Talk:Cristatusaurus

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 06:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I'll take this one, seems you won't take it past GA anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reviewing! Nope, my Featured Topic template from before[1] still represents the extent of my plans for Spinosauridae. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• As I mentioned elsewhere, this more recent paper also gives an opinion on the synonym situation:[2]

Don't think I remember you mentioning this source anywhere but thanks for pointing it out! Implemented it.

It was here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• "Its first fossils were found" Always good to start the article body by naming the subject.

Done.

• I wonder if maybe the skeletal diagram and the current taxobox image should switch position? After all, the diagram is not a life restoration, and does show the fossils. I did the same in Nemegtomaia, from lack of skeletal mounts and better fossil photos.

Done.

• "the premaxillae specimens" Since premaxillae is plural, I wonder if this should just be "premaxilla specimens" or "premaxillary specimens".

Done.

• "where he referred them to a theropod within the Spinosauridae family" You could specifically mention here that he didn't name them yet, and explain why, if the source does.

Both done, Kellner and Campos didn't mention the reason for his referral of them, but I managed to translate some of Taquet's original paper from French.

• "from the Barremian of the Weald Clay Formation." Probably good to mention the country.

Done.

• "The specific name honors the late French paleontologist Albert-Félix de Lapparent." Any reason why? What was his association with the fossils, if any?

Done.

• "In 2003 analysis" In a?

Fixed typo.

• "Spinosaurus maroccanus is now considered by most paleontologists either a nomen dubium (name of uncertain application)[7][8][9] or one synonymous with S. aegyptiacus." If you include all this tangential info, you should at least mention the country and formation this was found in as well.

Couldn't find any sources on the formation MNHN SAM 124 comes from, the Tademaït of Algeria is as close as I could get.

• "a partial right maxilla" SInce you explain premaxilla, this could be explained as well.

Done.

• Since the claws are only referred, I don't think they belong in the first paragraph of the description, the holotype fossils are pretty much the only specimens that can safely be considered part of the genus. Also, you are implying that the claws are proportionally smaller than in other spinosaurs, but this is misleading, since the claws are isolated, and we don't know the size of the animal they belonged to.

Ah, sorry, must've misread the text. Looks like only one of them was smaller than equivalent Baryonyx and Suchomimus claws, the other ungual was about the same size. Moved that sentence to the last paragraph, and changed it so it compares only the absolute size of the fossils instead of proportions.

• "notosuchians like Anatosuchus minor, Araripesuchus wegeneri, and Stolokrosuchus lapparent" You don't give full binomials for the other animals listed.

Done.

Sorry to butt in, but Araripesuchus has multiple species, so this leaves it unclear which one. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Crap, I just forgot that's why I put in binomial names for the crocodylomorphs, Sarcosuchus is also known from two species, only one of which (S. imperator) is found in the Erlhaz. Putting them back now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, yes, but is it really important to note here which exact species? It makes no difference at all to the subject of the article. Not a big deal, it just looks inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added species names for the dinosaurs as well then. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

That seems like a more elegant solution. The rest looks good, seems there's only one point to go. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• "based on the dietary adaptations of the large diplodocoids that lived there" But you don't list any large diplodocoids?

Nigersaurus is a diplodocoid.

It isn't really large by most standards, and it is singular, the text kind of implies more taxa are meant. Maybe just say sauropods? Or what does the source say exactly? FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I read through the source again, must've misread it as there being other indeterminate diplodocoids in the formation as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• "in a convex ornamentation" Ornamentation seems a strange word for this, is that really what the source says?

I've seen the term "ornamented" be used to describe the spinosaurid secondary palate before, but changed anyways to "in a convex structure that formed the animal's secondary palate. This condition is observed in all extant crocodilians".

• The premaxilla measurements and size discussion does seem like it could fit right after the body size estimates, though? In any case, it seems odd that you go from morphological description of features, jump to size, then back to description of teeth and alveoli.

Great idea! That works much better, actually. Moved the ontogeny and bone measurement discussions further up.

• Lingual should be explained.

Done.

• "Both premaxillae specimens" Should be premaxilla then.

Done.

• "and the Spinosaurus maroccanus specimen (MNHN SAM 124)" Why is the specimen number needed again here, especially since you don't list it for the other taxa mentioned?

Removed.

• I wonder if there could be a little bit about lifestyle under paleoecology, as you added to Oxalaia?

Added in a paragraph on that, based on what little features are visible from the known fossils.

• "Cristatusaurus's separateness" Separation would sound less awkward.

Done.

• I wonder on what basis some synonymy claims are placed under history, while others are under classification?

I had a feeling this would be brought up. I was having a hard time figuring out how to separate the discovery and classification sections. The discoveries of Baryonyx and Suchomimus fit better into the history section, but at the same time they are tied directly to the synonymy claims by Charig and Milner, and Paul et al.. Any reccomendations for how to sort this out? Because I'm at a loss on it.

