floated to the right. The side by side comparison only shows on relatively wide screens, with the cladograms displayed vertically on narrower screens. Given the side by side comparison is useful, the image gallery seems preferable, although I thought these were discouraged in FA articles.
Looking good to me, but I'll of course lets others decide. This is how it looked "originally":[5] FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demo looks great, I think that format would be the best choice as it preserves the original format but also fixes the spacing issue. Added.Macrophyseter | talk 19:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

[edit]
I disagree with the former since it's not the name of an individual. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason is that genus names are always used without article. It is "Mosasaurus", not "the Mosasaurus". I don't think a formulation such as "identified it as an Ichthyosaurus" is common in the literature for this reason. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally used to hearing genus names at times being used with an article, although I will admit that I've only heard it used by those who aren't in the field. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cut anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The type specimen of M. missouriensis was first described in 1834 as a snout fragment – "described as a snout fragment" somehow seems weird. Also, link type specimen.
This one's a bit tricky since the type specimen consists of two different cataloged specimens. Since they're both the same individual, they would be the holotype. Rearranged the wording if that works. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the rest of the skull was discovered earlier by a fur-trapper – would remove the "but", and maybe "had been discovered earlier"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this species was reidentified as a Mosasaurus – "as a species of Mosasaurus"? Or simply "as Mosasaurus"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't usually put attributes like nov. sp. ("new species") in the reproduced cladograms, I think because this can be misunderstood in a way that the new species is defined in this very Wikipedia article.
Substituted with quotations around taxa to preserve distinction that these are proposed and not official names. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most complete skeleton of Mosasaurus, whose species-level identification is debated – maybe the detail on this specimen that follows could be moved to Research history of Mosasaurus, with some more information on its discovery if this is available? It would be very relevant in that article. But in the "description" section, information on where this specimen is on display are just not the right place. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources and apparently its not as clear about the completeness of the fossil. The skeleton had some restoration, although the degree to which isn't clear, but given the full vertebral formula is known the skeleton probably is complete in vertebral representation. I don't have access to the thesis that described the fossil in detail, so there's not much I can work with at the moment. Also, there are some fossils that are probably more complete, but none of them have been described in whole yet. So I've reworded the passage for now. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • thirty-eight dorsal vertebrae (which includes thoracic and lumbar vertebrae) – the explanation implies that thoracic and lumbar vertebrae can be differentiated in Mosasaurus, but I don't think this is the case. Maybe just "dorsal (back) vertebrae" is enough as explanation.
I'm pretty sure they can be differentiated by presence/absence of ribs, but apparently scientists don't appear to have the need to differentiate them when talking about vertebrae although it's been done at least once. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All species of Mosasaurus have seven cervical vertebrae – This contradicts what was said earlier, that one species is only known from isolated teeth. I think it needs re-formulation.
The article never said that M. beaugei is only known from isolated teeth, but that the type specimen is only isolated teeth. It's also implied in sections like Size that more complete remains are known, and its a bit more explicit in the Research history article. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rib cages of Mosasaurus – would use singular: rib cage
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which implies Mosasaurus – should be "indicates" I think.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • et al. is an unnecessary technical term, can be replaced with "and colleagues".
Fixed, but kept when an inline citation is used (i.e. Polycn et al. (2014)) Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why some information on the species is found in "History of taxonomy" and not under "Other species". For example, M. conodon is discussed a lot in the latter section, but the quite relevant bit that it was moved to a different genus by one study only appears in the "History of taxonomy" section, so there is some disconnect, making it hard to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The situation regarding M. conodon is from a PhD thesis rather than a peer-reviewed study, so it's not really formally valid yet (It's still important to mention because its currently the only modern research that attempts to clean up the entire genus taxonomy; caveats are noted to point out the thesis case). I don't want to provide so much weight of the thesis on the article, hence why I didn't incorporate its information in Other species. I could as an alternative move History of taxonomy to Research history, but that would put distance between the discussion of the thesis and the cladogram that visualizes it. Macrophyseter | talk 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, it has been pointed out that measuring δ13C levels may not be the most accurate method of determining the preferred habitat of Mosasaurus and As a result, isotope levels can misrepresent the actual habitat preferences of Mosasaurus – I think both sentences say basically the same, and one of them could be deleted without loss. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the "Research history" is, from an encyclopedic point of view, the most important section. Yet, the paleoecology ection is three times as long. What do you think about moving that section to "Paleoecology of Mosasaurus" and leave a summary here, and make the history section slightly longer again? Not sure if "Paleoecology of mosasaurs" would be the better title for such a sub-article, but that might require more work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it may be better off to simply swap the spin-off article statuses between Research history and Paleocology? In other words, bring back much of everything from Research history and move much of paleoecology to a separate article. It seems that most FAs have pretty skimmy Paleoecology sections anyways, so perhaps inbalance won't be a problem. Macrophyseter | talk 14:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there maybe existing articles about formations, other taxa or similar that some of the paleoecology info could be spun off into? I also noted at the PR that it goes very much into detail about the lifestyles of different taxa, which is interesting, but probably also the first that should be cut, since it's not about the subject of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think that, if you bring back the History of research full-length, you will have difficulties keeping the article below 10,000 words again. Paleoecology is still important and needs to stay a decent section, though it could be reduced by over 50% at least. Regarding the "Distribution, ecosystem, and ecological impact" section, maybe FunkMonk's suggestion is best, though I wonder which articles that info could be moved to. An alternative might be to have a section on paleoecology in the Mosasaur article and move the info there; this would require some additional text because of the broader scope of that article, however. For the "habitat" and "interspecific competition" sections, I would try to formulate them much more concisely (overall, you tend to be quite wordy in this article). Let me know if you need help with this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just trimmed it a bit further, and we are below 10,000 words of prose now. I think it is OK to leave the entire section in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what is now modern-day Alabama within the Southern Interior Subprovince, most of the key genera including the mosasaurs – does "key genera" only refer to mosasaurs? If so, it should be reformulated accordingly. If not, than I doubt that Mosasaurus could possibly replace all kinds of key genera in a given ecosystem. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped placement of sharks and mosasaurs to remedy potential confusion of context. Macrophyseter | talk 14:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the text you variably give full author names (e.g., T. Lynn Harrell Jr.) or just the surnames, and sometimes use the attribute "paleontologist" but sometimes not. This should all be consistent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be better to refer to everyone by first and last name w/o occupation or just inline citations (i.e. Konishi et al. (2014)? Macrophyseter | talk 14:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. "Konishi et al. (2014)" still sounds too technical to me, I would go for "Konishi and colleagues (2014)". In one of my FACs, people told me that they dislike having the years in brackets, and since then I write "Konishi and colleagues, in 2014,". In recent FAs, we often provide full names at first mention + occupation and nationality, e.g. "The British paleontologist … argued that". But I see that this might be overkill for such a central article like this. Only giving the occupation ("paleontologist") doesn't make much sense to me, since one would assume that most are anyways. Maybe just first and last names? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it mentioned prior? Perhaps it was within one of the parts I removed for trimming... Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Like all mosasaurs, Mosasaurus had four types of teeth", so this makes clear that all mosasaurs had pterygoid teeth. Yet, you go on to, again, state "a feature present on the palate of all mosasaurs", which just repeats what was already said. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another minor nuisance: Make sure to put "|sp=us" into the unit conversion templates throughout, because right know you have a mixture of the British English "metres" and the American English "meters". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the knowledge on the musculature and mechanics of the head of Mosasaurus are largely based on Lingham-Soliar's 1995 study on M. hoffmannii skulls. – Since this is sourced to that very study, it is borderline WP:synth. I would just remove this sentence.
