Talk:Mymoorapelta

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'll have a look soonish, some preliminary comments. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• there are some WP:duplinks, not counting those in the cladogram,a which you can highlight with this script:[1]
• Do you have access to all relevant sources, and have you looked through everything relevant at Google Scholar and Jstor? Articles you can't find can be requested at WP:RX.
• No paleobiology section?
• It is good to break up walls of text like the huge paragraph under armor.
• Perhaps this is a better image than the one in the taxobox, since it also shows the tail:[2]
• Link terms in captions.
• "Paleoecology and Paleoenvironment" Don't think a double title is needed. Paleoenvironment has been recommended by some palaeontologists who reviewed here.
• Is there really nothing more to say about the skeleton apart from the armor?
• You could request a size diagram and life restoration at WP:Dinoart.
• I talked with TimTheDragonRider about them assisting with this review so they can get a hang of it, so you're aware. Also, when issues above are addressed, you can add "done" or such underneath. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Terms can be linked at first mention in the image captions too, such as Wyoming Dinosaur Center.
• "It wasn't until" Contractions are discouraged, check for this throughout.
• "Vanetta Moore and Pete" Who are they, paleontologists or random people or?
• "It wasn't until 9 years later" What year? Probably better to state explicitly than force people to figure it out.
• "that the first fossils referred to Mymoorapelta" The holotype isn't referred, so probably better to write "fossils that became the basis of" or some such.
• "over 25 square meters of the 150 square meter large quarry" Concert these and other measurements.
• Link holotype.
• "(original and diagnostic)" You could also just call it "the name-bearing specimen", that is more to the point.
• "after the discoverers of the quarry and the armored nature of the taxon" If the source does, you could clarify that pelta is the shield.
• Link ankylosaur at first mention.
• "The ankylosaur was also the first Jurassic ankylosaur" Repetitive to say ankylosaur twice, use the generic name at first instance.
• "several dorsal and caudal vertebrae" These could be explained in parenthesis.
• " namely a left ilium (hip bone)" You could say "a hip bone", otherwise it looks like it is the only one.
• Link osteoderm.
• "though the specimen has yet to be fully described as it was still in preparation when described" Repetitive with double "described", you could just say "at the time" at second mention.
• You could link fossil preparation there.
• Link and explain chevrons. Explain pes.
• "sacral shield" Explain where this is located.
• "In a 2010 abstract in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology" The journal name is irrelevant in the article body.
• Link strata and morphology.
• "smallest known quadrupedal" Quadruped or quadrupedal dinosaur.
• "with a 1998 estimate estimating its length" Redundant wording with double estimate. You could say "a 1998 estimate of x meters.
• "indicating an ecological and size evolution in nodosaurs over the course of the Cretaceous" How, when these taxa are both Jurassic?
• "as stated by Cope's Rule" This needs explanation, but in any case, I'm not sure this info belongs in description, perhaps in a part about evolution under classification?
• The text under Skeletal anatomy largely repeats what's stated right before under description, should be merged. I don't think the subsection is necessary as long as you have one on the skull and one about the postcrania.
• I wonder if this image[3] should be used in the skull section either next to or instead of the Gargoyleo images.
• Perhaps the tail comparison image would be more helpful under postcrania?
• While the article appears to be in US English as it should, measurements are given UK spelling, as this is inherent in the conversion template. This can be fixed by for example adding the abbreviation parameter.

Added some of these notes. The skull image you linked is a cast of Gargoyleosaurus’ skull on a mount of Mymoorapelta so I don’t think it would be beneficial to the reader. The image of Gargoyleosaurus’ skull is also clearer. I included the tail comparison figure in the classification section as it illustrates the difference between Mymoorapelta’s slightly fused caudals VS the strong fusion seen in derived Ankylosaurians like Ankylosaurus. Augustios Paleo (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Changes look good, I still wonder if it would somehow be possible for you to comment directly under the points, as I can see some (like the one about metres/meters) is unaddressed, and it makes it easier to further discuss individual points. As is, it's hard to figure out what is really done or not. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think the Cope's rule stuff had to be entirely cut, just moved to a more relevant section.

Could not find what this was referring to

It is the last sentence in the first description paragraph you can see in this revision:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Implemented in the Classification section

• Still seeing "wasn't".

Fixed

• Still seeing lots of WP:duplinks.

