Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Archive 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Adelolophus

I suspect the mere six sources I could manage for this rather obscure taxon hold it back from standing much chance at GA status, so I'll leave it here for feedback instead. I would consider the article "complete", I've milked as much out of the literature on it as I think is possible. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Funk

  • Haven't read it yet, but as is, considering how little it is known from, I think it would be fine for GA, considering that as long as all the literature is covered, there isn't really much more you can do. You can't add info that simply doesn't exist. Going more into detail, I think you could split the description into two paragraphs, so it doesn't look like a wall of text. Is there nothing on paleobiogeography? Other dinosaurs from the Grand Staircase-Escalante often have implications for this, as was the case in the FAs Kosmoceratops and Lythronax. And then a last thing, it could probably be easy to make a diagram showing the specimen within a drawing of a skull. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
There's certainly literature about Laramidian biogeography that could be pulled from, but none of it invokes Adelolophus specifically, unlike with Kosmoceratops and Lythronax. I could add it but I'm not sure if it would be straying too far from the subject of the article. A diagram would be nice if someone was willing to make one. If I was to split the description I'm not sure where exactly I would do so; there is no clear stopping point or shift in topic.
If it isn't mentioned in those sources, it is probably iffy to add. I found this source on Google scholar that apparently mentions it[1], anything useful there? As for splitting the paragraph, how about by the sentence beginning with "The dorsal process"? FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
That source just says it's the oldest American lambeosaur, already made clear in the article, and includes it in a list of ornithischians. I've gone and split the paragraph where you suggested. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The section looks less daunting to read, though! I'll have a look at the rest of the article soonish. Maxilla, taxa, and Wahweap Formation are duplinked, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In addition to duplinks, some terms, such as maxilla and lambeosaur, are not linked at first mention, but at second.
Duplinks should be addressed now, though I don't have the best eye for this sort of thing. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "unknown" and λόφη, "crest", referring to the anatomy of the species' presumed crest being unknown." Not something you can do anything about, but this seems silly, what if they do find a specimen preserving a crest?
I can confirm I am in total agreement... LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "The specific name is a reference to Hutchison" In reference or honor of? The latter seems more common.
Switched to honour of. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "may bridge the gap (in time)" Is the parenthesis needed?
I figured some lay readers may be confused, but I agree it's better integrated into the sentence. Parentheses around "in time" removed. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If a new diagram can't be made any time soon, I wonder if it would be better to show a diagram of another hadrosaur skull, which makes it clear where the maxilla is. Maybe part of this diagram could be used:[2]
Would be an easy edit, but such is beyond my abilities. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Parasaurolophus head reconstruction" You should establish the relevance of the image, here, like "the closely related" or similar.
Done for both parasaur captions. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Link mudstone and sandstone.
Done. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Nanhsiungchelyid turtle Basilemys" Should start with "the".
Done. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "The tyrannosaur Lythronax is known from the Middle Member of the Wahweap Formation, but the remains from the Adelolophus locality are non-diagnostic, so whether they belong to the taxon cannot be determined." Hmmm, I wodner if we should make mention of this in the Lythronax article...
  • "(a crested "duck-bill")" Could be reiterated in the article body, maybe also explain that these were herbivorous dinosaurs or similar, to establish context.
The description section does contain a brief aside about lambeosaurs being crested animals. I think the term "duck bill" falls under common knowledge and can get away with no equivalent in the body; I'm halfway tempted to just remove the term altogether. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "but it is despite this fragmentary nature very significant" This could be stated as strongly in the article body if it is so.
I've gone and removed the nebulous statement instead. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this could be taken to GAN, and once the above are fixed, I would promote it.
FunkMonk I've dug this out of the archive and replied to the given suggestions. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The changes look good to me, and I still think you could take it to GA. I've seen both shorter articles and articles with less sources get promoted; the article is as comprehensive as the sources allow, and that's the best we can do. You can leave it here and see if anyone else has further comment, and if you take it to GAN and no one else reviews it after a week, I'll promote it, because I already reviewed it with GA in mind here. FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Jens

