Talk:Corythosaurus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 19:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this over the next days or so. First, not sure what the external link is for? Also, I'd remove the subsections under crest, they seem redundant and over split the section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the external link and merged the two crest subsections. Good? IJReid (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I would perhaps also move the descriptive paragraphs under crest and skin up to description, since they're, well, about physical characteristics, rather than behaviour. Those paragraphs that deal with function should of course stay under palaeobiology. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. IJReid (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if C. intermedius is considered valid by anyone apart from the single study cited here. If not, it may not warrant inclusion in the taxobox.

Well, there is "Prieto-Marquez (2010)", "Campione et al. (2013)", "Evans (2010)", "Prieto-Marquez et al. (2012)", and "Sullivan et al. (2011)", and besides, what studies other than Dodson (1975) have recovered, C. intermedius as synonymous. IJReid (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you should cite them as well after the statement that says some studies find it valid. Also: Parks WA (1923) Corythosaurus intermedius, a new species of trachodont dinosaur. University of Toronto Studies, Geological Series 15: 5–57. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Only going to cite the ones by different authors (eg. not the other Prieto-Marquez papers). IJReid (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Done.

• Etymology could mention the meaning of the species name as well.

Done.

• There is redundancy in the etymology section and the discovery section. Since the etymology section is so short, I'd personally just merge the two.

Done.

• You could consider hiding the long synonym list, as in Lambeosaurus.

Done.

• "Remarkable" is a loaded word. Notable/significant or some such is more neutral.

Done.

• "because much of the creature's fossilized skin had also survived." I'm pretty sure it's not the skin itself, but impressions of it.

Done.

• "The two best specimens of Corythosaurus" Maybe explain what made them "the best", and the circumstances of their sinking. It was during WW1, which is a pretty important detail.

Done.

• For some reason, most of the first description paragraph is about the skull, yet it is outside the section devoted to the skull!

Done.

• The description lacks information about the postcranial skeleton. Should be beefed up, see for example Lambeosaurus.

I think this is done. Not a whole lot of postcranial material of C. has really been described that much.

• "Development and synonyms", I'd rename that section "growth" or some such.

Done.

All of the querries with the exception of the postcranial skeletal addition are done. Are there any refs not yet in the article that you think should be added? IJReid (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks better. Have you searched on the AMNH article site? http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/5/search Or Google scholar? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is also another picture of the mount in the taxobox[1], not sure which is better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the current image is better, although soon (once I find it), I might upload one of my personal photos, which I recall is better than both. IJReid (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Could be nice, and in general, new photos are nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "The arms of Corythosaurus were also small, and even though there size makes it seem like Corythosaurus was bipedal, fossilized hadrosaurid trackways show that it was a quadruped.[5]" Aren't hadrosaurs supposed to be both? And the source doesn't seem very authoritative. Would be better with a scientific paper. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed.

• I'm a bit concerned about the frequent use of Brown 1914 under for example "crest", for instance, a lot of reference is made to genera that are not considered valid/or dubious today, such as Trachodon and Stephanosaurus (all skulls of these he referred to have been reassigned). Furthermore, sine he only had the type specimen, some of the statements don't apply to the genus as a whole. For example, why is it relevant under the skull section that it is unknown how many teeth the holotype had? What matters should be in the genus as a whole, and other skulls are of course known where such features can be seen. Also, a lot of space is devoted to features in the holotype that are clearly due to postmortem damage, not sure how that is relevant under a general description of the crest of this genus. It is also not clearly stated that the skull measurements are for the holotype, not the entire genus. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Done.

I'm afraid Brown's description is completely outdated. E.g. what Brown assumed to be the nares are in fact pseudonares formed by folds of the praemaxillae. The real bony nostrils are in the crest! If recent literature can't be obtained, let yourself be guided by the relevant sections in The Dinosauria (2004).--MWAK (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to correct any obviously inaccurate material as you find it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Tendon bones are present on all the vertebrae, except for in the cervical region. On no vertebrae do the tendon bones extend below the transverse processes. Each tendon is flattened at it origin, and ovoid in the central rod, ending at a rounded point." What does this have to do with skin? And what is a "tendon bone"? Tendons are not bones.

Fossilized tendons. Changed section header to Soft tissue.

• "Apart from Corythosaurus very little other skin has been preserved on the feet of hadrosaurids. Saurolophus angustirsotris is the only other hadrosaurid that has a fair amount of leg skin preserved." The Edmontosaurus mummy probably has more skin on the feet than any other specimen. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no, but found ref and corrected.

• "Originally, Brown referred Corythosaurus to the family Trachodontidae,[1] although many paleontologists now classify it in Lambeosaurinae." As far as I know, no one uses Trachodontidae anymore.

Noted.

• "However, recent research has suggested that Olorotitan is Corythosaurus closest known relative" Is 2003 recent? The newer cladogram shows otherwise.

Done.

• "The sense of hearing in hadrosaurids also seems to have been developed." In hadrosaurs in general, or is there anything specific about this genus?

Just generic.

• It seems a bit undue weight that more than half of the crest function section is devoted to the snorkel hypothesis, which is general for hadrosaurs, and so little is devoted to the actual function. The correct function should probably come first.

Done.

• "The age in which individuals developed crests might influence why Parasaurolophus has such a large crest compared with other lambeosaurines." Why is that relevant here?

Removed, and replaced with more relevant info.

• "Corythosaurus casuarius is among the genera" If the entire binomial is used, it refers to the species.

Fixed.

• There does not seem to be any info on whether the two supposed species lived in different formations or times or not.

Done.

I have completed all the querries, does Corythosaurus now complete the GA criteria? IJReid (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking much better. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Proportionally, the skeleton is much shorter and smaller than Trachodon" Again, Trachodon. It is possible it refers to a species o Edmontosaurus, which was referred to as Trachodon bakc then, maybe check the source.

Yep, Edmontosaurus, noted that ref states Trachodon.

• The Romer stuff seems to make more sense under classification than description.

Moved.

• I cut out some stuff from the lead that was too specific, but it could nee something about palaeoecelogy, in very summarised form.

Added.

• There could be a description of the differences between the two species. I think the Triceratops article (and other genera with many species) suffers from a lack of this, for example.

Not really any info about it I can find. Probably is in only Dodson (1975), Parks (1923) and Arbour et al. (2009), none of which I have access to. I am not certain it is needed for GA, but since this article has an FA potential, should probably be added anyway. IJReid (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, I think this is now good for GA. For further development, I'd try to get as many newer sources as possible, this one relies a bit too much on old stuff. As always, it'll probably be possible to get sources through the resource request. Pass! FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)