Talk:Eremiasaurus

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eremiasaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Good morning, thank you for submitting this article to GAN! I will review your article, please just reply to each bullet point with a brief response if needed, and then I'll strike out issues as they are fixed. I will probably end up doing two or three rounds of the article but hopefully the process will be quick and painless.

• All images properly licensed on Commons and are sufficient in illustrating the article
• Article is stable and has no maintenance tags
• Random reference check of two citations shows no plagiarism or other issues
• it is strange to use "who", perhaps "that" or "which" would fit better
• "...medium-sized representative for this group" which group?
• Explain or link syntype in the lede
• "although some notable anatomical differences are present" such as? Or just drop this clause, it isn't doing much as is
• First sentence is very long and complex, consider breaking it up
• This is just preference, but the etymology of the scientific name seems somewhat out of place in this section
• I'm a layman (as are most readers), and the description section is the most difficult to write for laymen. If there's something I can't puzzle out, I'll note that here, and if there is a way to simplify it without being clumsy or losing meaning, please do so
• What does "robust" mean in this context? Is it quantitative or qualitative?
• "keel" and "process" are not wikilinked and seem to be jargon that could do to be explained
• "the teeth differing in many points..." differing in length, or size?
• Throughout the description section, there is a great deal of minute detail. I recently submitted a species article as well, and had to trim a lot from the description section. As someone who is well acquainted with the topic, you know what is more and less important. If you can, please give this section a run-through and try to cut down some of the smaller points. The tooth section in particular is very verbose and much of the detail is overkill for an overview of the species. I'd keep the focus on what characteristics set this species apart from other related ones, like the heterodonty.
• Make sure to keep the tenses consistent throughout sections. Present tense is fine for the description section but pretty much everything else should be past tense. Especially in the classification section - all of that should probably be rewritten to past tense.
• The paragraph starting "In 2017, a study revising..." is very difficult to understand. What trees are they using? Which grouping is it referring to? "Weighted parsimony analyzes" is hard to parse
• The paleoecology section is very well written and easy to follow, even as someone with no expert knowledge on the subject

Overall, this article definitely has GA potential with just a little bit of work. In the lead: expanding on the differences between this species and related ones, expanding on that interesting niche partitioning a bit as well. In research history: simplify sentence structure. In Description: trim down as much as you feel can be cut and focus on what makes the species unique. In classification: change to past tense and rework the second paragraph. Aside from those small changes, the article looks really good and wholly comprehensive. Fritzmann (message me) 13:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello or good evening Fritzmann2002, and thank you very much for suggesting corrections. I started to correct and remove the elements judged problematic, although not having finished everything either. If ever one of your proposals has been realized, do not hesitate to cross out one of the sentences that you have stated after reviewing the article. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Fritzmann2002, i think that i finish the revision and correct all thing that seemed to me and you as problematic. You can start the revision. Amirani1746 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Amirani1746, can you please annotate under each bullet point your changes? That makes it a lot easier for me to visualize all the changes and mark off what has been done. I should be able to finish the review later this afternoon, thanks! Fritzmann (message me) 17:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Fritzmann2002, most of the important changes I made were to simplify certain sentences (especially those in the introductory summary), remove elements that were too long or unnecessary while keeping certain elements. Some long descriptions had to be kept, because they explained in detail the important parts. I kept the etymology in the introductory summary, because many other GA or FA articles have and explain this detail (ex: Mosasaurus). Amirani1746 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Fritzmann2002 are you still available ? Amirani1746 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll complete the suggestions due to his inactivity. AFH (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Augustios Paleo, ah finally ! After months of waiting ! So, you, who have labeled several articles related to paleontology, what do you think of the current state of my article? Does it deserve the GA or are there are still modifications to be made? Amirani1746 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the article needs images of Eremiasaurus itself and there is some small simplifying that could be done, though I have simplified much of it already. I could also write up a small general paleobiology section as well, as it is similar to other genera. AFH (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not against for the proposal to add a paleobiological section, however it may be difficult to find, because i find no paragraph in the two mains sources which speaks about it. For images, it's possible, but at the moment I haven't found any royalty free image to integrate it on Wikimedia Commons. However, as far as size diagrams go, I think Slate Weasel (a marine reptile expert), will do an excellent job. Amirani1746 (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't promise anything though I could see if I can create a life restoration over the next week or so. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

So Augustios Paleo and Slate Weasel, this article is still worth it ? Amirani1746 (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The life restoration is nearly finished, it's just waiting for approval at WP:PALEOART. I have not taken a close look at the article itself so I'll let the people more involved in the GA review (incl. AFH, SilverTiger12, Hemiauchenia, InformationToKnowledge) make any assessment on its quality. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the help Slate Weasel, see you soon ! Amirani1746 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Fritzmann2002, so what do you think about the article right now (knowing that Augustios Paleo and Slate Weasel have helped me for correction and some details) ? The main elements that you have suggested me for corrections are crossed, but knowing that the two last suggestion was correted by Augustios Paleo, I don't know if the problem is still there or has been fixed. Amirani1746 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It is looking in much better shape now. I will run a second review within a few days at the latest, but don't anticipate any major issues arising so it should be close to promotion. Fritzmann (message me) 12:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer Fritzmann2002. Amirani1746 (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments by SilverTiger

If y'all don't mind, I also have a few comments, though overall this is a pretty good article.

