Jump to content

Talk:Acamptonectes/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 22:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
Thanks for the review, that was fast. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, FAC is the next goal. I'll probably take a reviewer role if Cretaceous gets going. Pinging our co-nominators Jens Lallensack and Slate Weasel. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent to this so I'll leave it to my co-nominators. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be easy to deduct what this means since the words genus and species have been mentioned earlier by that point. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think that the usage of "generic" is objectionable here (it has been used in other articles, i.e. Argentinosaurus and Smilodon, and others such as Irritator use both). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unusual adaptations in the body of Acamptonectes that made it more rigid" it might be clearer to say "made the spine/back/torso/body more rigid" because "it" could also refer to Acamptonectes itself, and rigid could mean it couldn't move very well   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "trunk". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was one of the first known ophthalmosaurine ophthalmosaurids from the Early Cretaceous, with previous records of Early Cretaceous ichthyosaurs consisting of the more generalised platypterygiine ophthalmosaurids. Thus, it provided evidence that, contrary to previous beliefs, no mass extinction of ichthyosaurs occurred across the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary" did we used to think ophthalmosaurines went extinct over the boundary? By specifying the Early Cretaceous you seem to imply ophthalmosaurines do exist in at least later stages of the Cretaceous. Also I was really confused by "with previous records of Early Cretaceous ichthyosaurs consisting of the more generalised platypterygiine ophthalmosaurids." Would it be better to word it something like "Acamptonectes showed that ophthalmosaurines survived the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary; previously it was thought, among ophthalmosaurids, only platypterygiines survived"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ichthyosaurs went extinct at the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary and ophthalmosaurids were the last ichthyosaurs. The previous idea was that we only had platypterygiines in the Cretaceous but this is not the case. I've tried to reword this but not sure if it's better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have to say that "the only lineage [...] was the [...] platypterygiine ophthalmosaurids" sounds a bit odd - not sure if it should be was or were here. Perhaps "It was long believed that the the generalised platypterygiine ophthalmosaurids were only lineage of ichthyosaurs that survived into the Early Cretaceous," would work better? (It also might be good to link generalised to Generalist and specialist species.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that'd be better, and what exactly does "generalized" mean in this case? Were Jurassic opthalmosaurids specialist feeders or something (and if so, it's probably not relevant to mention it right here)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the rephrasing. Does "not relevant" refer to the unmentioned specializations of ophthalmosaurines or "generalists" in the said sentence (just want to be sure before deleting the potentially wrong thing)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My intention in writing this that way was to dovetail with "the more generalised platypterygiines" earlier in the paragraph. If you think this is too confusing, it can be removed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is Valerie, but I wonder if it is important to the wider story? I'll see what my co-nominators think. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there's no point in omitting it, "and he was asked by Appleby's widow Valerie to..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't say. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is addressed under §Palaeobiogeography. Should it be moved up? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to mention it at all, you have to mention it by name   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed color to colour. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure about this, it would be misleading, also because bones in dinosaurs do not necessarily have the same characteristics as those in other groups. The red links just serve the purpose of calling attention to articles that need to be created or redirected, so they're not a bad thing. Not sure why so many have an aversion to them. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure we don't say that? This is just for its identification as an ophthalmosaurine by the phylogenetic analysis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Fischer and colleagues found Acamptonectes to be a member of the family Ophthalmosauridae based on several characteristics. These included..." well if its homoplastic within the family, then it can't really be used to place this genus in that family   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps with clarity, this result was recovered by the analysis and not the authors. These are just the phylogenetic characters identified computationally as synapomorphies of Ophthalmosauridae even if it is homoplastic. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would have been replaced by the more generalized platypterygiines, which had smaller eyes and longer bodies" having smaller eyes and less thunniform bodies doesn't necessarily mean they're more generalized, it just means they're better suited for shallower, calmer waters   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The paper directly calls them less specialised/more generalised so I think this is a fair statement. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction according to the source of the terminology [1]: impaling actually involves the teeth breaking the surface of the epidermis as opposed to just clamping down on it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A stage of the Cretaceous. I'm not exactly sure what the best way to specify this in the article is, perhaps putting Early Cretaceous in parantheses after its first mention? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified this in text. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be better to say how long ago it was   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for my co-nominators: how did we get the dates in the taxobox? Seems a bit synthetic... I also think we've overlooked the fact that the Cambridge Greensand is Cenomanian! Naish makes a big point of it: [2] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 134–132 mya is only mentioned in the lead and the taxobox, and even if there aren't any hard dates for the specimens, it's still good to give the time interval of these periods on first mention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usually these dates are already there in the taxobox, I have never added them myself. We'd have to look at different sources to find these dates, as articles about specific taxa rarely give them, since it's outside the scope of such papers. Do we even need the Cambridge Greensand dates, considering those specimens are not considered Acamptonectes anymore? Or is it to make a different point? FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, missed that the Cambridge Greensand specimens aren't Acamptonectes anymore. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is still a problem. Where did the date 134–132 mya come from?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source gives 130 Ma, which seems like a reasonable estimate. Changed to this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they got 130 mya because it's the roundest number in the Hauterivian time interval. I'd say it'd be more accurate to put that it lived during the Hauterivian and then give the time interval for the Hauterivian (also give the time interval in the body when you first mention it)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, any thoughts? My worry is that the text in this alternative would have more synthesis than if we just cited the popular source. This seems to be the last outstanding issue so it might be good to get this wrapped up. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can really do more than the sources do. The sources don't give a size estimate either, so we couldn't be expected to synthesise an estimate. I think it's kind of the same here. Best we can do is just give an approximate date of some kind. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember something like this happening with Tatenectes, I believe that Jens Lallensack recommended putting in the time range of the Oxfordian even though it had never been explicitly associated with the genus. I'm not totally sure what we'd cite for this, perhaps the ICS? I'd argue that stating the time range of the Hauterivian is very different from creating a size estimate, since as far as I know it's generally agreed upon when the Hauterivian started and ended. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever reliable source we can find should be ok, I was thinking more that we shouldn't try to somehow extrapolate one ourselves, but it seems no one is suggesting that anyway. If the ICS has it, it should probably be fine, better than a news source. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acamptonectes/GA1&oldid=991149790"