Wikipedia:Peer review/Baryonyx/archive1

Baryonyx

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been expanded significantly since it passed at FAC, to accommodate palaeontological peer reviews at WikiJournal, which can be found here:[1] The goal is for the article to be featured in an upcoming issue of that journal, and to make editing easier, I have done it here on Wikipedia first, and the plan is to transfer the text to the journal after this peer review. I have followed the suggestions by the palaeontologists, except for a few points which I will discuss below (and which could be evaluated here).

• I have kept the mention of changing specimen numbers though it was suggested I removed this, since it will make it easier for readers to check the older literature, if they want to.

• I have not added citations to the intro, as this doesn't seem to be standard practice in neither scientific journals or Wikipedia.

I highly disagree with this course of action. There is absolutely no rule against it on Wikipedia, it's just not something you have to do. I'm of the opinion not requiring it is excessively dumb, but that aside, the palaeontologists are right that a section like this shouldn't stay unreference in the journal setting, even if you insist on not doing it with other articles here on the encyclopedia. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't say it is based on personal opinion, but rather on precedents (such as other journal articles). That said, if I was to implement it, I'm not exactly sure how, because the intro is so condensed, pulling on multiple sources within each sentence, so how would we practically do it without piling up three or four citations after every sentence? Also, this might actually be dictated by the journal itself, which should have a style guide. I'll ping Elmidae to see if there are any rules about this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll ping Evolution and evolvability too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe we have a guideline for this. Following standard journal practice, an introduction section in a review article ought to be fully referenced. However, as an encyclopedic overview this article is in a somewhat divergent format, in that there is no introduction per se but an extended abstract; that would never be referenced in a journal. Doesn't prevent adding references in the WP article, natch (although I wouldn't... I like our reference-free ledes :). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so it shouldn't be done in the WikiJournal version (which is the main concern of this peer review anyway)? FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Such would be my interpretation. Let's see what Thomas says. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is not an introduction, this would be the abstract of the WikiJournal article. Many, and I think most, journals discourage citations in abstracts (e.g., the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology author guidelines plainly state: Literature citations in the abstract are not allowed.). This is because everything in the abstract has to be mentioned in the body anyways. I would go without citations in the abstract, why do something that is unconventional for both journals and Wikipedia articles? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As Elmidae noted, WikiJournals have no strict guideline on the abstract references and tend to leave it up to author preference. WikiJournals have precedent for publishing either way (e.g. Radiocarbon dating has none, Hippocampus just lists a few key review articles, and Rotavirus is as ref-dense as the rest of the text). My personal preference is to reference the abstract/lead with at least a few of the key reviews, however I agree that the abstract should only contain information that is elaborated elsewhere in the text so it isn't strictly necessary. However, in this case since a reviewer requested it and there is no strong reason not to add refs, on balance I'd recommend adding some. Since the reviewer didnt' give specific details on why they wanted refs in the lea/d abstract, the journal would support you if you wished to challenge that reviewer to clarify why they did want refs in the abstract. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will probably add a bunch of key review article citations to the WikiJournal version then. But I will refrain from doing it here, as it is generally discouraged during FAC reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have kept the Gregory S. Paul citations though it was suggested I remove them; even the Therrien & Henderson source I was asked to use instead (which I have now added) cites him.

• It was asked that I list the known material in the description section, I guess so the reader would know what material is present by the time they read that section, but I have instead changed the structure so that the history section comes first (based on the other reviewer's comment), and therefore also the list of known bones, which should solve both issues.

• It was suggested I should mention that Suchosaurus was the first theropod named, but this seems to be incorrect (Megalosaurus was named earlier), but I have added that it was the first named spinosaur, which might be what was meant.

• I have not moved the text about the mandible up before the text about the rest of the skull, but I guess that was suggested because the structure in the original paragraph about the skull was confusing, but that has since been changed.

• I have added info about habitat and niche partitioning to the section about aquatic behaviour rather than to the palaeoenvironment section, as the info is more generally about spinosaurids and their possible semi-aquatic life than Baryonyx specifically.

• I have one question for peer reviwers here; under "possible synonyms", should I discuss the possible synonymy with Suchomimus first, since that was proposed first, or the possible synonymy with Suchosaurus first, since that is the first named genus, and possibly the senior synonym, though this was proposed later?