Generally, I'd leave nomenclature issues under history, and placement within larger clades for classification, as in Baryonyx. FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Like that?[4] ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks better, maybe you'd want to improve the flow a bit, so that the combined text makes more sense. For example, you have the old text ending with a bit on synonymy, then a new paragraph talking about spinosaur classification in general, and go back to talking specific synonyms again. FunkMonk (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I moved that more generally-scoped sentence to classification. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• "its fossils certainly belong to a member of the baryonychinae" Some writers don't find this to be a natural group, though.

Whoops, forgot about that! It's actually first proposed in the same Sales and Schultz study I mention in the previous paragraph.

• Cristatusaurus could be bolded in the cladogram.

Done.

• "of what is now West Africa" Why not just say Niger, which you don't even mention until the second paragraph of the intro?

Done.

• "a group of large bipedal carnivores with well-built forelimbs and elongated, crocodile-like skulls" Only stated in intro, which should only summarise the article body.

Done, placed in the last paragraph of classification.

• Personally, I would put the Baryonyx/Suchomimus skulls in the white space under classification to fill that up, and to make the history section less image heavy, but no big deal.

I think it fits better in the discovery section, since by the time you get to classification the synonymy debate has already been discussed. Plus, I think the "wall-of-text" effect from those two paragraphs would be more daunting.

I've answered all your comments, FunkMonk. Any other suggestions? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks good, a few comments on the added text below.

• "would have been likely been" Awkward wording. First been is redundant.

Fixed, it was a typo.

• "slicing flesh; as indicated by their sub-circular cross section and reduced serrations." I'm not sure this is the correct way to use a semicolon, a comma would be enough.

Replaced with comma.

• Alright, I think that should be it, will pass now. I'll be FAC reviewing the next spinosaur! FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Brilliant! Thanks again for reviewing. Now we have our fourth spinosaurid GA! The next FA will probably be Irritator, which is making some good progress right now, but it will of course go to GA and Peer review before that happens. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Good to hear we have more content to add to this article, FunkMonk, although its kind of annoying at the same time. I'm wondering, would it be best to crop the fossil images so they show only Cristatusaurus, or should we keep them as they are for the sake of comparisons with Baryonyx and Suchomimus? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I only noticed it because I started reworking the Baryonyx article myself, always kind of annoying when you think you're done with something, but well, it will never end as long as research is ongoing anyway. I think showing all the specimens in single images are mainly relevant for the paper itself (for the sake of comparison), not so much for this article. But do whatever you think makes sense (and the article has room for). FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the images now, they do look kind of samey, so could probably be nice anyway to include one full figure comparing Cristatusaurus with Suchomimus anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Was just about to comment on that, it's a common problem when there are multiple good images of a single subject. The one under Classification has now been replaced with the uncropped version. I might not get around to adding the Hendrickx paper information until just before the DYK comes out on the main page, though, seeing as I got my hands full at the moment with Irritator. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The timing probably isn't so important, as long as it is added at some point. Can't believe we overlooked that part, I guess the lesson is you should always check the supplementals... FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Since the DYK is in a couple hours, I just implemented that additional information from the Hendrickx et al. supplement. Let me know if there's anything in the added text that needs fixing, FunkMonk. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 07:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks good! Also interesting they note the postcranial material should be examined further (I think that part was new?), gives hope the situation can still be clarified... FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused by the situation regarding names in the synonyms part of the information box. Up till now I had the impression that when names are listed there it's names which the subject of the article would have priority over (e.g. by being the oldest name, or an older name being dubious, etc.), or where there's a choice of two different genera for the same species. But now in this article I see Baryonyx listed as a possible synonym of Cristatusaurus when Baryonyx has priority over Cristatusaurus, while the Baryonyx article lists no names at all in the synonyms section of its info box. And then Cristatusaurus and Suchomimus are each listed as a possible synonym of each other on both Wikipedia articles for these two genera. There seems to be a lack of consistency with names in the synonyms section of the info box? Especially when compared to other Wikipedia dinosaur articles? For example, the Pachycephalosaurus article's info box lists Stygimoloch and Dracorex as possible synonyms, Stygimoloch's only lists Dracorex as a possible synonym, and Dracorex's doesn't list any. In these three cases, names have only gone in the synonym part of the info box if the subject of the article would have priority over them, and I think this is how I usually see it done on Wikipedia. 2A02:C7D:B943:5F00:E6CE:8FFF:FE0A:2EA4 (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Most recent papers don't consider Baryonyx as synonymous with either, so it should be removed. But the situation with Suchomimus and Cristatusaurus is more murky, therefore they should be listed in either article with a question mark. Remember, the term "synonym" can mean both senior and junior synonyms, so it is no problem to list an older name as a synonym. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done Removed from Cristatusaurus, kept in Suchomimus. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply