Aigialosuchus 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
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
The first sentence of the lead is a little bit long (and therefore already difficult to read for people who just want to know what this article is about). Since the Danish material was not formally (?) referred to the genus, I'm not sure if it warrants mention in the first sentence.
until recently, recent research favours it within the more basal family Dyrosauridae. – Better to be specific here, "since 2016, it has been repeatedly placed within the more basal family Dyrosauridae" or something?
fenestra exonarina communis – you probably need to explain this term.
I don't even know if this term is actually a properly established one, I can't find much use of it beyond Persson (1959), but I've explained it based on what Persson says. I don't know what to say about the fenestra exonaris, that's a term that is used quite a lot but I haven't found a source that explains where this fenestra is located. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Depressingly little work has been done on Aigialosuchus - though the fossil material allows for it, there isn't even a published size estimate. The article mentions details such as the fenestra exonaria and the fact that the fossil preserves a distinct notch, but these are already discussed under other headings than the descriptions (do they need to be repeated)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry here as well, I somehow forgot about both your nominations! Concerning the point: I think that the current section "Description" is a bit pointless, since its content is discussed in other sections. Repeating is not ideal as well, because of the redundancy. Would it work to move that information instead? Or, if you repeat, keep the other mention of the feature as short as possible, so that it does not feel so repetitive?
No worries! I don't really want to yeet the description section, but it's been built up a bit more now so see what you think. I shortened the later mention of the notch in the jaw but couldn't find a good way to shorten the early mention of the fenestra exonarina communis. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I see, though, that the description in Persson 1959 is actually quite substantial. There is a lot of interesting information that could be added; not even all diagnostic features are included in the article so far.
You talk about "fenestrae exonarinae" and "external naris (nostrils)", I think those are the same. We sometimes call them "bony nostrils" which is more accessible to readers.
The mandibular symphysis (a ridge – the mandibular symphysis is the suture of the two mandibles. If you want a ridge, you need to write "The mandibular symphysis forms a ridge" or something.
Still not correct. It is only one suture ("the" suture), and its on the internal side. Try "the connection between the left and right mandible" as an accessible explanation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Aigialosuchus was long and was reached by the splenial bone.[1] The mandibular symphysis was unusually long – Here you mention that the symphysis is long two times, which is repetitive.