Replaced with something more objective, since I still needed to establish that this is specific to M. hoffmannii. Macrophyseter | talk 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly to allow the animal to better position them and prevent deflection (the positioning of a prey in a way that increases its chance of escape from a predator) when hunting. – Since this is not even about Mosasaurus in particular, can we just write "possibly to allow the animal to better position them to prevent their escape"? The technical term "deflection" seems unnecessary here, and "when hunting" redundant.
Shortened to simple "prey escape." Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which indicates that its jaw mechanics were different than modern lizards; – this doesn't add anything; the reader will already know they are different, and now needs to know in which way.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would explain "adduction" in a gloss.
"Adduction" was removed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • allowing it to swing forward and backward – allowing "them"?
Wording altered from a different point. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather, M. hoffmannii likely swallowed its prey whole – but with ratchet feeding, you also swallow the prey whole?
There was a term I may have looked over when I first wrote this; replacing with that term. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The swimming style was likely of a sub-carangiform swimming style – I think you can remove the second "swimming style", just reads repetitive.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • pronation – perhaps explain in a gloss? I wonder if you could just say "counter-clockwise rotation of the flippers", would this be correct?
Changed to "rotating the flippers" and wikilinking pronation. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • significant separation damage from the bone's head from the stem – I can't follow this bit; are these technical terms that can be linked?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the powerful forces – Use "however" sparingly, I think it does not make much sense in this instance.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs – "the" seems a bit odd here.
It's to maintain the distinction between a group A (turtles) and a group b (ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs). Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To keep up with its high metabolic requirements, Mosasaurus was likely endothermic – This does not makes sense to me. High metabolic rate equals endothermy, and it had high metabolic requirements because it was endothermic.
I wrote that for the sake of a transition, but I guess it's not as necessary as I used to think. I cut it entirely. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • where three-dimensional environments are virtually nonexistent. – But water is always three-dimensional … is there a possibility to formulate this better?
The source uses the terms "three-dimensional" and "two-dimensional" to differentiate reef and surface habitats. I guess the interpretation is meant to be that you need a three-dimensional understanding of a reef to navigate through and process all the complex rocks and plants, while an open ocean at the surface is simple enough for an animal to fully process its surroundings without seeing it in 3-d. But this isn't explained in the source. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather concerned with the formulation "virtually nonexistent", which seems odd. What about "but alternatively allowed excellent processing of a two-dimensional environment, such as the near-surface waters inhabited by Mosasaurus"?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the inner ear of Mosasaurus was described from an incomplete fossil from Mosasaurus sp. – "of Mosasaurus sp."?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inner ear is an important structure that plays a significant role – Either "is an important structure" or "plays a significant role", but not both, which is just redundant.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • very similar with modern monitor lizards – "similar to"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph of the inner ear is based on a self-published poster presentation. From my understanding, the citable source would, if anything, be the respective conference abstract. I am not sure if we should cite conference abstracts in the first place, since they are practically irrelevant in scientific publishing as well (they do not need to be cited), also we did in some articles. At the very least, you should indicate in the text that the information is coming from a conference abstract and not a paper. Yet, the paragraph does not really tell us anything apart from the size and preservation of the canals, but it apparently can't say anything about the biology, so I wonder if you loose much when you just remove this paragraph.
Removed then. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • made from the cranium of Mosasaurus skulls – "cranium" seems redundant here. Does this formulation imply artificial endocasts? Pipe-link "brain cast" to endocast?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several implications for δ13C levels in the feeding ecology of mosasaurs. I suggest to drop this sentence, it just does not seem to add anything.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • coexisting with M. missouriensis strongly suggests that the species – I guess you mean "M. missouriensis" when you mention "the species", but this is not completely clear. Maybe use "the latter" for extra clarity?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly suggests – "strongly" is a bit much when talking about paleobiological implications like this. Would remove this word.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You usually introduce the authors you are referring to, but not so in the last two paragraphs of "Feeding". Here, I think it is especially important to mention that these are suggestions/speculation made by a single study. If you don't explicitly mention it, the reader might assume it is the scientific consensus. Just write something like "A 2014 study by Kauffman suggested that" to make this clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple other Mosasaurus skulls show signs of severe injuries, some likely fatal or leading to infections. and There are a number of M. hoffmannii fossils with severe physically-inflicted damage. – These are basically the same sentences, just differently formulated. So we have a structure problem here: The second paragraph of "Intraspecific combat" is already paleopathology. Maybe combine both sections ("Paleopathology and intraspecific combat" or something like that)?
I still want to keep them separate in some way because while the two sections converge on the subject (i.e. the skulls), their focuses are different (inferences on intraspecific behavior based on pathology and description of the pathologies themselves in details unrelated to intraspecific behavior (i.e. infections)). I've made some edits to make this distinction more clear. Macrophyseter | talk 15:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2006, Schulp and colleagues published a study describing a fossil quadrate –> "In 2006, Schulp and colleagues described a fossil quadrate" for brevity? Also, you don't need the word "fossil" here; I would take this for granted.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 15:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a extensively damaged quadrate bone and and an estimated 0.5 liters (0.13 U.S. gal) of bone tissue destroyed – again, repetitive, you don't need the first one.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • massive chronic infection and severe bone infection is repetitive. Maybe combine the first two sentences like this: "In 2006, Schulp and colleagues described quadrate bone of M. hoffmannii containing multiple unnatural openings and an estimated 0.5 liters (0.13 U.S. gal) of damaged bone tissue."
