Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review/Archive 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Guizhouichthyosaurus

I expanded and rewrote this article by a rather considerable amount last winter, though looking back, I'm somewhat concerned by the quality of my expansion. Specifically, I worry about going into excessive detail in many places, and would greatly appreciate feedback on that and any recommendations for how to decide what to include in the article and what not to. Also, I cannot figure out what the geological unit Guizhouichthyosaurus comes from is even supposed to be called, do any of our more stratigraphy-oriented editors know if some sort of consensus has be reached on it? Any other feedback would also be appreciated, but I will note that I currently don't have any plans to add entire new sections (for the moment, my main interests for major expansion would be Protoichthyosaurus and Toretocnemus). Thanks, --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 12:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Most fossils of this ichthyosaur are from the Guanling Biota (every marine lagerstatte in China is called a Biota), which is probably early Carnian in age. The Guanling Biota was traditionally placed in the Wayao Member of the Falang Formation, alongside the slightly older Zhuganpo Member (late Ladinian-ish) which has its own exceptional biotas. In 2002, the Wayao Member was renamed to the Xiaowa Formation, since "Wayao" was preoccupied by an Eocene Formation. This source[1] has a great discussion of the Triassic marine biotas of South China, and this source[2] describes the Xiaowa Formation in detail. A couple more clarifications: I think that the specimen which ate a thalattosaur is actually from the Xingyi Biota, part of the Zhuganpo Member/Formation, so there are some records from beyond the Guanling Biota. The Guanling Biota should not be confused with the Anisian-age Guanling Formation, which has its own marine reptile biotas. Plenty of sources still use "Falang Formation" to describe the Xiaowa + Zhuganpo formations. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This is very helpful, thanks for the links! I've changed "Falang Formation" to "Xiaowa Formation". You also appear to be correct about the specimen that ate the thalattosaur being from a different formation, this will probably deserve mention in the history section, though it will also necessitate a rewrite of the feeding section, so I'll have to think a bit about how to best rearrange everything. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Jens

Excellent article of high quality, reads very well. I did not encounter any excessive detail. Nitpicks below.

  • in addition to the Middle Triassic – I think I know what you mean (that Cymbospondylus has never before been reported from the Middle Triassic), but I found it confusing; maybe spell it out?
    •  Done
  • Unusually, the phalanges (digit bones) towards the tip of the digit are much larger than those closer to the base of digit II in the hindfins of some specimens – "towards the tip of the digit", is this already referring to digit II? Towards the tip of digit II?
  • In the point above, "unusually" refers to this species or ichthyosaurs in general?
  • In the description, it would be helpful to provide some general idea about flipper anatomy; e.g., how many main digits; as this information is needed later.
  • with the upper elements of digit II being reduced in size and no additional digit in front of it present – would this additional digit be digit I?
  • between the two halves of the sagittal crest where it splits at the front – is a split of the sagittal crest typical for ichthyosaurs? If not that might be worth mentioning in the description.
    • The sources don't seem to say anything in particular about this being unique to Guizhouichthyosaurus, so I'm leaving it out for the moment, although I don't recall seeing this trait described for anything else. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Through their simulations, the researchers found that the water would have stagnated around the snouts of the ichthyosauriforms, then flowed more quickly across their bodies before slowing down in the animal's wake. – This doesn't seem surprising to me, isn't that the case with any body shape, that the water is flowing more quickly when passing the body etc?
  • all resulted in similar net energy costs and drag coefficients and produced more drag than the other taxa seem to be contradicting each other.
  • while Triassic ichthyosaurs such as Guizhouichthyosaurus would have used anguilliform (eel-like) locomotion – that is a very general information that comes very late in the article. Add to lead, and maybe add something general on body shape at the beginning of the description section?
I've mentioned it in the lead (and given the lead a major overhaul). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • TR 00001 preserves significantly more than 100 gastroliths in its stomach region. – Why "significantly"?
  • As the thalattosaur skeleton shows little evidence of digestion, and the neck of the ichthyosaur appears to have been broken, Jiang and colleagues hypothesized that soon after eating its prey, the ichthyosaur died – I can't follow the argument, why does a broken neck indicate it died soon after consuming the thalattosaur?
    • From the paper: "the predator likely died soon after ingesting the prey, and that may explain the lack of etching of the bone in the bromalite by the stomach acid, as well as the strange detachment of the neck of the predator." I don't fully understand it either; maybe they were trying to say that it broke its neck from trying to swallow the thalattosaur? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 12:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • its gape was apparently sufficient to swallow the thalattosaur; – but you noted earlier that it may have been swallowed in pieces? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Even if it was torn apart, the pieces would still have apparently been rather large, from what I understand. Not entirely sure how to better phrase this, it's mainly just stating that the ichthyosaur could cope w/out cranial kinesis. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've gone ahead and addressed a few of them. I'll see if I can resolve some more later today. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 12:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of the above comments, how do the changes look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I have two superficial observations for now, does it make sense to say "fossils" in the infobox taxon when it seems to be a single specimen? And will you incorporate the restoration and size diagram you made of it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
1 -> not really (fixed); 2 -> I'll probably add the restoration once I find the time and effort to color it, but the size diagram is old and made before I really knew much about the taxon, so probably not in its case unless it's updated (though I was also under the impression that the diver diagrams were depreciated). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Related: The fluid dynamics paper is CC, you could probably crop the simulation for Guizhouichthyosaurus like I did for Cartorhynchus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Cool, I totally missed the licensing! I've added the diagram to the article. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Adynomosaurus

