Talk:Monster of Aramberri

The author of this article needs to view the article Liopleurodon. The Aramberri monster is not a Liopleurodon, and any currently know pliosaur exceeds 17 m.--Rextron (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the inspiration for the WWD Liopleurodon

The colossal Liopleurodon in WWD was not based on the Monster of Aramberri but on fragmentary fossils from the Oxford Clay. It literally says so in the tie-in "Walking with Dinosaurs: The Evidence", co-written by David Martill, one of the chief advisors for the series and the main one for "Cruel Sea". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.110.133 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you send me link of the source ? Amirani1746 (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a Juvenile

Following [[1]], it may not have been a juvenile at all. And I never heard of the Monster of Aramberri being a liopleurodon. --Ornitholestes (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The page needs several modifications, many informations have no reference and could be the primary belief of some amateurs. I'll help to modify it, it could great that this article has a good rating.

As this specimen is not totally described yet, there's no comparison required with other large pliosaurids species and even less with the extinct megalodon shark. Only some over-enthusiastic media, when the discovery was made in 2002, 10 years ago, have stated this animal to be 20 m long. I have never heard of the 60 tons body mass estimate anywhere. The two research papers about it (2003-2007) talks about an animal about 15 m, which is indeed possibly the largest of all pliosaurs species. It seems that it's actual status as a juvenile have been revised in the 2007 publication.

Be careful with sources, Wiki needs reliable references and in this case, peer reviewed publications or public talks from scientists are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehd (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I know. I think there are so many modifications needed, that it will be a lot of work, epecially without having the Monster of Aramberri scietifically described. but there are several other pliosaurs also estimated at 15m, at least Predator X and Pliosaurus macromerus. It would be good, if there was a complete scientific revision about pliosaurs. --Ornitholestes (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monster of Aramberri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110101746/http://plesiosaur.com/database/pdf/Mexican%20giant%20pliosaur%20Buchy%20Frey%20Stinnesbeck%20077-084.pdf to http://www.plesiosaur.com/database/pdf/Mexican%20giant%20pliosaur%20Buchy%20Frey%20Stinnesbeck%20077-084.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928083027/http://www.redesgeo.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=144 to http://www.redesgeo.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=144

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Monster of Aramberri

I think it is not anything new. I think it might by a known animal from the fossil record.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Aramberri monster fosill anatomy.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Aramberri monster.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Amirani1746 (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 23:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I will review this now. We have one major issue, regarding GA criterion 1 "well written"; below are only examples, it is too much to pick up everything. Please fix these, and look for and fix similar issues yourself; if done, I will have another look and hopefully won't find such issues anymore.

Language (examples):

• During an excursion conducted in the fall of 1985[a] In the Mexican state of Nuevo León, – New sentence with "In" and dot missing, or "in"?
• under the code name UANL-FCT-R2 – "specimen number" is the term here, not code name
• As the hemipelagic sediments surrounding the region and the anatomy of the specimen contradict this initial interpretation,[8] followed by a first re-examination led by Marie-Céline Buchy and her colleagues in 2003. – makes no sense?
• among other things, – "things" -> "elements"
• The first concretion contains numerous postcranial elements which include, among other things, seven pectoral vertebrae (transitional vertebrae between the cervical and thoracic regions), fragments of coracoids and a left scapula, ribs as well as gastralia (abdominal ribs). The second concretion which included – you switch in tense here "contains", "included".
• The second concretion which included a rostrum with teeth was however lost and noted as such in 2003,[9] although it was briefly described by Hähnel in 1988. – "however" makes no sense to me here.
• The new fossils are still being prepared and should receive much more detailed descriptions for future work. – "in" future work?
• The Aramberri specimen is one of the largest pliosaurs whose fossils discovered are at least well preserved. – I don't understand. What means "at least well preserved"?
• Like all plesiosaurs, however, short tail, a massive trunk and two pairs of large flippers.[23][24] – verb missing.
• and some of them have even been lost regarding the rostrum and teeth – "regarding the" makes no sense to me, and I don't understand the sentence. You just want to say that the rostrum and some teeth have been lost?
• According to the descriptions, the rostrum would measure 60 cm (24 in) long – You can remove "according to the descriptions". If you give anatomical data, it is always some sort of description. Also, "would measure" means what? Is it 60 cm long or not? Or do you want to say "would have measured 60 cm in life"?
• it is uncertain whether the rostrum would come from a dentary – "represents" instead of "come from"?
• As these characteristics cannot be assimilated to a bite, these may prove to be a distinctive feature that could prove diagnostic of the animal for future studies – no idea what you wanted to say here.
• These characteristics are the foramens – the plural should be "foramina"
• The presence of this imposing pliosaurid in this region is an argument in favor of the existence of communication between the northern Tethyan domain where most of the fossils were found, and the epicontinental seas which bathed South America at that time – "communication" --> connection; "bathed" --> covered.
• Ichthyopterygians have been known since 2006[51][57] but it is from 2009 that ophthalmosaurids have been reported. – "but ophthalmosaurids have only been reported from 2009".