Fixed. But I'll keep the wording "destroyed" because much of what should be the tissue is gone; the paper estimated the amount destroyed based on the volume of the resulting cavities. Macrophyseter | talk 15:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Squamata
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Russell used a primitive method of phylogenetics since cladistics had yet to be widely established. – First, I think "primitive" is not a word to use (instead "early"?). And I wonder if "Cladistics had yet to be widely established" is true; cladistics is just the branch of phylogenetics concerned with naming groups. I don't think he used phylogenetics at all.
Russell explicitly called his method phylogeny, so I think calling it a primitive or early form suffices. Amended the statement on cladistics. Macrophyseter | talk 18:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above. Also, Bell explicitly calls Russell's method phylogeny, his own method specifically cladistics or "modern phylogenetics," and distinguishes between Russell's and his. Macrophyseter | talk 18:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led to a number of issues. – With this, and the following sentences, I fear about neutrality. Maybe use author attribution: Do not state "This lead to issues", but point out who's opinion this is.
Reworded to a more objective sentence. Macrophyseter | talk 00:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led to a number of issues. – also seems to be misguiding: I would read your text in a way that it is the basal placement of M. missouriensis that lead to issues (this is what your "This" seems to be referring to), but you are criticising the methodology of the studies instead. Needs reformulation to make clear what the sentence means.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 00:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest rewording following sentence to "lower-order classification" (which would have been my overall suggestion). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! Macrophyseter | talk 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....will make straightforward copyedits as I go, please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning, and jot queries below. Am aware of article's size and will think about how to deal with this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mosasaurus was first discovered in 1764 in a subterranean chalk quarry... - why "subterranean"?
Removed. But the quarry was subterranean (i think 90 feet below the surface) Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a shortening attempt due to word count. Bringing back the original wording. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skull of Mosasaurus is conical and tapers off to a short and snout that extends a little beyond the frontmost teeth - something missing here...or remove the "and"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given size constraints, I would move the whole Relation with snakes or monitor lizards subsection to a higher taxon page (such as Mosasaur) as it is about placement of the whole family/suborder not the genus. Maybe leave one sentence but not sure how/which, and append onto previous section.
Macrophyseter has already moved much of this section. Maybe the first paragraph could be mildly shorter still though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as that section is germane to the family/suborder and not the genus. And given the size of the article it is the most obvious thing that can be moved. This is an encyclopedia of many parts and it is better placed at a more appropriate page as it is still too detailed for here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Casliber. Since we are below 10,000 words now, removing this section would allow you to bring back some much more important bits of the original history section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added it because given that Mosasaurus is the type genus of the mosasaurs and also a common representative of the group in public recognition, so I thought it would be helpful to add something a bit broader but still relevant to the genus. Do you think it would be okay to maybe reduce the entire section to one sentence or two under Systematics and Evolution, as well as move the See also spinoff under that? Macrophyseter | talk 03:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I was suggested anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 04:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mosasaur inner ears have been studied in the past, but exclusively with non-mosasaurine species. - could lose this I think. Try reading it without and see if any meaning lost
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is little direct evidence of the feeding habits of Mosasaurus, paleontologists generally agree that it was likely an active predator that preyed on a variety of marine animals - err, not surprising given it's been extinct for a long time. I'd trim to "Mosasaurus was likely an active predator that preyed on a variety of marine animals"
Direct evidence includes stomach contents, and the only thing we have for that is a fish, which doesn't really prove that its an apex predator. But I cut the first half. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last 3 sentences of the first para of the Paleopathology section reiterate the material in the previous section, so can be removed or trimmed somehow
Trimmed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are not sure the species in Antarctica belong to Mosasaurus, maybe this section can be trimmed or removed...?
It's never stated that Mosasaurus was specifically doubted to exist in Antarctica in that paper, and the article text cites "incomplete" fossils, which would be a step above the isolated teeth that the Kaikaifilu scientists think warrant doubt. Macrophyseter | talk 14:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the rest does look pretty integral. I think it might be still slightly wordy in places so I will have another read-through. Otherwise comprehensive and interesting. Almost all of what is left is integral so I don't mind it being a bit over 50kb prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be helpful to request a second copyedit at the Guild to minimize verbosity? Macrophyseter | talk 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Macrophyseter: I'll have another lookover now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay looking good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Slate Weasel

[edit]

Since there's been some talk above about possibly splitting off/relocating/condensing various parts of the article, I'll start my review by going through the description section, as it doesn't seem as though there have been any suggestions to significantly change that.

  • "Mosasaurus was a type of derived mosasaur," - Is there any particular reason why the link isn't limited to just "derived"?
I think it is easier for the reader to grasp when worded as original. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally go for "derived mosasaur" as the linked article doesn't discuss mosasaurs and this technically doesn't change the wording, but I'm ultimately okay if you want to keep it as is, as it's a very minor thing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "elongated tail that ended with a hypocercal downturn that supported a two-lobed fin," - As hypocercal is used to describe caudal fin morphology, can a downturn (as opposed to the fin) be described hypocercal? It might also be good to explain what hypocercal is briefly.
The word "downturn" explains the term anyways, so removed the term. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "would have measured 11 meters (36 ft) or more." -> "would have measured 11 meters (36 ft) long or more."
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dollo estimated that M. lemonnieri grew to around 7 to 10 meters (23 to 33 ft) in length." Is this hypothesized maximum size or the typical size range?
It's unclear; probably typical size range in my guess. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "while in M. lemonnieri it is sharp" -> "while in M. lemonnieri it is pointed" I worry that sharp might imply that it is pointed like a tooth, but it's quite possible that I'm overly concerned about this.
"Sharp" is how the sources says it, but I see where you're coming from. Changed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The disparity is also reflected in the dentary, the lower jawbone.[27] But all species share a dentary that is long and straight." - I think that this might flow more nicely if turned into a single sentence.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The external nostril openings" - A bit of a nitpick, but I'd personally go with "The external nares (nostril openings)" as "external nostril openings" could refer to the actual nostrils themselves
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and nearby bones of other processes" - Should "processes" and "bones" be reversed here?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The neurocranium housed a brain that was narrow and relatively small compared to other mosasaurs. In contrast, the braincase of the mosasaur Plioplatecarpus marshi provided for a brain around twice the size of that in M. hoffmannii despite being only half the length of the latter." - I feel like "in contrast" should instead be "for example" here, as P. marshi having a larger brain than M. hoffmannii supports the statement that the latter had a small brain for its group.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the smallest in the Mosasauridae family" - Perhaps this could be condensed to "is the smallest among mosasaurids"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tympanic ala" - Is it customary to italicize this?