Finished my work on this article and plan to take it to GA, figured I'd run it through here first. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Jens

Cool, taking a look now. Will include any GAN-relevant nitpicks I encounter.

  • lambeosaurine hadrosaurid dinosaur – see MOS:SEAOFBLUE; maybe simplify by removing one of the clade names from the first sentence.
  • valuable in the lead is judgemental and therefore needs attribution, but is not sourced anywhere in the article. I suggest to remove it.
  • It is only known from limited material, – Any dinosaur is only known from limited material; this does not say much.
  • would've – spell out
  • or even found it otherside of Hadrosauridae – I don't understand this
  • estuary – link
  • which lends it its scientific name, from the Greek word for "weak". – this is only one of three words that make up the name? Could be confusing, people might think the name only means "weak".
  • the site dates to the upper layers of the lower Maastrichtian age – this confuses stratigraphy and time. Either "it dates to the early Maastrichtian age" or "it belongs to the upper layers of the lower Maastrichtian stage".
  • disarticulated – make sure to link all technical terms (this one could be linked to the glossary or explained in-text). Also link taxon.
  • and numerous pelvic and hindlimb bones – do you possibly mean "bone fragments"?
  • Due to the presence of two left tibia, the material belonged to at least two different individuals during life. – Would remove "during life", and I would add "it is thought that" or something similar.
  • in paleontological journal – "the" missing?
  • The specific name arcanus – first time you mention the specific name, but you never introduced the species. Add to the lead?
  • South-Central Pyrenean Basin – does that need to be lower case?
  • degree of stratigaphy separation, – "stratigraphic"?
  • More tomorrow. In general, the article seems to be complete and well-structured. The writing style seems unusual to me, but I can't tell what are grammatical errors and what are rare but correct ways of formulating things. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Fixed everything other then South-Central Pyrenean Basin, which is capitalized in the paper (based on a google search, it seems variable as South-Central Pyrenean Basin or south-central Pyrenean Basin between studies). LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Phosphatodraco problems

So while working on Phosphatodraco for GAN/FAC, I realised that the holotype cervical series were apparently misidentified, shifting the identities of the series (what was originally considered C5 was reinterpreted as C3 and C4 smashed together[3]). This shuffling has been accepted by later researchers, but as Kellner who identified the problem states: "Although not actually changing the validity of this taxon – which is based on stratigraphy, geography and morphology (the high and peculiar neural spine of the eighth cervical vertebra), the diagnosis must be changed (which is beyond the scope of this paper) and the estimate of the wing span reduced.". Problem is, none of this has been done subsequently, so all we have to write from is the original, inaccurate description. What to do in such a case? FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The closest precedent for this in an article I can think of would be the fibula in Argentinosaurus#Limbs, which was originally thought to be a tibia. The main problem with using it as a guide though is that I'm guessing the cervicals of Phosphatodraco are probably much more significant diagnostically than the fibula of a sauropod, so there's probably a lot more to say and disclaim than a single sentence... --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, and the problem is that these cervicals are all it's diagnosed from, unlike Argentino. But there were some good suggestions in the Discord server, explaining that the vertebrae have been shifted back, and then describing them generally with their new numbers, but then giving the diagnosis separately after the general description. After all, the individual vertebrae will have the same features whether they're one or the other number in the row, but the diagnosis will of course not necessarily hold up. FunkMonk (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Seems like acceptance of the reinterpretation is much more patchy than I thought after reading subsequent papers, and the debate long enough that I made a subsection for it. But I also made a handy modification of a diagram of the holotype, showing both interpretations[4]... FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wimanius