  • I fully agree with FunkMonk regarding taking it to GA, there is no reason against it.
  • lambeosaurine hadrosaurid dinosaur – not ideal because of WP:seaofblue, and seems too complicated for the first sentence; maybe remove "lambeosaurine" or introduce it in a separate sentence.
I've tried removing "hadrosaurid" instead and linking it at "duck bill", is that satisfactory? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The type and only known species is A. hutchisoni; this type specimen consists only of a broken maxilla. – should be "the type specimen" or "its type specimen" since it was not mentioned before, and type specimen could be linked.
Done and done. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • this locality is part of the Wahweap Formation, itself part of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. – I'm not sure I would say a formation is part of a National Monument, it doesn't feel correct. Maybe "which outcrops within" or similar?
Done. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest to link "paper",
Done. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In the lead: finding it in Parasaurolophini – I would add the "tube-headed lambeosaurines" explanation here as well, making the lead more accessible.
Copied over. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • By comparison, lambeosaurins possess a particularly short medial wall, – you mean "low medial wall"?
The paper uses "short", and that term seems like it's more easily parsed (given the context) than "low" by laymen. I can't say I see reason to switch. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
When reading "short", I think in terms of anteroposterior length of the wall, not of dorsoventral height. Another alternative would be to use "less high". On the other hand, it should become clear in the context what is meant with "short", so I think it is ok as is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The dorsal process, another region of the bone, – the explanation is not particularly helpful. Maybe "a bony upwards extension" or similar?
I believe I worded it like that out of my own confusion as to its nature, so I'll gladly take your explanation of it. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • is again more similar to that of parasaurolophins – also for the other features: the source only speaks about Parasaurolophus ssp.?
It uses parasaurolophs, which would refer to parasaurolophins in general rather than just Parasaurolophus. That said, I think I'll switch to slightly less technical "parasauroloph" terminology. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • rather than sharply tapering one as in lambeosaurins – is the "one" too much here?
Switched to "sharply tapered as in". LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • palatine process (a triangular feature of the bone) – "a triangular extension that connects to the palatine bone" might be more helpful?
Same situation as with dorsal process, your wording inserted. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The shape of the bottom edge of the bone, along the toothrow, is drastically different from other North American relatives, including Parasaurolophus. – would be good to state what the difference is, or at least give an example.
Added a bit at the end, hopefully clears things up. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • first paragraph in Description lacks a source.
Product of splitting the once single paragraph, fixed. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The geology of the formation is characterized by mudstone and sandstone. – "The lithology" might be more correct, but you could also phrase it "the formation is composed of mudstone and sandstone". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Swapped to the latter wording. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Coelacanth

I think that the Coelacanth article has a tricky balancing act between the discussing the living species of the genus Latimeria and discussing the prehistoric diversity of the group. I think the structure of the "Fossil record" section is lacklustre and could do with some revision. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It's probably extra messy, because until 2009 (see discussion[3]) the extant genus didn't even have a separate article, but was covered in the coelacanth article along with the entire group, while many obscure prehistoric genera had their own articles... Took a few discussions before it was even split off.[4] And the sloppy nature of the article is probably a remnant of that earlier state. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that's likely part of reason why the article is so messy. The Coelacanth article averages nearly 2,000 views a day while Latimeria averages around 130, for reference. I think that it may be better to merge the discovery of fossil coelacanths in the 19th century into the discovery section at the beginning of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ambulocetus

I got this to GA a bit earlier and intended to go to FAC, but got distracted. What do you guys think about this?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated it for FAC for those interested   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
My plate is a bit full at the moment, but I'll try to get a look at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Jens