I think some sources italicize certain anatomical terms and some don't. I'll just de-italicize it. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully these comments are helpful! Sorry that some of my above comments may make the prose a bit lengthier. I'll try to review the other half of the description section soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forgot to mention this above: "Artist's impression of M. hoffmannii" - I'd change "Artist's impression" to "Life restoration" and link that to Paleoart.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prism-shaped enamel circumference" - While this is explained later in the paragraph, it might be good to try and explain this here briefly, as I found it to be confusing out of context (but to make much more sense when explained).
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two opposite cutting edges, and a design specialized for cutting prey." - Perhaps move the mention of a prey-cutting design to an earlier place in the sentence, as "opposite cutting edges" presumably would be part of a design for cutting.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus teeth are considered to be large and robust" - Could "considered to be" be dropped here?
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "The cutting edges of Mosasaurus can be serrated depending on the species." -> "The cutting edges of Mosasaurus teeth can be serrated in some species." Alternatively this sentence could just be dropped entirely, as specifics are discussed immediately afterwards.
Changed to "can differ by species." Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In each jaw row, from front to back, Mosasaurus had: two premaxillary teeth, twelve to sixteen maxillary teeth, and eight to sixteen pterygoid teeth on the upper jaw and fourteen to seventeen dentary teeth on the lower jaw." Since specific counts are given after this, I feel like this sentence could be condensed into "All species of Mosasaurus have two premaxillary teeth.". The order that the teeth appear in could be transferred to the start of the paragraph when it's outlined which bones bear teeth.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "The number of teeth in the maxillary, pterygoid, and dentary positions" -> "The number of teeth on the maxillae, pterygoids, and dentaries"
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. hoffmannii had likely up to thirty-two dorsal vertebrae and ten pygal vertebrae" - The footnote states that "The number of caudal vertebrae is not fully certain but at least ten vertebrae are known in an M. conodon tail and completely unknown in M. hoffmannii." which seems to imply we have no tail vertebrae of M. hoffmannii, so how can we estimate the number of pygals for this species?
It says caudal at the beginning of the sentence. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it seems that I misunderstood that pygals aren't considered to be caudals (it's been a while since I dealt with mosasaurids in detail). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at least ten vertebrae are known in an M. conodon tail and completely unknown in M. hoffmannii." -> "at least ten vertebrae are known in an M. conodon tail while none are known in M. hoffmannii." - Current wording either implies "at least ten vertebrae are completely unknown in M. hoffmannii" or that it's unknown if 10 caudals of M. conodon were present in M. hoffmannii.
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the rib cage of Mosasaurus are unusually deep and form" -> "the rib cage of Mosasaurus is unusually deep and forms"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rather than fused together" -> "Rather than being fused together"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which indicates Mosasaurus enjoyed a high range of aquatic adaptation" - Not sure if "enjoyed" is the best word here. Perhaps "possessed" instead?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "neutral buoyancy seen in cetaceans" -> "neutral buoyancy as seen in cetaceans"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "of which soft tissue evidence for a two-lobed tail was first reported in 2013" -> "of which soft tissue evidence for a two-lobed tail is known"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centra should probably be glossed.
Removed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus also has large haemal arches located at the bottom of each caudal vertebra" - I think that this should be "Mosasaurus also has a large haemal arch located at the bottom of each caudal vertebra" but I'm not entirely certain.
It'll stick with the original, as the context I got was: Mosasaurus has many haemal arches in total. Each of them are at the bottom of each vertebrae." Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "twice as long than it is wide" -> "twice as long as it is wide"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five sets of metacarpal and phalanges" -> "Metacarpal" should be pluralized.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That clickable skeletal diagram is great fun and also potentially quite helpful for non-specialists seeking information on anatomical terms!
Thanks! Macrophyseter | talk 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through the description, a lot of the comments are pretty minor and grammar-related. I'll try to review another section tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified one or two of my points above, but otherwise, all of the changes look good! I've posted some comments on the paleobiology section below; it's quite a large section, so it may take a few days for me to read through it all. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Much of the knowledge on the musculature and mechanics of the head of Mosasaurus are largely based" - I think that "are" should be changed to "is" here (not totally sure though).
This sentence was removed per another point. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't in paleobiology, but "extant" should probably be linked to extant taxon on its first mention.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the positioning of a prey" -> Can there be "a prey"? I'd change it to either "prey item" or just "prey".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "This rigid but highly shock-absorbent structure of the cranium likely allowed a powerful bite force during prey seizure." - Bit of a nitpick, but "during prey seizure" could be removed as it presumably still had the potential to deliver a powerful bite at other times.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like all mosasaurs, the lower jaws of Mosasaurus were capable of adduction, allowing it to swing forward and backward." - I'm not totally sure if I'm reading this correctly, but wouldn't capability of adduction allow mediolateral movement instead of anteroposterior movement?
Removed the scientific term. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, especially compared to that in M. lemonnieri, the pterygoid teeth in M. hoffmannii" -> "However, especially compared to those in M. lemonnieri, the pterygoid teeth in M. hoffmannii"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14
36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The magnus adductor muscles, one of the muscles" - It's a bit jarring that the term is pluralized but the definition is singular.
Reworded. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The paddles' steering function was supported by large muscle attachment" - I think that this should either be "a large muscle attachment" or "large muscle attachments". I wonder if "enabled" might be better than "supported" here, though I'm not totally sure.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pronation" currently links to Pronation of the foot, but since this refers to (presumably) both the forelimbs and hindlimbs, wouldn't just pronation be a better target?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "maintained a constant warm-blooded temperature" - I don't think that a temperature can be warm-blooded, perhaps change to "maintained a constant body temperature"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "studies on the biochemistry of related endothermic mosasaur genera such as Clidastes" - perhaps specify "potentially endothermic mosasaur genera" here (based on the footnote) or select another genus as an example and move the footnote to the end of the sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "foraging in larger areas" -> "foraging across larger areas"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus had relatively large eye sockets[36] with large sclerotic rings occupying much of the sockets' diameter,[27] which is correlated with eye size" - Are these both correlated with eye size? It's a little unclear right now.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "was described from a fossil by Grigoriev (2016), but the remains are incomplete" -> "was described from an incomplete fossil by Grigoriev (2016)"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the rear and middle semicircular canals, which helps control the sense of balance" - Should be "which help"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "a Mosasaurus of ~14 meters (46 ft) in length" -> "a Mosasaurus of about/around/approximately 14 meters (46 ft) in length"
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which species is the inner ear fossil from?