It's been a while since I last submitted something here, but here's my latest project. I'm particularly interested to know how well I did presenting the topic neutrally and what needs to be done to improve that--it was kind of tricky writing about this taxon given the taxonomic controversy early on that was basically forgotten about and never resolved. However, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Jens

Nice! Here some comments:

  • In the lead, add where Monte San Giorgio is (on the border between Switzerland and Italy)
Added, does this require a reference? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
No, because it is a "the world is round" type of statement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • The discovery of the specimen (who found it and when) has never been reported?
Not that I have seen, unfortunately
  • Incomplete skull … what is preserved, and what is not?
I considered writing this out, but I'm not sure how to best do this given that the identities of some bones are controversial (specifically the bones identified as the pterygoid, palatine, and postfrontal in the description; also Maisch & Matzke (1999) mention a prefrontal not listed in the description that I'm guessing is the original postfrontal but I can't find any confirmation of this). My solution to this was to just mention something about each bone in the description (though I did leave out the prefrontal as nothing much has been said about it, this could however be changed). I'm open to suggestions on how to accommodate this into discovery though. Perhaps just mentioning the approximate completeness of general skull areas (i.e., snout, skull roof, palate)? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Mentioning the approximate completeness is all what is needed! Just to give the reader a rough idea (especially since there is no picture). "Incomplete skull", that can be anything from highly fragmentary to nearly complete … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • would have 13 or 14 total – "in total"?
Done
  • Wimanius possesses palatal teeth, though the what bone they are located on is disputed thanks to – "the" too much? Also, "thanks to" seems awkward, as it implies we should be happy that it is incomplete. "due to"?
Fixed both
  • indicating that it would not have been separated very far from its mate when in articulation – first, I think that "mate" is not the best wording for an encyclopedia. Apart from that, I do not really understand this sentence; when they are in articulation, they must directly touch each other, so they can't be separated at all?
Changed to "indicating that the pterygoids would have enclosed little space between each other when articulated", mainly trying to explain a narrow interpterygoid vacuity in non-technical terms
  • Noting that despite their differences, it and Mikadocephalus were quite similar, therefore he argued – check grammar here.
Changed, does this look better? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, I have considered trying to do something about the lack of imagery, though the quality of the photos in the PDF of the description isn't the best, so I'm not sure if it would necessarily be worth it to devote the time and effort to this taxon compared to other image-poor ichthyosaurs. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
If you just want to bring it to GA, maybe it is not needed. If you want to bring it to FAC, I think it will definitely be worth it (because then, the article will get much more readers).
  • I don't think we necessarily need a "paleoecology" section here, because the taxon is so contestet. But maye a few sentences about Monte San Giorgio, placed in the "Discovery" section, would provide helpful background information. Because this is such an important fossil locality. Maybe you could also put an image of Monte San Giorgio, and maybe even the map that shows where it is, to have some images that I think will provide value. I have been to Monte San Giorgio myself, and should even have a photograph of an excavation there (although it is not precisely the horizon where most reptiles were found, if I remember correctly). Let me know if this could help. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Added an image and a little bit on the Mountain's significance, which I can expand upon if desired. I don't think that there's really any space for any more Monte San Giorgio images, but thanks for the offer! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Comments by SilverTiger
  • I agree with Jens, some kind of illustration of what bones are known is necessary. My preference would be a diagram (like at Riparovenator but an ichthyosaur skull) showing what bones are known.
I can see if I can throw together a quarry map sometime this summer, though I can't make any promises. Personally I'd shy away from reconstructing the skull as multiple bone identities are controversial. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  • The Description section is very jargon-dense with bone names, which can't be changed, but more of those names and terms need to be linked.
Done
  • Why is the Discovery section separate from the Classification section? The one paragraph under Discovery feels like it would be relevant and useful under Classification, along with a slight rearrangement to state first where and when it was found; second, that is was originally assigned to Mixosaurus; and then that was recognized as a new species and genus by researchers, with the rest of the taxonomic history & history of research following.
This is the norm for reptile articles (i.e., Acamptonectes, Peloneustes, Mosasaurus), though I definitely see why they could be merged here. If merged, would it be preferable to have it before or after the description? (Also, for the record, I'm not sure if it was ever officially assigned to Mixosaurus, as my understanding is that the description paper was the first time GPIT 1797 was ever mentioned in the literature). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Are there no cladograms with Wimanius in them at all?
There are two, I'll look into adding them later tonight. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Added --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Please put that it is sometimes assigned to the monotypic family Wimaniidae in the lede, and bold the family name since it redirects to this article.
Done
Thanks! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Peer_review/Archive_6&oldid=1182108188"