Given the Suchosaurus one is more notable and came first, I'd put that first and Suchomimus second. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking along the same lines recently, so I think I'll do that in the end. But of course, more views are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This also makes the image in the section align better with the text. On the topic, I almost wonder if covering the whole Suchosaurus topic here instead of in its own article might work, given how well going over Angaturama in to the Irritator article works even though they similarly are only subjective synonyms. Probably not worth doing this far into this article's development, but I think it's an interesting idea. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Difference is that Suchosaurus is generally considered a dubious name, which always have separate articles. In the case of Irritator/Angaturama, neither has ever been considered dubious, to my knowledge; either they are synonyms or distinct. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Possibly distinct species have also always had distinct articles, the Irritator article breaks the mold either way. I haven't said anything against it in this regard because I think it works better for it. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

We have some inconsistency when it comes to that (Ajancingenia is an example), but unlike such cases, it doesn't seem anyone is unambiguously arguing that Angaturama is a distinct taxon, only that it is a possibility. And given that the specimen is most likely destroyed, this can probably never be solved. I think we should probably merge more articles that are generally thought to be synonyms, such as for example Mojoceratops and Ojoceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack

• You give the holotype specimen number (NHM R9951) as late as in the description. I think the history of discovery section is the better place (did you swap sections recently?).

This is stated in the end of the second paragraph under history: "The original specimen number was BMNH R9951, but it was later re-catalogued as NHMUK VP R9951." And yes, history was moved to the start, per a reviewer comment. Also to circumvent the suggestion that the known material should be listed under description, which I disagree with, so I think it is a good compromise to simply list it before the description. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• On the other hand, the specimen's fused sternum indicates that it may have been fairly mature. – do we need the "fairly" here?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• nares (bony external nostrils) – maybe better "external nares" (bony nostrils), since "nares" can also refer to the internal nares.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• The snout was particularly narrow directly behind the rosette, and received the large teeth of the mandible. – Not sure about the second part of the sentence; is this referring to the whole mandible? Not all teeth appear to have been large though?

This was Hendrickx' suggested wording, I specified it to "this area received the large teeth of the mandible", better? FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• on the upper mid-line of the basals – basals? I guess nasals?

Hehe, right, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• on Allosaurus – in Allosaurus?

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• which was distinct from other spinosaurids in being solid and almost triangular – when quickly reading it you first assume the "which" is referring to Allosaurus. I suggest to replace "which was" with "and".

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• The occiput was narrow, with its paroccipital processes pointing outwards horizontally, and the basipterygoid process was lengthened, descending far below the basioccipital (the base of the occipital bone). – Multiple minor issues here. The paroccipital processes are not commonly referred to the occiput (see "occiput" entry in the glossary for details). There are two basipterygoid processes, so I would use plural, as you did for the paroccipital processes. The occipital bone exists only in mammals; in dinosaurs the occiput is a region consisting of four separate bones, with the basioccipital being the ventralmost.

Made processes plural, and said "the lowermost bone of the occiput". As for the paroccipital process, the Charig Milner 1997 diagnosis says "Occiput deep, with paroccipital processes directed horizontally outwards". Seems to me they consider it part of the process? What to do? I have changed "with its" to "with the" for now, making it more ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Your solution is sufficient I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sereno and colleagues suggested that some of Baryonyx's cranial bones had been misidentified by Charig and Milner (resulting in the occiput being reconstructed as too deep), and that the skull was instead probably as low, long and narrow as that of Suchomimus. – The second part of the sentence requires the information given in parentheses, because you have the "instead", right? For this reason, I would remove the parentheses, as that information is essential for the sentence.

Removed (the copy editor is quite fond of parentheses). FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• with a prominent Meckelian groove. – maybe add "on the inside" for clarity, so that nobody searches for it on the skull photograph.

Added "on the inner side". FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• almsot – almost

Ugh, fixed, and also merged with the preceding sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• and thirty-two in the dentary. The lower jaw would have had sixty-four teeth – Yes, 32*2=64, but where is the point of mentioning this again?

I think it was because the source reiterates it, but I removed it now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• is more pronounced – was more pronounced?

Changed tense. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• six on the left and seven on the right side – but only in the holotype, or is this thought to be a general feature?

I don't think the other specimens are complete enough to judge, but I added "in the holotype". The last part of the sentence "showing tooth count asymmetry in this theropod" was suggested by Hendrickx, though, so I wonder if he assumes it is a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hm you still say "in this theropod", which I would interpret as "in this genus". But it has to be only the holotype, as you cite Charig and Milner (1986) for this info, right? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Since there is only one specimen complete enough in tyhat area to know, it would mean the holotype. "this theropod" was Hendrickx's suggestion, but I'll just remove it and note why. And I will bold this text to remind me to do so, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• In 2003, Milner noted that some teeth at the Natural History Museum previously identified as belonging to the genera Suchosaurus and Megalosaurus probably belonged to Baryonyx. – Does this mean that, at the time Milner studied them, some of the teeth where ascribed to Suchosaurus and some to Megalosaurus? That is how I would read it.

Yes. What is the alternative? FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• In 1997, Charig and Milner noted that two fragmentary spinosaurid snouts from the Elrhaz Formation of Niger reported by the French palaeontologist Philippe Taquet in 1984 were similar enough to Baryonyx that they considered them to belong to an indeterminate species of Baryonyx, despite their much younger geological age – How much younger? I would state the age, possibly in the first part of the sentence when mentioning the Elrhaz Formation.

Added aptian in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hutt and Newberry supported the synonymy based on a large theropod vertebra from the Isle of Wight which they attributed to an animal closely related to Baryonyx and Suchomimus, which they used to reconfigure the spinal column of Baryonyx. – I'm not sure what the "which" behind the comma is referring to precisely, and I don't get what "reconfigure the spinal column" means (reinterpret?).

I've removed the second part of the sentence, it is hard to know what they mean from just the abstract text anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Candeiro and collages – typo?

Hehe, very much, fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just want to note that I really appreciate that you explicitly state when you are citing a conference abstract; it helps the reader a lot to evaluate the information.

Yeah, it was also in response to one reviewer who said abstracts shouldn't be used, so I thought it could be a workaround to specify when they are. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• In 2003, Milner noted that some teeth … – It is not easy to connect this sentence to the information that follows. I assume Milner locked at the S. cultridens teeth? It is a bit confusing since you quickly mention the second species, S. girardi, and only after this mention refer back to Milner. Perhaps it helps to keep it strictly chronological? Not sure.

In this case, Suchosaurus doesn't become relevant until Milner makjes the connection to Baryonyx, so I think making the text strictly chronological would make the narrative less logical. I see the text about the old Suchomimus specimens more as a presentational appendix to the text about Milner's conclusion, rather than as being the important part of the paragraph. It could just as well be in a footnote... But it did become much longer on hendrickx's request, perhaps that's why it seems a bit as if it takes over the focus? FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Boca do Chapim – not sure if it would be better to repeat that this is a Portuguese locality when the locality mentioned for the second time? Readers may forget … But I don't know.

Added for good measure. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Also not sure here: You sometimes write In 2003, Milner noted (with comma) and sometimes In 2007 the French (without comma). Wouldn't it be nicer to read if this would be uniform? I am aware that I am very nitpicky here.

It is important to be consistent; I usually add the comma, but the copy-editor didn't. So it's a matter of choosing, which version would you think is the most fitting for this purpose? FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I also like the comma, but its really personal taste only. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, comma throughout now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• I really would mention the Formation where the holotype comes from much earlier, both in the lead and the history of discovery (it is only mentioned in the palaeoecology section). Especially for the journal version. I mean, you name other formations less pertinent to this article, why not this one? And please change "Weald Clay formation" to "Weald Clay Formation" (uppercase).

Done, I am unsure if this phrasing is adequate, though: "a clay pit in the Weald Clay Formation near Ockley in Surrey, England". Does it make sense to say the pit is in the formation, or part of the formation? FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• The difference between the number of teeth in the upper and lower jaws was more pronounced than in other theropods – This means that the tooth count is known for the complete upper jaw? You currently provide only the tooth counts for the premaxilla and the dentary.

Only the premaxillary teeth are known, so it is just an inference by comparing the difference in spacing and size between the teeth there and in the dentary (specified). FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• The holotype specimen, which may not have pertained to a fully grown individual, was estimated to be between 7.5 and 10 m (25 and 33 ft) long and to weigh between 1.2 and 1.7 t – You write "the holotype specimen pertained", which indicates you are talking about the skeleton. Than you write "weigh" (in present tense); it reads as if you would give the weight of the skeleton, not the living individual.

Changed to "been" instead of "pertained to". FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• due to conditions at the pit caused by the weather. – reads a bit awkward; can you specify the type of conditions? Alternatively, why not simply write "weather conditions"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It was just due to being winter, I took your section option, which is closest to the source. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• The neural spines of the cervical vertebrae were low, thin, and not always sutured to the centra – Do you possibly mean that the neural arches are not always sutured to the centra instead of neural spines? Neural spines are part of the neural arches.

Oops, yes, I have changed this and added some further details on the neck vertebrae, which should perhaps be checked. The entire 1997 diagnosis should now have been worked into the description (though many of the features were left out of Sereno's 1998 diagnosis, so I guess they are shared with Suchomimus, but worth a mention anyway). FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• a grouping of early archosaurs now considered unnatural – maybe link "unnatural" to paraphyly?

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• In 1997, Charig and Milner rejected their initial proposal that the articulation between the premaxilla and maxilla was mobile. – This sentence stands somewhat isolated, out of chronology, and it becomes not clear what this means for feeding. Why not moving it further down, when the 1997 study is actually discussed?

I think it was there because it was related to their 1986 paper. But I just removed the sentence; I don't even mention their original suggestion, so not much reason to refute it... FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• abraded bones of a young Iguanodon – Maybe you can make a bit more clear that this was precisely the evidence for the scavenger hypothesis?

That was actually suggested before the iguanodon association was published, based solely on morphology. None of the pre-1997 sources that discussed scavenging (Kitchener or Reid) mention any such association. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• the pharynx (opening that leads from the throat to the stomach) – is that correct? It is only part of the throat.

Changed to "opening that connects the mouth to the oesophagus", better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Charig and Milner did not consider Baryonyx to be aquatic (due to its nostrils being on the sides of its snout—far from the tip— – but the nostril location "far from the tip" is not an argument against an aquatic lifestyle but rather the opposite? Maybe remove this bit?

Exactly, and it has puzzled me. But Charig & Milner use it specifically as an argument, so I'm not sure if we can outright remove it, but if you think it's best we can do it. Here is their passage: "The lateral position of the external nares, far back from the tip of the snout, seems to preclude an aquatic or amphibious existence". FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• As some spinosaurids have smaller nostrils than others, their olfactory abilities were presumably lesser, as in modern piscivorous animals, – this somehow implies that some spinosaurids (with small nostrils) were piscivorous but other spinosaurids weren't? I don't quite understand the conclusion.

Or rather that olfaction was more important to those that also took terrestrial prey, as stated in this sentence: "Olfaction may have been more useful for spinosaurids that also fed on terrestrial prey, such as baryonychines." I just added the bolded part, if it makes it clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• The palaeobiology section contains a lot of content about spinosaurids in general, and I wonder if it would be better to move some of it to the Spinosauridae article in the future. In particular, I wonder if the 2018 Aureliano study should really be mentioned here, as it deals explicitly with Spinosaurinae, where Baryonyx is not part of. This can be misleading.

I would tend to agree, but the info about the Brazilian tibia was added on request of a reviewer, and much of the rest was requested by Hendrickx. Doesn't hurt, I guess... FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• sediments of Hauterivian (Lower Weald Clay) to Barremian (Upper Weald Clay) in age – is that "in" before "age" too much?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• indicates that the environment was quiet at the time of fossilisation – at the time of deposition of the skeleton?