Specificed as Mosasaurus sp. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scientists believe that larger members of the genus would have been able to handle virtually any animal" - Perhaps "capable of attacking virtually any animal" might be better here?
"handle" is how the sources word it. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Handling animals usually refers to (safely) holding them in humans, which is why this phrasing struck me as odd, but I suppose that we may as well just stick with what the source says. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The relationship between δ13C levels in mosasaurs and their trophic levels are found to be negatively correlated; mosasaurs with lower δ13C values tended to occupy higher trophic levels." - Perhaps the first part of this sentence could be cut, the second part says pretty much the same thing but in a way that's easier to understand.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of other large mosasaurs like Prognathodon, which specialized in robust prey, coexisting with M. missouriensis strongly suggests that the species likely specialized more on prey best consumed using cutting-adapted teeth in an example of niche partitioning." - This feels like information that would belong more in the paleoecology section.
Something like this is also mentioned in Competition, but I also had some here because it was directly relevant to diet. The mention in Competition focuses on evidence of niche partitioning. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph seems to really be jumping to conclusions about what happened to that nautiloid, although if the source states this hypothesis, then there isn't much that can be done about this.
Removed the conclusion jump. Macrophyseter | talk 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the statement that the former hypothesis was more likely was removed, but that wasn't what I was referring to here. What struck me as odd is that the paragraph makes it seem as though the study didn't consider it possible for Mosasaurus to catch a healthy nautiloid, or that the two mosasaurids were competing instead of cooperating. I unfortunately don't have access to the study, so I can't verify whether or not this is the case. If the study didn't, then there isn't really much that can be done (sometimes studies do do strange things, like estimating the length of Argentinosaurus to the decimeter). Oh, also Argonautilus could perhaps be linked. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about the taxobox: Why is M. lemonnieri in the synonyms list of M. conodon? It's also listed as a valid species, and the article seems to treat it like this.
I was confused about this too, but was told this was the convention so I just shrugged and ran with it. Undoing. Macrophyseter | talk 23:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now M. conodon is listed as a jr. synonym of M. lemonnieri, but since the former has priority, wouldn't this be impossible? Also, the article treats M. conodon as a valid (though possibly incorrectly assigned) species, and it's listed as a valid species immediately above. If the synonymy is debatable, then the name can be marked with a "?" at the end. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm used to a taxon listed as a synonym being that the current valid taxon used to be called whatever the synonym is. So it's not saying that the valid taxon M. conodon is a synonym of M. lemonnieri, but that M. lemmonieri used to be called M. conodon. Perhaps I'm wrong on this? Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we only include jr. synonyms in the synonym list, as we don't list Chuanjiesaurus anaensis as a synonym of Analong chuanjieensis, for example. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some scientists have speculated on the possibility that Mosasaurus may have even occasionally engaged in cannibalism" - If this is the result of one study, then I'd specify who hypothesized it, if instead it's widely accepted, I'd add some more citations to the end.
Specified the source in text. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is likely that Mosasaurus was viviparous (giving live birth) like modern mammals today" - This is a minor quibble, but I'd add "most" in front of "mammals".
Can't forget the platypus! Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "Microanatomical studies on bones of juvenile Mosasaurus and related genera have found their bone structures" -> "Microanatomical studies on bones of juvenile Mosasaurus and related genera have found that their bone structures"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the "Intraspecific combat" section might fit as a subsection of "Paleopathology", as the former extensively discusses pathology while the later has multiple mentions of combat.
I do want to have a topic on intraspecific combat as a distinct stand-out like other sections, though, due to the implication of behavior. Perhaps maybe a single section with subsections of intraspecific combat and paleopathology? Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, as this topic does cover both behavior and physiology. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "IRSNB R25 preserves a complete fracture near the sixth tooth socket." - What exactly is a "complete fracture"?
Wikilinked. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one has almost fully healed" -> "one had almost fully healed"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an estimated half-liter (0.5 kg) of bone tissue destroyed" - It's somewhat odd that metric volume is converted into metric mass here. I'd recommend providing conversions for both, if this is correct.
Changed to gal conversion. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "which progressed to the point that a large portion of the quadrate" -> "which progressed to the point where a large portion of the quadrate"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have either been habitual deep-divers or repetitive divers" - Don't these mean the same thing?
Elaborated. Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agnete Weinreich Carlsen commented that it would be frugal to consider the appearance of such conditions as being due to non-adaptation of the animal's anatomy" - Frugal seems to be a bit of an odd word choice here. I can't tell if it's arguing for or against this being due to a lack of adaptations (since frugal means "sparing", I'm not sure if I should interpret this as "simplest explanation that fits all the evidence" or "too/overly simple").
The original wording used in the source is parsimonious, but I thought it doesn't seem like the context relates to Occam's razor as it then explains adaptations in mosasaurs for handling deep diving, so I ran with the alternative definition of "stingy." The given paragraph is as such:
"It is parsimonious to presume that non-adaptation is the original state and that the animals with disease were deep or repetitive divers without appropriate physiological or behavioural adaptations. Vaughn and Dawson (1956) have described calcified tympanic membranes in Platecarpus, Tylosaurus and Plioplatecarpus. They probably had thick cartilaginous eardrums, filling the external auditory cavity, in place of a simple membrane, for better protection under undue pressure of the water in deep diving. This condition has been interpreted as an adaptation to deep diving by protecting the eardrums from the large ambient pressure and prevented the stapes from being driven forcibly inward during rapid increase in the external pressure (Vaughn and Dawson 1956). Decompression illness seems to have been common in the mosasaurs."