General/content

  • General comment: Since this genus is so important for the understanding of wale evolution, shouldn't there be much more about the implications this fossil had, and has, on our understanding of whale evolution? The second paragraph of the "Discovery" section could be expanded in this regard; a separate "Evolution" section might also work. Right now we read that "Ambulocetus represents a critical intermediate between land mammals and marine cetaceans", but we don't know what exactly we did learn from it. This discussion could also come with more background information on the early evolution of whales.
better?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, much better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • How do we know it was aquatic? What is the evidence? Seems to be missing, at least I can't find it.
it's in the Limbs and the Locomotion sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The section always assumes that is was aquatic, it should first be clarified why this assumption can be made. The review of Thewissen (2009) mentions the size of the marrow cavity and the isopope data as evidence for the aquatic life style. That source also has brief information on some other missing information I pointed out. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
those are all in the relevant sections. The pachyostotic ribs are mentioned in Torso, and the isotope analysis in Palaeoecology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I miss a section on habitat. The fact that is was marine is only stated as an aside, deep in the text.
I moved it to the beginning of the next paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Worth noting that Ambulocetus was much larger than any pakicetid?
I could only find the length estimate for P. attocki so I added that in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hoe many toes in the foot?
I would assume 5 like the hand, but the foot is incomplete and I don't remember them directly saying the total number   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Worth noting that the other Ambulocetids are only known through jaw fragments, and comparisons with Ambulocetus are therefore difficult?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The leg proportions of Ambulocetus are similar to otters and seals – what are the leg proportions, can we have a summary? Were hind limbs longer than forelimbs?
it didn't directly say what otter proportions are, but yes. Is it not clear when it says the foot may have been longer than the femur?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have a book which seems to be highly relevant: Thewissen, 2014: The Walking Whales. Not included yet in the article. Since it is a secondary source, and also contains all the basic information the general reader is looking for, I feel the article should rely heavily on it. Most importantly, it has an detailed account on the discovery. It would be nice to give this a strong focus, as this "human" part of the story is what makes such articles enjoyable to read for most folks, and because such information is always neglected in the papers. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
added the part about discovery   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor

  • The holotype was found in a silt and mudstone bed over a 1.8 m2 (19 sq ft) area. These were – Refers to "the holotype", so "It was" instead of "These were"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • seemingly amphibious cetacean (now whales, dolphins, and porpoises), – the "now" is ambiguous. Does it mean that "cetacean" had a different definition in 1994?
changed to "living members"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • though the exact dating of Himalayacetus to Pakicetus is debated. – I don't understand what the "to" means here. "and"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe have Ambulocetidae in bold in the cladogram?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Upon description, Thewissen and colleagues guessed the holotype specimen may have weighed the same as a male South American sea lion – But they repeated that comparison with the Sea lion in their 2009 paper. Also, "estimated" might be more fit than "guessed"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Azilestes

Just created the article for Azilestes. Is there anything else I should add, or is what I've already got already sufficient?

Edit: If anyone could point out how to add a clade to the taxobox (I had to use an (unranked) tag instead) I'd also appreciate that. Borophagus (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've explained it in my edit summary there, but I'll explain it here again. To add the "clade" position you'll need to create a taxonomy template for the creature, then, instead of adding the usual "taxobox" then "regnum", "phylum", etc., you'll just need to either add "automatic taxobox" and then "taxon" to put the name, or "speciesbox" and then "genus" to put the name to the article. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
That'll help a lot. Thanks! Borophagus (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Jens

  • Though damaged and fragmentary, the holotype of Azilestes is one – before diving into this, the reader should know basic facts (there is only a single specimen, which is a fragmentary dentary with teeth. You take this knowledge for granted from the start).
  • dorso-ventrially – dorso-ventrally
  • This extends far posteriorly – "The symphysis extends far posteriorly"?
  • It is convex below the molars, but below the premolars and the symphysis it is concave in structure – not clear if the upper side or the underside is convex/concave, or is it the sides? I also would remove "in structure".
  • That sentence also lacks a source (I assume it is the same single source, but still, it needs to be put at the end of the paragraph).
  • The dentary preserves two damaged molars and four well-developed empty anterior alveoli, interpreted as corresponding to two-rooted fifth upper molar, and a single-rooted fourth upper molar and canine. – I don't follow here – four empty alveoli, but you only list three teeth.
  • is Valentinella vitrollense. However, the comparison of these two genera – Valentinella vitrollense is a species. Maybe just remove the specific name.
  • Shared attributes include a possible hypocone, bunodont molar crowns with bulbous cusps – Why is the tooth anatomy not discussed under description? This is the most important part when it comes to Mesozoic mammals.
  • Both text and lead should mention that it comes from the early Maastrichtian.
  • A section "history of discovery" would be nice (there are some tiny bits on it in the introduction of the paper); when it was described and by whom; and the etymology could also incorporated there. Also, the methods used could be added (e.g., a Micro-CT scan was made).
  • Phylogenetic analysis variably suggests Azilestes to be part of a zhelestid polytomy, a monophyletic Zhelestidae, or a basal member of Glires, though all but the latter recover it as the sister genus to Valentinella. – Which "latter" analysis? You did not list those analysis. Are these different trees published by that same paper? It should be made clear that you are not referring to separate studies, then.
  • Nice little article, see my "Fact check" above. You ask if there is anything you should add. You certainly can develop the to a much greater degree and add much more, if you want, and even take it to GA at some point. It is certainly already good as it is, but in case you want to continue with, you could make the lead longer (it should summarize the whole article), have a section on the geological formation (and the accompanying fauna), and a bit of background on the family. Also, you could provide wiki-links and in-text explanations for technical terms where possible, e.g. there is an article for Mental foramen. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll definitely expand the article when I have the time (probably within the next hour or so), but for now, I've incorporated as many of your suggestions as I can. Thanks!
ETA: As far as I can tell, the paper never elaborated on whether the upper side or underside of the mandibular corpus is convex or concave, nor if the fourth tooth is even known. Borophagus (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Chinatichampsus