Sourcing:

• Just wondering what makes "The Plesiosaur Site" a high-quality reliable source? Is it a personal website?
• The ichthyosaur in question would likely have been the specimen's last meal before its death, but further studies are needed to confirm this statement.[31]
• There are mistakes in the references, e.g. "The monster of Aramberri and friends: News finds of marine reptiles in the Mesozoic of northeastern Mexico" (New, not News).
• Otherwise, sources are of high quality

Spot checks:

• it is likely that this specimen would have been one of the possible causes of the over-exaggeration of the measurements of Liopleurodon in the 1999 BBC documentary series Walking with Dinosaurs, – this doesn't check out, the source says it's the other way around.
• others check out.

Other major comments:

• Size estimates published in the media are absolutely not reliable and, I think, should not be mixed with scientific estimates. I suggest to move all of those media "estimates" to the "In popular culture" section, where size is already discussed.

Minor comments:

• Upper Kimmeridgian – should be lower case ("upper Kimmeridgian"), as substages are informal.
• “monster of Aramberri” – be consistent with capitalization
• wikilink terms such as postcranial, ventral
• et al. – elsewhere you use "and colleagues", be consistent ("and colleagues" is better as it avoids a technical term)
• The specimen was incorrectly assigned to the species Liopleurodon ferox by the media during the 2000s – The media cannot assign anything, and it is not really relevant what the media says anyways as they are not reliable sources in this case; we have to stick with what peer-reviewed publications say. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review Jens Lallensack ! I've corrected a lot of weaknesses that you have pointed out, I will start rewriting some elements soon. Amirani1746 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack I removed the Plesiosaur Site. Even if consider this site as serious because it mentions some of source used here, it was pretty useles, because it contains affirmations already sourced. Amirani1746 (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack what do you think about the actual state of the article ? Amirani1746 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is not at GA level yet, unfortunately.

• You did not seem to have addressed all my comments (for example, the spotcheck that didn't check out, which seems to be a mistake in the article). It would help (for both of us) to reply to each point individually, so that we see what has been fixed and what not.
• The "In popular culture" section does not seem to be fully supported by the provided sources now.
• There are some logic issues, too (you now write that South America has been covered by seas; it's the correct word now but of course it has not been entirely underwater!)
• There are still language issues to numerous to list them here (starting with the first sentence in the lead; here, "nicknamed" does not work with "as the", you can say "it was nicknamed the "Monster of Aramberri", but not "it was nicknamed as the "Monster of Aramberri"). You introduced some new ones in your fixes, too. GAN is not the best place if the language needs to be improved substantially; it really takes the reviewers a lot of time, and several rounds of review. Per GA instructions, the obvious thing to do in such situations is to simply fail the article because it is too far away from meeting this criterion. I suggested this to you before, but I really think that you should use a good grammar checker, for example this one (https://www.deepl.com/en/write). With this you should be able to fix at least most of the issues. Another idea is to use a translator to translate from French (e.g, https://www.deepl.com/en/translator). Whatever you do, you should find some way to improve the English of your articles to an acceptable level before nominating them at GAN. I am not sure if I have the time to copy-edit the article myself this time; at least not in the next few days. Please try something to improve the language by yourself first, and then we will see. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• No worries, I should have time to do a copy edit next week. In the meantime, please take care of the sourcing in the "In popular culture" section. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Jens Lallensack Well, I will therefore continue the work so, hope that your intervention will be useful ! Amirani1746 (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just checking; you are still working on the text-source integrity of the "In popular culture" section per my comments above? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was occupied on French Wikipedia, where I'm mainly active. Amirani1746 (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Jens Lallensack I know that the exaggerated size of the animal and the erroneous attribution by the media via Liopleurodon are important parts of the popular culture surrounding the animal, but I don't see why we would talk about it any differently. Amirani1746 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  To repeat: My concern above was that the statement "it is likely that this specimen would have been one of the possible causes of the over-exaggeration of the measurements of Liopleurodon" seems to be incorrect (it is not what the Plesiosaur says) and, more importantly, not currently supported by any source, since you removed the "Plesiosaur Site". If we have sourcing issues here, please check the other claims of the paragraph too, to make sure that everything is supported by the sources. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  There is the 2009 McHenry's thesis who also have these affirmations. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Unless I am missing something, he does not, at least not on page 360 that is cited in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Jens Lallensack There is also other pages mentionned in the thesis. Amirani1746 (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Closing note: I reminded you six (!) times to address the issue I pointed out in the "spot checks" above, and this is the seventh time (again, that sentence is not supported by the source AND, independent from that, it is inaccurate as well). Instead of addressing the issue, you seem to try to evade it. I did everything I could, but if I cannot persuade you to fix a clear and obvious source-text integrity issue, I don't know what I should do anymore. Before renominating, you would also have to fix the language issues, because the article still does not meet criterion 1 "well written". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.