Changed to "at the time of deposition". FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• The girdle and limb bones, the dentary, and a rib were broken before fossilisation, – you use different definitions of "fossilisation" in this section. I would understand it as the process where bone is turned into fossil bone, that means, during diagenesis, and after burial. You use it in this sense here. However, earlier you state "taphonomy (changes during fossilisation)", although taphonomy is mostly concerned with what happened before diagenesis (the death of the individual and how it got into the sediment). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about "changes during decay and fossilisation"? From what I can find, it also covers fossilisation? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think everything is addressed now, Jens Lallensack. With some usual comments and questions. Feel free to add anything else. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, no more points from my side! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I'll let this stay open for a week more or so, in case someone else has something to say. FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by PaleoGeekSquared

Out of all the spinosaur articles, this is the one I've touched the least, so better late than never! Good job on the article expansion by the way, I'll be listing suggestions down below soon. Here are a few edits to the lead that I made beforehand:[2] ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Since it's going to be part of "your" series", it's appropriate you get a say! FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

History of discovery

• Link palaeontologists, theropod, and disarticulated on first mentions.

Done (only possible for the last one because we now have the glossary). FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Link 1986 to 1986 in paleontology.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Charig and Milner made the skeleton the holotype specimen of a new genus and species - I thought genera didn't have holotypes?

Yeah, this is a workaround where I attempted to mention genus along with species, so genus didn't stand alone. But I've rejigged it further, so that holotype comes after species, which might be a better solution... FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a reason you link specific name but not generic name?

Generic name is a disambiguation page, and Generic name (biology) redirects to genus, so it will just be a duplink. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• At that time, the authors did not know if the large claw belonged to the hand or the foot (as in dromaeosaurs, which it was then assumed to be[9]). - Not a suggestion, but this is interestingly, yet another case where a spinosaurid is initially mistaken for a maniraptoran (before Irritator).

Yeah, and for entirely different reasons! FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• vertebra remains - Perhaps change to vertebral remains?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• by the Spanish palaeontologist Carolina Fuentes Vidarte, and colleagues - No need for a comma before "and colleagues".

Hehe, no idea why that was added, removed... FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• In 1999, a postorbital bone, a squamosal bone, a tooth, vertebra remains, metacarpals, and a phalanx from the Sala de los Infantes deposit in Burgos Province, Spain, were attributed to an immature Baryonyx (though some of these elements are unknown in the holotype) by the Spanish palaeontologist Carolina Fuentes Vidarte, and colleagues,[16][17] and dinosaur tracks near Burgos have been identified as those of Baryonyx or a similar theropod. - I think this sentence is too long in general, could use a period somewhere in there (probably before the mention of the dinosaur tracks).

Yep, split. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• You might want to include Gideon Mantell's middle name on first mention, since that's the format you seem to follow for all the other authors.

Added the A.; it is a bit inconsistent how people present themselves, and Wikipedia at least seems to follow that in how they title articles (note the describers of Baryonyx only have the middle initial too). FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that is something I've noticed. I try to keep it consistent within the taxon articles either way. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• We don't usually link crocodile from what I've seen, just as I unliked fish in the lead earlier.

Hmmm, I think "crocodile" is a much more specific term than "fish". In any case, no one questioned it during the FAC, so I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Link to "tooth crown" on first mention of crown.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• development of the crown flutes (or "ribs") - In the parentheses, use "lengthwise ridges" instead, since it is less jargony than "ribs".

Hmm, the sources only say flutes or ribs, which seems to be the general terminology for these things, and I think "rib" is a pretty common term (not particularly jargony) so I think it is best to stick to it. I have added "lengthwise ridges" to the parenthesis, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Having two parenthesised explanations like that isn't something I see very often, but it works good here. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

*but with a ribbier surface - If you follow my last suggestion then you should change this to but with a more fluted surface.

Well, the source says this, though, and I do think the average reader would be more likely to understand "rib" than "flute" anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I know, I was just working under the assumption that once a technical term is explained, it can continue to be used as is. Though this is rendered null by the change of direction in my last suggestion, which is why I struck this one out. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• In 1997, Charig and Milner noted that two fragmentary spinosaurid snouts from the Elrhaz Formation of Niger reported by the French palaeontologist Philippe Taquet in 1984 were similar enough to Baryonyx that they considered them to belong to an indeterminate species of the genus, - Definitely a run-on sentence, should be rewritten a little bit, with more punctuation.

I put some of the circumstantial info in parentheses instead. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that works better. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• If I were you I'd link 1841 and 1998 to their respective years in palaeontology, since that's when Suchosaurus, Cristatusaurus, and Suchomimus were named. But after our discussion in the Thalassodromeus FAC I'm not sure if that's overkill or not.

Hmm, I think I'll keep it to when the subject of the articles are named henceforward. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright with me. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Description

• Theropods is linked in the description, even though that's not when it is first mentioned (see above comments). This is probably a consequence of rearranging the history and description sections.

Good catch, that is probably the reason. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Mentions of the pelvic bones could benefit from the same parenthesised explanations I used in Irritator, such as illium (main hip bone) and ischium (lower and rearmost hip bone).

Added those. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Classification

• from the Barremian to the Cenomanian ages - Perhaps use stages instead, and link the term?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Palaeobiology

• (a fish-eater) - "(fish-eating)" would be more concise, though only by a tiny bit.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• to herons or storks.[3][1] - Citations are out of order here.

I haven't paid attention to that, so they're out of order many places! FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• They also agreed that the conical teeth of spinosaurids were well-developed for impaling and holding prey, with their shape enabling them to withstand bending loads from all directions.[52] - Hmm, perhaps some of this biomechanical information on spinosaur teeth could be added to my Siamosaurus draft, since teeth are all it is confidently known from.

Yeah, anything on the use of their teeth could probably be relevant there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• This type of jaws was likely evolved for grabbing prey - Not sure if "This type of jaws" is grammaticaly correct, but it sounds a bit awkward at least.

Changed to "such jaws", better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• A 2010 study by the French palaeontologist Auguste Hassler and colleagues proposed that spinosaurids were semiaquatic - I'm pretty sure you mean Romain Amiot and colleagues, Hassler et al. are the authors of the next cited study on spinosaur teeth.

Yikes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Palaeoecology

• Everything here looks fine to me, though some of the paragraphs feel rather short (like other information could be added). Probably just me though.

Yeah, with tangential info like that, it is hard to know where to draw the line... I like to keep it brief in those sections. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Image comments

• Link genus on first caption mention.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Those should be all my comments for now, it's still a very well-written article IMO. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think everything above should be addressed now, and of course, feel free to add further nitpicks. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, nothing to add; all the changes look good! Even if there are still some issues to prune out, it certainly looks more comprehensive as an FA than it was prior to your edits. I see you also added in our newly acquired ecology restoration as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, also shows how much can happen in four years, and why it's important to keep updating articles even after they're featured. What was published at the time of the FAC is rarely the last word... Ankylosaurus also had a huge tranfsormation long after its FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I just found an overlooked conference abstract[3] (just after I had copied the article to Wikiversity, dammit), so I will ping the reviewers here for comments once I have incorporated it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I added the info from the abstract with this[4] edit, any thoughts about it, Jens Lallensack and PaleoGeekSquared? FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Reads good! I would replace "spinosaurs" with "spinosaurids" though, since that term was used elsewhere in the article and is more precise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course, good point! FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a few other suggestions:

• palaeintologist - spelling error.

Damn, I seem to be making more typos lately, probably because I got a new keyboard a few weeks ago... FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• and stamped down and impaled large fish with their hand claws, and thereafter manipulated them with their jaws, in a manner similar to grizzly bears and fishing cats. - Seems to go on for just a bit too long, perhaps use fewer "and"s.
• You don't seem to have implemented Lallensack's suggestion for spinosaurs -> spinosaurids.

Yeah, I waited for your comments so I could do all edits in one go! FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good otherwise, and is quite informative! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

All issues should now be addressed in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Reads pretty good now! Nice to see this article in good shape. We now have only one baryonychine left to complete this part of the topic, and with all the new restorations we have for Suchomimus, I feel motivated to start work on it. Now if only I can stop stalling with Siamosaurus... ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It also seems like Spinosauridae was a good pick for a featured topic, since its membership seems to be very limited, with few new genera ever being named (unlike many other clades that churn out new taxa every other month). The hardest articles to sort out will probably be the Spinosaurus/Sigilmassasaurus ones, but the rest seem more straightforward. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I will close this review shortly, but I just noticed that everyone but PaleoGeekSquared are credited for the images with their real names. So I wonder if you want your real name used there too? Same is the case in the Paranthodon WikiJournal version[5] by IJReid (which I only just noticed now). FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Done[6] and done. [7] Looks like the article's ready for the WikiJournal then! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Now added to the caption! Closing this peer review now. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)