I know I seem to pop up quite a lot on this section, but I'm working on the article for Chinatichampsus. With luck, there'll be a cladogram soon, but in the meantime, what should I change? Thanks in advance! Borophagus talk 11:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • In general, you could try to improve comprehensiveness for non-expert (for which we primarily write). For example:
    • caimanine alligatorid crocodilian – a bit overwhelming, maybe "alligatorid" or "caimanine" could be removed here? If important, it could just be in a separate sentence in the lead.
    • Lead needs to have the age.
    • It is a monotypic genus, containing only the type species Chintanichampsus wilsonorum. – The lead should be especially accessible. "It is a monotypic genus" is not easy to understand, and could be removed as everything is said by the other part of the sentence anyways.
    • basal – link to Basal (phylogenetics), or even explain.
    • The cladogram is a bit long and overwhelming. Not that it necessarily needs to be changed, if there is a way to simplify it to focus on the most important points, or if any of the clades be named, I would go for it.
    • conglomeratic, sandstones, generic name, specific epithet, dorsal, premaxilla … – link
    • In the image captions, maybe indicate the size of the scale bar, so that we know how large it is?
    • Towards the front, the premaxillary suture is oriented posteromedially. – Better explain what this means. I'm not sure myself how this can be posteromedially oriented; the suture should be at the skull midline already? Or do you mean the suture between the premaxilla and maxilla here (instead of the suture between left and right premaxilla)?
  • Though no postcrania were recovered, its describers hypothesize that it is a morphologically mature individual, – "postcrania" is plural, so that would be more than one skeleton. "Parts of the postcranium" instead?
  • It is always difficult to choose which information to include from the description. But at the moment, you have a lot on preservation and this premaxilla-maxilla suture. Maybe add more from the diagnosis to get a more complete picture? Important to add would be the number of teeth in the maxilla. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I'm working on it now.
  • "The premaxillary suture is oriented posteromedially" was not at all elaborated on in the paper, where they just say, "Anteriorly, the suture with the premaxilla is oriented posteromedially." After some thought I've removed it.
  • I'll admit, I did go on a little too much about the suture. Not entirely sure why, but I'll change it and add some information on the teeth. Quite egregious that I forgot that, actually.
  • Since I have no idea how to change or create cladograms, this is probably the best I can do for now. Besides, the original was even longer!
I've updated the article to reflect the changes you suggested, and hopefully, it's better. Thanks! Borophagus talk 09:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
If you specify a specific clade that you want I can shave it down to that clade. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe try every caimanine more basal than the Caiman and Melanosuchus lineage? Oh, and thanks! Borophagus talk 07:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Is this enough or should I collapse it further? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks. Borophagus talk 10:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thinopus

