Wikipedia:Peer review/Plateosaurus/archive1

Plateosaurus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been told that it is not far from FAC level in many respects, but that other issues require major work to get to that level.

I suspect that the language and grammar needs a make-over, and I have started fixing things like missing non-breaking spaces and alt texts, but I bet there is a ton of other things to do.

Please advise!

Thanks, HMallison (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a proofread/copy-edit. I'll post anything content-related here.
The following two sentences "This indicates that Plateosaurus probably had an avian-style flow-through lung. The tail of Plateosaurus was typically dinosaurian, with high mobility." could do with citations. --JN 466 08:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done HMallison (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"While the bones are often significantly deformed, Frick yields skeletons comparable in completeness and position to those of Trossingen and Halberstadt": I am not sure "deformed" is the right word here. A "deformed bone" sounds like a pathological condition; however I suspect this is a comment on the state of preservation of the bones. --JN 466 08:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. QUESTION: "taphonomy" is wikilinked in the lead, and at the start of its own seciton. Should I also wikilink "taphonomic" here? HMallison (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea, and I've done it. --JN 466 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for doing this! I have read that text so often that I can recite it in my sleep, so I never pick up any errors anymore. HMallison (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling. :) Will continue later today. --JN 466 13:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Initially, when the genus was poorly known, it was only included in Sauria, with the possibility of being some kind of reptile." Can that be reworded? If it was included in Sauria, that already implied it was a reptile. --JN 466 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

"The first explanation was offered by Agassiz, who listed Greek platy/πλατη (paddle, rudder; Agassiz translates as Latin pala = spade) and sauros/σαυρος (lizard)": This sentence needs recasting and clarifying. Did Aggasiz translate πλατη as pala? If so, then we should probably say, "Agassiz translated this as Latin pala = spade". --JN 466 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed HMallison (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let you know I haven't finished reading through the article yet and will come back to it later. JN 466 15:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

take your time! HMallison (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest it might be best to attribute the Etymology section, as it follows the reasoning of one source that has looked at the history of the name in depth (and concluded that many other sources are perpetuating popular misconceptions). Just a mention of the author's name in the text would take care of it. --JN 466 11:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

better now? I hate writing "the following follows...." or so, even if it only is because I actually went and got copies of the sources and checked that Moser cited correctly. HMallison (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better. --JN 466 20:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sellosaurus is also seen as a synonym, but Moser does not state clearly whether he considers S. gracilis to be identical to P. engelhardti." As this sentence is cited to Moser, the "does not state clearly" comment on Moser is a bit OR-ish. --JN 466 11:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about the previous point further – we say "P. gracilis, formerly known as Sellosaurus". So Sellosaurus gracilis = Plateosaurus gracilis. Moser (ref 4) accepts the distinction between P. engelhardti and P. gracilis, according to the first sentence: "As of 2009, only two species are accepted as valid,[4][8] the type species P. engelhardti and the older P. gracilis, previously referred to as its own genus Sellosaurus". If that is so, isn't Moser then clear that S. gracilis (= P. gracilis) is not identical to P. engelhardti? --JN 466 12:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have both Gressylosaurus and Gresslyosaurus in the article. Both spellings occur in reliable sources, but Gresslyosaurus appears more frequently and is probably correct (I suspect the genus is named after Amanz Gressly). --JN 466 12:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed HMallison (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sellosaurus: Moser is not clear - which is not OR, but simply reading his text. He says that the validitiy of Sellosaurus as a genus is questionable, but he does not say anything on the question at species level. Not even a 'no comment'. Regarding the first sentence: :it should read like this: "As of 2009, only two species are accepted as valid, the type species P. engelhardti[4][8] and the older P. gracilis, previously referred to as its own genus Sellosaurus".[8] Moser and Yates accept P. engelhardti, and Yates puts S. gracilis into P.. Does the above version reflect the facts better? HMallison (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that Moser does not mention P. gracilis at all, and in fact does not mention there being two valid species? (Please bear with me if I appear slow here.) --JN 466 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not slow at all! Moser says all prosauropod stuff supposed to be a bunch of Plateosaurus species and a long list of genera is P. engelhardti. However, he cautions that not ALL prosauropd material is P. engelhardti. Of Sellosaurus, he says that the supposed differences are not sufficient to warrant generic separation. He does list preliminarily differences to Gresslyosaurus, based on figures in the literature, but does not disprove Galton's suggestion of synonomy.

Thus, he does say that Sellosaurus is Plateosaurus, but does not say anything about the species level at all. it is purely a discussion at the genus level. This automatically means that S. gracilis should turn into P. gracilis, but Moser does not write this in the taxonomy section, and Moser does not discuss at all if that then is a synonym of P. engelhardti HMallison (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the elegant solution is to limit ourselves to what Moser actually has said. E.g. we could say, Moser also considers Sellosaurus to be the same genus as Plateosaurus., leaving the species question unaddressed, just as it is unaddressed in the source. --JN 466 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, after a quick re-read of Moser I am re-writing. HMallison (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We sometimes give von Huene's full surname "von Huene", and sometimes we just have "Huene". Unless there is a different precedent in the English sources, I think we should say "von Huene" throughout. --JN 466 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will fix. HMallison (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In contrast, von Huene interpreted the sediment as aeolian deposits, with the weakest animals, mostly juveniles, succumbing to the harsh conditions in the desert and sinking into the mud of ephemeral water holes" -- the wikilink on aeolian deposits doesn't help a young reader very much. I believe we are trying to say that the sediments in which the bones were embedded gave the appearance of having been wind deposits or dunes. Am I reading it correctly? And could we indicate which site(s) von Huene is talking about -- Trossingen, Frick and/or Halberstadt? --JN 466 20:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on target, he wrongly thought it was wind deposits. I'll reword after I have done this:

need to re-read the old papers to make sure I list the localities correctly. HMallison (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that strikes me about this paragraph is that we have von Huene implying that the remains found are primarily those of "juvenile" animals, whereas in the previous paragraph we have said they are "all adults or sub-adults; no juveniles or hatchlings are known". Perhaps this reflects different uses of the term "juvenile" (nearer the hatchling vs. the sub-adult end of the spectrum), but if possible we should resolve the contradiction in the way we use the terms in the article. --JN 466 20:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, it is indeed different uses of the term that caused the confusion (FIXED). Additionally, Huene called animals non-adults (juveniles) that were fully grown, because he did not know about developmental plasticity in P. HMallison (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Current interpretation": This paragraph does not cite its sources (or rather, it needs an inline citation to Sander). --JN 466 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is the fix sufficient? HMallison (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to add an inline citation to Sander. Is it Sander 1992: "The Norian Plateosaurus bonebeds of central Europe and their taphonomy". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 93(3–4):255–299? One at the end of the paragraph will be enough; we don't need one after each sentence if the whole para is sourced and attributed to Sander. --JN 466 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gagh! I should not work after midnight, I forgot to add the ref tag I opened the edit window for! HMallison (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) --JN 466 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The old, widely cited idea that large dinosaurs, including Plateosaurus, swallowed gastroliths (gizzard stones) to digest food because of their relatively limited ability to deal with food orally has been refuted by a study on gastrolith abundance, weight, and surface structure in fossils compared to alligators and ostriches by Oliver Wings." I am confused here. On the one hand, the sentence sounds as though Plateosaurs didn't have gastroliths. On the other hand, we are saying that this conclusion was based on "gastrolith abundance, weight, and surface structure in fossils", meaning that there must have been gastroliths. What am I missing? --JN 466 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what you are missing is what is not said, but should be: the gastrolith hypothesis was based on a few finds, none of the Plateosaurus. It was expanded into a universal claim. It is false for all. I'll fix.HMallison (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar to all non-avian dinosaurs studied to date, Plateosaurus grew in a pattern that is dissimilar to both extant mammals and other dinosaurs." The apparent logical contradiction needs to be resolved. --JN 466 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"other" relates to the "non-avian dinosaurs", thus equals "avian dinosaurs". Fixing. HMallison (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the comments about humans' atypical growth habit also sourced to Sander & Klein? --JN 466 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I can't remember where that is from. Textbook probably. I'll have to check HMallison (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Due to the absence of individuals smaller than 4.8 metres (16 ft) long, it is not possible to deduce a complete ontogenetic series for Plateosaurus, or determine the growth rate of animals under 10 years of age." -- This sentence lacks a citation. (I am also thinking: if the researchers were able to identify that an animal was 12, or 27, years old, would they not also know how much the individual grew during each of its first 10 years? I suppose telling that an animal was 12 years old involves some sort of functional equivalent to tree rings -- and the tree rings of a 12-year-old tree do enable an assessment of how fast the tree grew in the first 10 years.) --JN 466 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sander and Klein again (I'll add). And no, since growth can be wildly non-linear, growth from 10 to 25 does not tell you anything about growth before. Also (I did not want to go too far into details), there is the problem that if growth was very slow initially, the ten year estimate may be off, because more 'rings' (lines of arrested growth) may have been absorbed. Alternatively, extremely fast growth may not have produced LAGs...... I glossed over this, because it has no place in this article, it should have its own. HMallison (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "growth from 10 to 25 does not tell you anything about growth before", how then do you know that 10 is 10 and not, say, 17? After all, the animal was 25 (say) when it died. Somehow you can tell how much it grew from 10 to 25. The task of telling how much it grew from 10 to 25 does not seem to be different in nature from telling how much it grew from 8 to 20, or 6 to 15, or 3 to 12. And if you knew that, you'd also know how much it grew from 3 to 6 to 8 to 10. (Just out of interest ...) --JN 466 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did say this needs its own article *grin* Indeed, 10 may not be 10, because this is a number estimated from what is preserved. THe innermost, early LAGs are always demolished when the marrow cavity expands. Os you can tell grows from a certain point, which initially is 0 years, but then moves up. Thus, you need a series that includes babies to be sure - and we lack them for P.. So we can estimate the amount of material missing, as well the number of LAGs missing, and this gives us an average estimates growth for the missing time period, but no details. If the curve was not linear, we are off. HMallison (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks; it makes sense now! :)

I am now once through. Just as a general point, FAC reviewers may ask you to add plain English paraphrases for the more obscure scientific terms like "aeolian deposits", "lagerstätte", "digitigrade", "pronate" etc. just so we don't lose our younger audience. Additional points you could mention, sources permitting: The paleobiology could perhaps mention significant predators and likely types of plants eaten. The evolutionary relationship to sauropods might be worth a mention as well somewhere, given that Plateosaurus is the most prominent prosauropod. Otherwise it looks good. Impressive range of scholarly sources. --JN 466 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very' much! You have been most helpful and thorough, and your work has greatly improved this article! I'll follow your additional suggestions, too, because they make a lot fo sense. HMallison (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure. Do let me know if and when you take the article to FAC. --JN 466 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, wilco! HMallison (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]