Talk:Knoetschkesuchus

Knoetschkesuchus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 6, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Knoetschkesuchus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments will follow soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to note everything that comes to my mind, not everything needs to be resolved to reach GA status.

General comments

A way to improve this article lies in making it more accessible for readers without a basic understanding in atoposaurid anatomy (which obviously will be the majority). Accessibility can be, for example, be increased by adding the right amount of redundancy. I would suggest to start the "Description" section with two or three sentences summarizing general aspects of atoposaurid anatomy which are shared by Knoetschkesuchus.

I have added a bit, but I am not sure how much more I can pull from the literature (a lot of focus on the cranial anatomy!). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specific quibbles

For better comprehensibility of the lead: I would recommend to link et al, or replace it with "and colleagues".

Done (linked to wikt:et al.). Also wikilinked et al in the body of the text.

For the same reason: Maybe consider using crocodylomorph or even "crocodile-line archosaur of the family Atoposauridae" instead of "eusuchian".

Went with the former.

link Antorbital fenestra at first appearance in main text

Done.

The oval-shaped antorbital fenestra is quite small, being only 9% the length of the eye socket; its presence is unique to both species of the genus among atoposaurids. – I would remove the "quite" (does not convey any information).

Done.

Several times in the article, "Daniela Schwarz" is misspelled "Schwartz".

Fixed.

Isolated teeth show that there were at least six different types of theropods present at the locality, including the megalosaurid Torvosaurus sp. as well as an additional megalosaurid and indeterminate members of the Tyrannosauroidea, Allosauridae, Metriacanthosauridae, and Dromaeosauridae;[25] – You cited an preliminary abstract here, but the final paper is out already (Paper). Importantly, this paper states that the presence of Dromaeosauridae could not be confirmed.

Interesting. Added to the article. It seems like several other morphotypes were not actually found at Langenberg.

In Theriosuchus, the choanae are embedded in a wider bowl-like depression. – Why is the condition in Theriosuchus of interest here?

So as to distinguish Knoetschkesuchus from Theriosuchus. Clarified.

It also bears two convexities on the jaw, one at the third and fourth teeth and another at the eighth to tenth teeth. – Convexities on the lateral surface?

Ventral. Clarified.

walltransitions – wall transitions

Done.

pseudocaniniform – If you use "back" instead of "posterior", you might want to translate/explain this term as well for the clueless reader.

Done.

The pseudocaniniform teeth, which are the fourth and fifth maxillary teeth, are enlarged (about twice the size of the other maxillary teeth), more pointed, and more constricted at the base. – This is a bit confusing – is this a subtype of the first type?

Yes. Clarified.

respectively known as the Fundschichten and Ruafolge subunits – not sure if these are formal names for the subunits (Fundschichten is just German for "fossil bearing unit"). Perhaps better write them in quotation marks.

Done.

To conclude: Certainly a fine work, and nearly there; fixing the above quibbles should not cause major problems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

I think in this case the Paleobiology section can be merged into the Paleoecology section as it only discusses diet User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

I think you messed up in the cladogram here. Right now it reads Knoetschkesuchus --> Knoetschkesuchus langenbergensis & "Theriosuchus" guimarotae, but the source read Atoposauridae --> etc. Also, why're there quotation marks around Theriosuchus? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cladogram is perhaps a little confusing in the paper itself. Atoposauridae is pointing to the root of the bolded tree, which means that the label of Atoposauridae is appropriate. "Theriosuchus" guimarotae bears quotation marks because Schwarz et al. reassign it to Knoetschkesuchus, but I am not sure if it is standard practice to do so in cladograms.

I wonder whether Lythronaxargestes has noticed that the review has begun? FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I have not! I wonder why it hasn't been showing up on my watchlist. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you got an automatic talk page notification, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: The article is quite different from other GAs and FAs of extinct animals, as the description restricts itself to autapomorphies of the genus and, above all, to the two species. Consequently, the postcranium is not discussed at all, apart from the osteoderms, since it lacks autapomorphies. This might be a hard read for laymen. However, this approach is not necessarily bad, given that it is mainly based on a single publication (the first description), and additional notable features are difficult to uncover, and that this way there are no not-so-notable anatomical details arbitrarily selected from the description part of the publication. Having said that, I passed the article; congrats Lythronaxargestes! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]