What do you think? Macrophyseter | talk 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I can't figure out if that paragraph is arguing for or against a lack of adaptation against DCI. If so, then perhaps "commented that it would be frugal to consider" could be changed to "considered it likely that"; if not, then it could be changed to "considered it unlikely that". --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, since it's unclear what the author is meaning by "parsimonious" given the context. Maybe simply being literate and saying something like "commented that it would be "parsimonious" to consider" and leave the word up to interpretation? Macrophyseter | talk 20:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the best option. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through the paleobiology section; I've re-addressed a few previous comments above. I'll probably go over either classification or paleoecology next. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC) I've added some comments on paleoecology below. I'll try to add some more later today. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Mosasaurus was a transatlantic mosasaur with its fossils having been found in marine deposits on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. These localities include" - I think that this could be shortened, perhaps just "Mosasaurus had a transatlantic distribution, with its fossils having been found in"
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 04:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 04:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geographic terms should be linked on first mention.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Multiple oceanic climate zones encompassed the seaways including tropical, subtropical, temperature, and subpolar climates." - I'm pretty sure that there should be a comma after "seaways".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tropical, subtropical, temperature, and subpolar climates" - These climatic zones should probably be linked.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northern Tethyan margin was located around the paleolatitudes of 30–40°N, consisting of what is now the European continent, Turkey, and New Jersey." - Perhaps this could be moved down to the next paragraph to match the style of the third paragraph in the Mediterranean Tethys section?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where its occurrences greatly outnumber that of other large mosasaurs" -> "where its occurrences greatly outnumber those of other large mosasaurs"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "found in the European side" -> "found on the European side"
I think the original is better in this context. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Located around what is now Africa, Arabia, the Levant, and Brazil, seabeds bordering the cratons in Africa and Arabia provided vast shallow marine environments." - It feels a bit odd that its specified the seabeds were located near Africa and Arabia twice. Perhaps something like "Seabeds bordering the cratons in Africa and Arabia and extending to the Levant and Brazil provided vast shallow marine environments." could be said.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These environments were also dominated by mosasaurs and marine side-necked turtles." - Not sure if the "also" is needed here, as the environments were just introduced and the pleurodires hadn't been mentioned in the article before.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus coexisted with bony fish such as Xiphactinus, sea turtles like Protostega and plioplatecarpine mosasaurs in North America." - Why not specify the plioplatecarpine genus shown in the image?
The specific genus is Platecarpus which the text implies was among the fauna that went extinct as a result of the turnover that introduced Mosasaurus. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "brought in vast amounts of sediments" -> "brought in vast amounts of sediment"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a period known as the Niobraran Age" - I'd personally prefer "time span" to "period" here as a "period" refers to something else in terms of geologic time. Also, is the Niobraran Age a faunal stage? It might be good to specify this so as to differentiate it from the Campanian (same goes for the Navesinkan).
Specified to faunal stage. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crocodilians such as Deinosuchus;" - Did Deinosuchus actually inhabit the pelagic zone?
Was thinking of a comparison with the saltwater croc, but since it seems like it's not really a preferred habitat, cut. Macrophyseter | talk 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saw shark Ischyrhiza;" - I'd prefer either "sclerorhynchoid Ischyrhiza" or "sawfish-like Ischyrhiza;" as sclerorhynchoids are not sawsharks
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sea surface temperatures may have dropped below freezing and forming sea ice at times" -> "sea surface temperatures may have dropped below freezing and sea ice may have formed at times"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "Other marine reptiles included elasmosaurid plesiosaurs like Aristonectes and another indeterminate elasmosaurid." -> "Other Antarctic marine reptiles included elasmosaurid plesiosaurs like Aristonectes and another indeterminate elasmosaurid."
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These three mosasaurs converged in a diet on on similar animals such as marine reptiles." - Should this be "converged in diet on similar animals"? Alternatively, you could say "These three mosasaurs all preyed on similar animals such as marine reptiles."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was hypothesized that these adaptations reinforced resource partitioning between the two mosasaurs." - "Reinforced" implies that the two species were already ecologically separated, but this is the first time that their ecological relationship is discussed.
Changed to "help maintain" Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "T. bernardi was the only known coexisting animal likely capable of such damage" -> "T. bernardi was the only known coexisting animal likely capable of causing such damage" I'd also add a comma after damage.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "robust projectile-like elongated rostrum" - What exactly does "projectile-like" mean? A projectile could be a missile, an arrow, or even a stone.
Changed to "arrow-like." Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through paleoecology. I'll probably review the extinction section next. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional: "reducing the number of available habitats for Mosasaurus." -> "reducing the amount of available habitat for Mosasaurus."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event that also wiped out the dinosaurs." - A bit of a minor quibble, but I'd specify non-avian dinosaurs.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in extinction, but it's not actually yet been stated what the extent of the Maastricht Formation is in the article
Mentioned its age in Interspecific competition. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional - "The deposition of the layer itself was likely a tsunamite, alternatively nicknamed the "Cretaceous cocktail deposit", formed as a result of a combination of catastrophic seismic and geological disturbances," - "Cretaceous cocktail deposit", which formed as a result of a combination of catastrophic seismic and geological disturbances,"
I prefer the original. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to starvation from a total loss of prey structure" - I'd just use "prey" instead of "prey structure", or mention the collapse of the food web more directly.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "This does not mean that Mosasaurus and its associated fauna may have survived the K-Pg extinction." -> "This does not mean that Mosasaurus and its associated fauna survived the K-Pg extinction."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does winnowing not count as reworking? Also, the lag deposit article seems to imply that it's an example of winnowing.
The source words the two concepts as different apparently. Clarified a bit in text? Macrophyseter | talk 17:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished going through the extinction section. I'll probably review classification tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC) I've started to add some comments on classification below. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional: "nomenclature rules" -> "nomenclatural rules"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since "M. glycys" is a nomen nudum, shouldn't it be put in quotes and not italicized?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Relationships between living squamates remains controversial as scientists still fiercely debate on whether the closest living relatives of mosasaurs are monitor lizards or snakes." - Should this be "Relationships between mosasaurs and living squamates"? "between living squamates" implies that this is only about how to classify modern lizards. Also "remains controversial" -> "remain controversial"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the earliest relevant attempts at an evolutionary study of Mosasaurus was done by Russell (1967)" - I'd change this to "by Russell in 1967" as this is immediately followed by "who"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not address M. maximus being a junior synonym of M. hoffmannii
Must have removed the explanation during spin-off. Added a footnote. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "which is one of the most completely known in the genus" -> "which is one of the most completely known species in the genus"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These problems were addressed in Street (2016), who also performed an updated phylogenetic analysis." - Since Street (2016) is a study, I'd change this to either "These problems were addressed in Street (2016), in which an updated phylogenetic analysis was also performed." or "These problems were addressed by Street in 2016, who also performed an updated phylogenetic analysis."