• In the Research history section, the placing of the citations is a bit weird. I presume the main references, [1] & [2], are meant to cover most of the first paragraph, but the way they are placed in the middle of a sentence fails to convey that intent.
• The first sentence under the Skull section, "The skull of Eremiasaurus is has a robust build, but to the extreme seen in the related genus Prognathodon." seems needs checking => "The skull of Eremiasaurus has a robust build, but not to the extreme seen in the related genus Prognathodon."
• I agree that images of the Eremiasaurus would be a good additions to the article, preferably including any one or more of the following: a size comparison, a diagram that shows the known skeletal elements, a life restoration, and a photograph or either syntype. However, none of these are strict requirements.
• I have checked for duplinks and found only needful ones.
• All images are appropriately licensed.
• All sources are reliable.
• A source-text integrity spot check reveals no issues.

Overall, not bad. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Hemiauchenia

Analysis by Earwig shows that some of the phrasing used in the article is a direct copy+paste from the research paper describing the animal [1]. (H.T. SilverTiger). More effort is needed to change the wording (other than basic stuff like "UALVP 51744 and OCP DEK/GE 112", which is not really copyvio). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

A second consideration makes me think the entire Description sections needs to be rewritten to be more accessible- I more or less understand it but the average lay person likely won't, and there is no leading paragraph in that section that acts as a more-accessible summary before getting into the weeds. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments by InformationToKnowledge

I agree with everyone else that Description section is far too detailed. The sub-section on Teeth in particular seems like the one which would be the easiest to condense, potentially shedding a whole paragraph just through conveying the information more efficiently.

I would also suggest moving the image of a skeleton from Classification up to Postcranial Skeleton. I believe that Figure 2 from what is currently citation 10 (Madzia-Cau 2017, PeerJ) would work well for Classification instead. That paper is CC-BY4, so there would be no issues with copyright. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Second Review

Please respond to each bullet point individually (below the bullet point) with how the changes are implemented in the article, or if the suggestion is unnecessary. This just makes it easier for me to keep track of the status of the nomination.

Lead

• Language that "desert lizard" is translated from would be beneficial in the parentheses, I think it is mentioned later in the article anyways
• "known to have delivered a significant number of other related mosasaurs" one or two examples would be excellent here
• Is there a link that "paleo-ocean" could direct to?

Research history

• Are any of the listed authors notable? If so they should be linked regardless of whether they have an article yet or not.
• "Referred specimens of Eremiasaurus" I'm not familiar with how "referred" is being used here. Is it perhaps "related"?
• LeBlanc here versus Leblanc in the infobox
• Etymology section is very well written, very clear and concise

Description

• "The skull of Eremiasaurus has a robust build, but (not?) to the extreme seen in the related genus Prognathodon"
• "in dorsal view" could this be said more simply, perhaps "from a top-down view" or something similar? At least I assume that's what dorsal means, I'm just concerned that a reader might not understand which perspective this is referring to.
• "enlarge posteriorly" same thing here, would it be possible to say "get larger towards the back" to make it simpler?
• "laterally constricted and has a prominent median dorsal keel extending along the posterior half" I haven't a clue what this means; it may be too in-depth for this summary of a description of the species, or it could use some simplification
• "infrastapedial and suprastapedial processes of the quadrate are fused" same with this
• "autapomorphies" can we say "distinctive features"?
• which genus does P. kianda belong to? multiple genera that start with P mentioned in this section
• In general, all of these very specific jargon terms need to be defined, and then the simple definition should probably be used in subsequent mentions. This improves readability for someone unfamiliar with the terminology, while retaining the specificity of the original description. For example: the first reference to process could read, "rounded triangular tissue outgrowth (process) and then subsequent mentions of a process could simply read "tissue outgrowth" which is easier for a reader unfamiliar with the field to pick up and understand what the description is actually trying to convey. If there is something you absolutely think would lose all meaning if you did this, it is probably too much detail for this article and needs to be trimmed.
• "premaxillary teeth would have been pointed straight (up?) rather than projecting forward"
• "The three anterior teeth of UALVP 51744 resemble those of the premaxilla and are long, straight, and conical, teardrop-shaped to round in cross-section." split the description of the cross-section to its own sentence
• "These teeth possess only serrated anterior carinae (ridges)" as opposed to what? Also, this is what I was referring to, but preferably switch it to "ridges (carinae)"
• "bicarinate (two-keeled)" can just be "have two keels"

References

• While taking a break from going through the prose of the description section, I ran the article through Earwig and got a very high score of 82.7%. A great deal of this consists of long copied clauses in the description section. This makes sense as to why the section was overly-complex; it seems a large part of it was directly copied from the original description by the taxon authors. This is... not ideal. Biological descriptions are hard to make unique, but they are still subject to copyvio rules. I recommend the author take a look at the linked Earwig comparison and undertake a rewrite of the description section in particular for the dual purpose of making it easier to read and more appropriate for Wikipedia, as well as to remove any potential copyvio issues.

I have to make the difficult decision to fail this article for the time being. It is in much better shape than it was when first nominated, but ultimately my concerns, nor the concerns of SilverTiger12 and InformationToKnowledge have been adequately addressed. I would be happy to return and perform another review, after the description section has been overhauled in the way myself and the aforementioned editors have requested. Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 15:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Fritzmann2002 I don't think I will touch this article for a while, already because I have another GA nominee (Kaikaifilu), and in addition I am very active mainly on Wikipedia in French. But I'll see what I can do next for this one. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)