New article on what was once thought to be the earliest known amphibian. A few more eyes on it would be greatly appreciated! I am thinking about taking it to WP:DYK. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Couple of things: Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The formatting seems to be weird, shouldn't the sections be under heading format rather than subheadings?
  • What's the source for the fossil coming from the Scherr Formation?
  • Looks nice, in addition to the above, a few things below. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "which resemble toe pads (constrictions between phalanges)" Isn't the pad rather what's between the constrictions?
  • Link everything again at first mention outside the intro.
  • Etymologies?
  • The article leaves me with the question of why exactly a fish coprolite was proposed? Why from a fish and not something else? What features link it to fish faeces?
  • Citations to Abel, Williston and Morton?
  • If you want to go a step further, Google Scholar indicates some more historical citations that mention this genus, which could maybe be used for historical context. Like how it was interpreted between Marsh and Abel.
Just thought I should weigh in here. Spencer (2015) hardly goes into any detail on the coprolite hypothesis, merely saying, "Abel (1935) proclaimed the holotype of Thinopus antiques fish coprolite/coprolites, and I concur. It well resembles coprolites, likely made by fish, from the Early Mississippian of Novia Scotia (Mansky et al., 2012, fig. 5). Indeed, I regard hinopus as the earliest ichnotaxonomic name proposed for a fishcoprolite (cf. Hunt et al., 2012)." The paper's here if anyone wants it, but I think that saying it's a fish coprolite without prior explanation may be a little unprompted. Borophagus talk 10:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks all, I fixed those and improved what I could, and also added more text and images. I could not find anything on the etymology though. "pus" would be "foot" but "Thino", I have no idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The new stuff looks good to me, makes much more sense now! FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Mylodon

Oh, boy, this is a big one. A couple of months ago, I completely overhauled the Mylodon article (and I mean completely!), making it longer than that of Megatherium and pretty much longer than any other xenarthran's article (as far as I know). I did translate it from the German wiki, so there are probably going to be some errors I haven't noticed. I'm hoping to get it to GA (ambitious for a guy who's only been here just over six months, I know!), so what changes should I make to get it there? Thanks in advance! Borophagus talk 06:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Nice! You did translate only half of the German article, though, with history of discovery, systematics, and distribution largely missing. So at GAN, there could be a complaint about not representing all aspects of the topic evenly.
  • Try to go through the article again and wikilink all terms that may be unfamiliar to readers (genus, nasal, rostrum etc.). If the term is important for understanding the sentence, it is good to explain it in-text (e.g., inside a bracket). And at the same time, try to avoid technical terms when possible (e.g., "et al." -> "and colleagues"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply! I'm working on the edits to what I've already got now (the hyperlinks), and I'll try to translate the rest of the German article ASAP. Borophagus talk 09:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As Jens said, I'm sure there's a whole lot more that can be said abut taxonomy, but looks like you're on it. Would probably be good to have a dedicated subsection about diet under palaeobiology. Can take a look again when the rest of the text is translated. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Jurassic

Over the past few months I have totally rewritten the Jurassic article. It is now 6x longer than when I started. When writing it, I consciously modelled it after Dunkleosteus77's Paleocene article. Givens its length it is by far the most comprehensive of all geological period articles, but I must admit I think that a lot of the prose is clunky and repetitive. I also redirected the Toarcian turnover article into the Jurassic article because it had essentially no content in comparison to the TOAE section of this one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

For Paleocene, I reached out to Mr. Richard Norris, who's a professor at my university and is cited several times, to read over the article. Once Jurassic has become GA (I assume you're reaching for FA?) I can ask him to review it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The prose issues are probably best solved by listing it at WP:GOCE. FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Jens

  • @Hemiauchenia: Sorry for being late on this.
  • Since this is a very central article, it is imperial that it is as comprehensible as possible for people without any background. This applies especially to the lead. The lead is full of technical terms, and I fear that many readers just don't understand it. There is definitely room for improvement here I think.
  • I would try to explain the difference between stratigraphy and time period in-text. This is so central to the article that the reader has to understand it.
  • You explain the term "stages" in the "Geology" section, but the term was already used in the lead and history sections, where it is unexplained. Should be explained at first mention. Maybe have the "Geology" section as the first section, to make it easier to provide the basics right at the beginning?
  • The table in the "Geology" section does not indicate which are the stages and which are the epochs. Respective headings would be nice.
  • early Jurassic – should be "Early Jurassic" (capitalized).
  • I feel that the "Fauna" section provides detail such as first appearances, but somehow fails to deliver the bigger picture in some aspects. For example, it does not become clear what organisms were dominating the ecosystems (sauropods were the dominating herbivores, etc.). Also, the major faunal changeovers (e.g., from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous) are not well-discussed. Basic things like cosmopolitan faunas during the Triassic with diversification later in the Jurassic following breakup of Pangaea; how much faunal interchange was there between continents and Gondwana/Laurasia, etc. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Gorgonopsia

I got this to GA back in January with the goal of FA. What do we think?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Jens

Will have a look now, and add comments as I go:

  • The lead could be improved in terms of accessibility:
    • I would replace "clade" with "group".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • link/explain or avoid terms like postcanine, crepuscular, nocturnal, parietal eye, taxa
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "incredible" – editorial and not encyclopedic
exorbitant gape?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • They are thought to have been completely terrestrial – Still talking about the Rubidgeinae here?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Though gorgonopsians were able to maintain a rather high body temperature, it is unclear if they would have also had fur, sweat glands, or whiskers. – The connection between high body temperature and whiskers is not clear.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Gorgonopsian taxa vary very little, and consequently, many species have been named based on flimsy and highly variable differences – I think I know what you want to say, but "vary very little" and "highly variable differences" read like mutually contradicting statements.
"age-related differences"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • since their discovery in the late 19th century, and the clade has been subject to several taxonomic revisions – dot is missing, and the lead could have a bit more on history/taxonomy than this; the lead should summarize the whole article.
that abut sums up that entire section. The rest is different people revising the entire thing over and over again, which is too much detail for the lead (which is already pretty large as it is)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I would have expected the discussion on their extinction in the Evolution section, not in the Palaeoecology.
made a subheading (I prefer putting it in Paleoecology)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The rubidgeans were the latest, and consequently the most massive and heavily built, gorgonopsian group. – Why "consequently"?
"were the most derived"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem I see is rather that "consequently" implies that the most derived taxa are necessarily the largest. There is some correlation, yes, but birds are the most derived dinosaurs but not the largest. The "consequently" can't be correct. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I mean it's talking about the transition from dinocephalian to gorgonopsian dominance so I have to talk about the rise and replacement of dinocephalians   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but than you stop, and end up discussing dinocephalians more than you discuss gorgonopsians. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
dinocephalians are only talked about in the first 2 sentences of the last paragraph (and gorgonopsians take up the last 2 sentences)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Any whole-body length estimates to cite in addition to just the skull lengths? Or weight estimates? Just for the general reader to get some impression.
  • (though small species may actually represent juvenile specimens of other taxa).[1] – Does this mean some small species? Or is the claim indeed that only the large ones remained?
  • Like other Permian therapsids, gorgonopsians had developed several mammalian characteristics. – That would mean they did evolve these characteristics convergently. Did they?
  • (the number of bones per digit, which for gorgonopsians was 2.3.4.5.3 like reptiles[3]). – same in both manus and pes?
  • Other developments – "other mammalian-like features"?
  • and a secondary palate (which separates the mouth from the nasal cavity, but possibly gorgonopsians did not have this).[2] – I would move the "possibly" to the front, i.e. "and possibly a secondary palate", which should flow better I think.
  • Anatomy varies incredibly little between gorgonopsians. – I would just remove that "increadibly".
  • Notably – again a problematic word. Everything that is not notable should not be in the article.
  • eutheriodonts not linked or introduced.
  • Many species are distinguished by vague proportional differences, and consequently smaller species may actually represent juveniles of larger taxa. – Needs author attribution, and should be formulated much more carefully I think. It might also be better placed under taxonomy.
  • The "Skull" section, especially the first paragraph, seems to lack coherency (a common thread); reads like bit like a random aggregate of information. Maybe start with the general description, and then how it differs from related groups such as Dinocephalians.
  • Second paragraph of said section contains paleobiological implication that I would expect to find in the "senses" section.
  • to replace it when it inevitably broke off. – does that mean "when it was shed" (the usual process where the tooth root is resorbed until the tooth fells out of the mouth), or did replacement really require external input (that breaks the tooth off)?
  • The postcanine teeth were replaced more slowly than the other teeth, likely due to their lack of functional significance.[1] – I didn't check the source but it is really stating that these teeth had no functional significance?
  • I know you gave the phalangeal formula early on, but people who are specifically searching for it won't find it there; it should belong where the limbs are described.
  • In Africa, gorgonopsians have also been found in Karoo outcroppings in the Ruhuhu Valley of Tanzania, the Upper Luangwa Valley of Zambia, and Chiweta, Malawi.[6]:7 – Comes without context. Did these discoveries took place during Owen's times? Or "Since then"?
  • Many other contemporary workers created wholly new species or genera based on single specimens.[6]:57 Consequently, Gorgonopsia has been the subject of much taxonomic turmoil – there is nothing wrong with defining a species based on a single specimen per se, as this seems to be indicating.
  • Thus, it is possible that some taxa are synonymous with each other, and represent different stages of development – Is this really the consensus, as indicated here? Could do with more sources.