Changed to "These problems were addressed in Street's 2016 thesis in an updated phylogenetic analysis." Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conrad (2008) uniquely used only M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri in his phylogenetic analysis," - Again, this should be changed to something like "Conrad uniquely used only M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri in his 2008 phylogenetic analysis,"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "This result indicated that M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri are not related by genus." -> "This result indicated that M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri are not in the same genus."
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because Street (2016) is not a peer-reviewed publication,[7] it is not cited in Madzia & Cau (2017)." - I don't think that this logic really holds up, as I've seen theses cited in papers before (in fact, this one cites four). Also, I don't know how this couldn't be considered original research if just the paper and thesis are cited, as the thesis came first and if the paper doesn't mention why the thesis isn't cited. Since it's not too uncommon for different studies to recover different topologies, I'd recommend just removing this sentence.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the notice below, I'll try to have my review done by the end of today or tomorrow. Here are my comments on the history section:

  • "The first Mosasaurus fossil known to science was first discovered" - The usage of "first" feels a little repetitive. Perhaps it could be removed at the second instance?
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "that caught the particular attention of" -> "that caught the attention of"
I prefer the original because of the implied notability. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was found by Camper's son Adriaan Gilles Camper and Georges Cuvier by 1808 to belong to a marine lizard" - Perhaps replace "found by" here with something else - since there is quite a bit of text before "to belong to", I initially misinterpretted the meaning of "found" here, which confused me, as the skull had already been found.
Rephrased. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "initially identified it as Ichthyosaurus" -> "initially identified it as a species of Ichthyosaurus"
That was per suggestion by Jens, but done anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rest of the skull had been discovered earlier by a fur-trapper, which eventually came under the possession" - "which" should probably be replaced with "and" here, to better demonstrate that this is about the fossil, not the fur-trapper.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third species was described in 1881 by Edward Drinker Cope from fragmentary fossils in New Jersey, who thought it was a giant species of Clidastes and named it Clidastes conodon." - I'd recommend changing it to "The third species was described in 1881 from fragmentary fossils in New Jersey by Edward Drinker Cope, who thought it was a giant species of Clidastes and named it Clidastes conodon." for better flow.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the term "terrestrial limbs" used in the literature? I think that "limbs suitable for walking" might be a simpler way to phrase this.
Changed to "limbs for walking." Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and misleading interpretations of some phalanges as claws" - Perhaps "incorrect" would be better than "misleading" here? Alternatively, the word could just be removed as it's stated that these interpretations are erroneus immediately afterwards.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "paleoart depictions of Mosasaurus" -> "depictions of Mosasaurus in paleoart"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34 (Witton) is an error message.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are mostly pretty minor. I'll finish up with the lead & taxobox soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Here are my comments on the lead:[reply]

  • Type genus is a rather technical term, perhaps add "defining example" afterwards.
Added. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the late 1700s" - This could refer to the century or the decade, perhaps use "the late 18th century" to be unambiguous?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this task was completed by" - Perhaps "this was done by" as the former kind of makes it sound like Cuvier was obligated to name it (also, as Conybeare named no species, it could technically be argued that Mantell was the one who "completed" it).
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Traditional interpretations have estimated the maximum length of Mosasaurus to be up to 17.6 meters (58 ft), making it one of the largest mosasaur genera." - It's a bit odd that this is the only size estimate mentioned in the lead, considering that the size section makes it seem as though the 1:10 ratio for M. hoffmannii is disputed.
That's why it says "traditional interpretations." Also, rereading the sources I probably overblew the suggestion of the extent to which it is disputed, so I changed the text in Size. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "diagnosis of the type specimen" - Can a diagnosis apply to a specimen?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each species was variable with unique anatomical features differentiating them from the robustly-built M. hoffmannii to the slender and serpentine M. lemonnieri." - The way this is phrased suggests that there should be a comma after "them".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "Continents that have recovered Mosasaurus fossils" -> "Continents where Mosasaurus fossils have been found"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus was a common large predator in these oceans and a dominant genus" - Don't "common" and "dominant" mean similar things? I know that they don't mean exactly the same thing, but perhaps one (probably the latter) could be dropped for brevity?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still recommend dropping the M. lemonnieri section in the synonyms list in the taxobox.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all that I have! Sorry that this review took so long (it's been about 10 days since I started). This has been an interesting read, and it does a good job covering such a massive topic. I plan on supporting once all of the above comments get addressed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!! Macrophyseter | talk 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! There are only two more things I have to comment on (they're both related to comments above, but I'm putting them here just so that they can be found easily. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomina nuda are now written in quotes, but I was also under the impression that they don't get italicized at all. Also, how come they're written with single quotes in the article but with double quotes on the cladogram?
I think it can be either italicized or not. Some published literature italicize nomen ex dissertationae (for example, Tylosaurus saskatchewanensis, which originated from a 2006 thesis, was treated with recognition down to the italicization in the following years before the taxon was formally described in 2018). But I changed double quotations to single quotations. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that it would be good to provide a range of size estimates in the lead, or at least specify that the 17.6m estimate is specifically for M. hoffmannii.
Going with latter. There's also an uncertainty in regards to the size estimate mentioned; I used Lingham-Soliar's estimate despite it being constructed incorrectly because it's nevertheless cited the most in literature, so there's stronger notability. Do you think it would be better to lean more on the other end and change it to the Grigoriev estimate?Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit torn here, I'd usually stick with the most frequently stated estimate, but since the methodology here is flawed, that makes the 17.1m estimate more apealing to me. Perhaps both (i.e. "to be up to 17.1-17.6 meters") could be put in? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But putting a range would imply a low/high range when it's actually a correct/flawed-but-notable one. For now, I'll see how changing to the 17.1 m estimate would work. Macrophyseter | talk 19:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of my above comments have been addressed, I will support. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has attracted quite a bit of attention, but shows no sign of moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next few days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can step up the pace. Macrophyseter | talk 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJE

[edit]

Going point-by-point and reviewing this version:

  • 1a: "as an attack on Mosasaurus by Tylosaurus has been documented" is an odd formulation for an attack between two prehistoric animals. Also, I don't like these strings of citations such as [37][58][59][60][61][62][63] they are kind of distracting. Things like "However, Russell used a early method of phylogenetics and did not use cladistics, of which the English edition of the work that established it was published just a year prior." and "The head musculature of M. hoffmannii has been studied." are a little awkward.
Fixed most. I think the sentence for musculature is necessary, as it clearly establishes that no other species' musculature has been studied (and saying so in text was considered OR by a reviewer). Also, I don't think it's awkward, as studying muscle tissue in fossils that normally do not preserve such is not immediately obvious to most readers. Macrophyseter | talk 02:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested rewording which might be more palatable: "Several studies have focused on the head musculature of M. hoffmannii". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to a similar wording. Macrophyseter | talk 15:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for the quality of the latter source as a blog by a professional palaeontologist, but I am questioning its relevance (why is the ICZN citation not enough)? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is a newspaper that reports the discovery of details that may help with the precision of the dating of historical events, and the article text makes clear that given details are from a newspaper. Regarding the relevancy of the second source (the author, by the way, has his own Wikipedia article), the ICZN working didn't seem to make it clear that unpublished works are not formally valid (it simply lists what they are), so I was suggested to accompany it with another source that states the general consensus that this is the case. Macrophyseter | talk 16:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1e: Seems to fit.
  • 1f: The "drop random sentences into Google" test shows no problems.
  • 2-4: I think that in its current state, the article strikes the right balance between being small enough and being comprehensive enough.
  • 2a-2b: Fits.
  • 2c: There are some formatting issues, e.g #37 and some citation formats are inconsistent in the way they use or don't use DOIs and identifiers. https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/849723494.html?FMT=AI is broken.
Fixed broken link and format issues. Some of the sources don't have DOIs or other identifiers. Macrophyseter | talk 02:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That only leaves the access-dates for some cite web things; some have them and some don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were published in 1845 and 1834, so they should long be in the public domain for both the United States and Germany. I can try to fish out the original publications if there's still doubt. Macrophyseter | talk 16:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the uploader of these, yes, the most recent one is PD US, and the older, German one is from 1834, so I think it's safe to say there's no chance the creator survived until 70 years ago. But would probably good to add the original sources to the file pages, yes, and if there is more on the artists. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's the other way around: the 1834 is American and the 1845 part is German. Both original authors, Richard Harlan and Georg August Goldfuss, died in 1843 and 1848 respectively, so it's over 150 years ago. Macrophyseter | talk 02:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, even then, I doubt an artist working in 1845 was alive 70 years ago, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • 62: Can't access the source but looks reliable.
A lot of the sources are scientific papers that are normally locked up behind paywalls. Unless the authors uploaded them on Researchgate or elsewhere, there's really no way to provide public access to them without the use of a little bit of civil disobedience. However, anyone with access to these sources should be able to verify. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 34: 1852 does not appear in the source? I am not so sure that the source supports the claim that the mosasaur reconstruction was wrong even by the standards of the time.
Added another source that connects 1852. The Witton source explains how the reconstruction contradicts the contemporaneous understandings as established by Goldfuss. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11: Where does it say that Clidastes conodon was reidentified as mosasaurus or that the number of caudal vertebrae is unknown? Lack of pagination makes it hard to verify the claims.
I checked the source myself and the two statements are supported by (1) the start of Systematic palaeontology (synonyms list) and (2) Table 4. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the synonymy list as Lythronaxargestes said, but I can now see how it's not obvious to most. I added the original source that did the reidentification for support. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 93: Why does Tethys not appear in the source?
Added another citation as support. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 89: Can't access the source.
See response to 62. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7: Is a thesis a good source? And it takes forever to load.
Sometimes yes. In fact, scientists sometimes use some theses as legitimate sources in published papers. Also, it took over 10 minutes for me to load that document, but once you download it it opens a lot quicker. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 103: Can't access the source.
See response to 62. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15: Where does it say it's about a whale?
It uses an old terminology that refers to the sperm whale. Added a source that makes that connection. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 95: Can't access the source.
See response to 62. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 98: It supports part of the claims.
It's there to support the previous two sources. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 108: A few genera are supported by this source.
Source 101 supports the rest. To multi-cite the sentence for each genus would be overciting IMO. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 115: OK.
  • 43: Where does it refer to the species as missouriensis?
It's in the supplementary data, which is in the same paywall situation as the other sources. Source 46 supports the proof that such a source exists. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 77: Can't access the source.
See response to 62. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 44: Where does it refer to the species as missouriensis?
In table 1. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 91: OK.
  • 73: Liodon is not mentioned.
It's mentioned as Leiodon, which is an old spelling. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 119: OK.
  • 31: OK.
  • 48: Can't access the source.
See response to 62. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Jo-Jo Eumerus? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it a pass, but on AGF basis since I can't access a rather large amount of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems to be a point of contention: Jo-Jo Eumerus, how would one cite the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature? Is the appropriate template {{cite web}}, {{cite act}}, or {{cite book}}? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would use cite web. Not cite book because it's not really a book, nor cite act because it's not a law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected it myself (but Macrophyseter - feel free to change as you see fit). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks for that edit! Macrophyseter | talk 16:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Then would you be fine with considering your part concluded? This is so I can figure out the next course of action now that everyone else has finalized their decisions. Macrophyseter | talk 19:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

I did both a thorough peer-review and the GAN review with FAC in mind, so here's my formal support to buy it a bit more time for other reviewer improvements. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • 23 sentences start with "However," which seems excessive.
Reduced the "however" count. Macrophyseter | talk 20:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientists have expressed the likelihood that" seems a little clumsy. Perhaps rephrase to flow better?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with significant separation damage of the bone's head from the rest of the bone". I struggle to understand this. One can have 'with significant separation of the bone's head from the rest of the bone' or 'with significant damage to the bone's head from the rest of the bone', but I am not sure that the current wording makes sense.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 15:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 163 usages of "that". One word in every 60 in the article is "that". Including cases of 11 uses in 280 words and 7 in 130. Many are redundant, or could/should be replaced with which, or rephrased out.
Reduced "that" count. Macrophyseter | talk 16:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You cut it to 110, and with this edit I reduced it to 76. Which is still a lot, but just about acceptable. Let me know if you strongly object to any of these edits or deletions. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Macrophyseter | talk 00:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Any additional comments? Macrophyseter | talk 16:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. All good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then do you think it's ready to promote? Macrophyseter | talk 18:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I do. I would have done it yesterday but I wanted to give you the chance to object to any of my copy editing. I have just got in after a busy day, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mosasaurus/archive1&oldid=1034986180"