yes this is consensus, the only debatable part is establishing which genera are synonyms of which. I don't see how stacking 5 different sources together makes it more believable (like how do you know I'm not just leaving off 5 other sources which argue there should be even more genera?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Gorgonopsians are conspicuously absent beyond these 2 areas – Would be good to add more discussion here: Is this because contemporaneous fossil deposits are not present elsewhere?
  • I still find the "Evolution" section problematic. It first provides a lot of basics but nothing specifics on gorgonopsians. The background stuff is really helpful, though it would have been even more helpful earlier in the article. (I would consider having "Taxonomy" as the first section, with this background stuff as the first paragraph.
  • The last paragraph of "Evolution" is about taking over from the dinocephalians, and than nothing more. Means: The "Evolution" section does not really discuss the evolution of the group (which ranges from their origins to their extinction).
the extinction of the dinocephalians is relevant to the increasing size of gorgonopsians. Going extinct doesn't count as evolving and has more to do with the environment of the terminal populations   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I need to clarify: I think that this section does not cover the evolution of gorgonopsians. Evolution is not just origins and extinction, but everything in-between. There has to me more information, and the few bits present should be much more detailed and better explained in my opinion. This simply doesn't look complete. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
We go from the evolution of therapsids, then gorgonopsian rise to apex predator, and extinction doesn't count as evolution. That sounds like everything to me unless you wanna be more specific in what exactly you wanna read   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the article should be carefully improved (beyond this review) before bringing it to FAC. I like many parts of it, but there is definitely still much room to to improve on. Most importantly, don't state opinions as facts unless there is clear scientific consensus, which should be reflected in the cited source (or sources). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
if you're talking about taxonomic synonyms, I don't see the point of stacking 5 refs back to back especially because they'd all inevitably cite each other anyways   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the synonyms, I see that you use a secondary source for the consensus. Yes, this should be fine. But I think the problem applies more to many or most interpretations in "paleobiology". These are often singular opinions that need to be marked as such; I don't think there is always a clear consensus behind them that can be clearly demonstrated with the literature. This also applies to original statements made in secondary literature, if they appear there for the first time (because in this case, even a popular book becomes a primary source). I really don't want to be a pain, but we had this very problem before with the Neanderthal at FAC. I just don't like to see this happen again. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what you want me to do (I didn't understand the last time either). Can you be more specific (like "change x to y")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Instead of just presenting findings as facts, we should usually add phrases like: "a 2019 study"; "a 1980 popular book", "Several studies have suggested that". This demonstrates that the presented information is not necessarily the consensus amongst all paleontologists. The years are helpful to understand how recent the cited study is; this is important since you also use older literature (e.g., Cruikshank 1973), which could possibly be outdated. This kind of context information just helps the reader to evaluate the given information. I usually also add author names, but this is a matter of taste. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
which sections are specifically referring to?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I would especially check the sentences in which you use the words "may" or "probably", these very often refer to interpretations (and not facts). "And it may have predominantly gone after prey it could swallow whole" is a definitive example which should use author attribution. To be clear, I'm not going to complain about this at FAC, but I want to let you know that, if you get unlucky, this can be reason enough for people to oppose the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
the problem with saying "according to Dr. X" is that this implies only Dr. X is saying it and was the first one to say it, and either everyone is remaining silent or I've purposefully left out other people's ideas   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
If different people published this very statement, you need to point this out ("Several studies suggested …"). OR use a secondary source that summarises these studies. In this particular case, the author of the paper didn't cite anyone else for this statement, which is a sign that at least he himself considers it to be an original interpretation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • And as a next, closely related step to the issue above, I would be extra careful with formulations like "but in 2021 it was shown that the Early Permian amphibians …". This is, again, a singular opinion of this one paper. Using the loaded word "shown" can imply that this information is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was suggested. See MOS:SAID for details. Better use "suggested" instead of "shown", as this is more neutral.
that's only assuming whoever did the study is incompetent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Not at all. See MOS:SAID, this is the rule you would have to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Peer_review/Archive_4&oldid=1039851778"