Fixed

• Since the latter part of the article has large empty gaps, I think this alternate photo of the mount that also shows the tail could be shown there:[5]

Fixed alternatively by reducing the empty space

Oh yeah, but I still think it's useful to show the mount again further down the article because only a very different photo of it is shown of it in the infobox, so it won't feel repetitive later in the article. Since it shows the tail too[6], I think it could be useful in the new "Armor and tail" section. FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Though I don't think it differs that much (it is the same mount after all), I've implemented it next to the latter half of the Paleobiology section

• More anatomical and technical terms could be explained in common words in parenthesis, look throughout for this, especially a lot of the stuff in description.

Done

• Anatomical terms should link to the WP:dinogloss instead of the general articles.

Fixed

• "has an oval mandibular glenoid faces" That faces?

Fixed

• Anatomical terms of direction could be "translated" to common terms so they will be understandable to most readers.

I believe I got all of them

• Link crocodyliforms.

Fixed

• "Between the depression of the jaw joint and the height of the coronoid process, there is a positive correlation as in mammals and crocodyliforms." What does "positive correlation" mean? Explain or reword.

Fixed

• Link bite force.

No such link seems to exist?

It recirects to Bite force quotient. FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Implemented

• Link and explain Homodonty.

Fixed

• "Homodonty is in most ankylosaurs" Oddly worded, say "Most ankylosaurs have homodont teeth" or similar.

Fixed

• "The wear facets on Ankylosaur teeth vary greatly, but in nodosaurids they are usually more extensive and steeply inclined than in ankylosaurids, demonstrating underlying patterns of shape-constrained function. In wear patterns overall, ankylosaurs demonstrate more variable wear patterns than the contemporary ceratopsids and hadrosaurids of the Cretaceous." Something that could be elaborated on or moved to paleobiology? It's about function, after all. Wat does it say about their diet?

Could not find information about this, though it might be out there

• "the contemporary ceratopsids and hadrosaurids" Link those groups.

Fixed

• Link Gastonia.

Fixed

• "more developed pterygoid muscles (MPT)" No reason to introduce an abbreviation that is never used again.

Fixed

• "in ankylosaurids.," Stray full stop.

Fixed

• Link Dinosaur Journey Museum in first caption it's mentioned.

Fixed

• Link dorsal vert in caption.

Fixed

• Link ankylosaurs in caption.

Fixed

• A life restoration could probably also be requested.

Done but not yet finished

• " In the ribs, Mymoorapelta has 13 of them" 13 of what?

Fixed

• "and the only other Morrison ankylosaur scapula from the Dry Mesa Quarry" Is this also a nodosaur?

Fixed

• "displays an intermediate" Add "morphology"?

Fixed

• I'd expect to see more comparison with Gargoyleosaurus under description, what sets them apart? Why are they not just considered the same taxon if they're so similar?

I think there's not much more to compare, as it seems like there's not much direct comparison possible due to lack of overlap. More could be added

• "of Nodosaurids and other Ankylosaurs" Should not be capitalised in their common forms, check throughout.

Fixed

• " preserved one at 11 centimeters" Convert this and all other measurements not yet converted.

Fixed

• "It is theorized that" By who? Give in-text attribution for such statements.

Fixed

• " Mymoorapelta preserves a category 2 sacral shield" This needs some context. Is this a way of categorising nodosaur shields specifically?

Fixed

• "as well as rosettes (a large osteoderm surrounded by smaller osteoderms, forming a flower-like arrangement)" Define at first mention of the term instead of here, same with other terms explained below their first mention instead of at.

Done for the rosettes, will be checking for more throughout

• "Arbour et al (2011)" Present her and give full name as you do with other people, and do it with other people mentioned later. I can see she is linked later, but as with everything else, this should be at first mention.

Fixed

• "could simply be an ontogenetic stage" Explain what this mean, as well as any other such technical term.

Fixed for ontogenetic

• The Diet and feeding section is a pretty chunky wall of text, could be broken into at least two paragraphs.

Fixed

• "Mymoorapelta, like its relatives, was a low browsing herbivore in its ecosystem that likely fed on the cycads and conifers of the time due to the lack of complex grasses in the Jurassic.[25] Mymoorapelta, like its relatives, was a low browsing herbivore in its ecosystem that likely fed on the cycads and conifers of the time due to the lack of complex grasses in the Jurassic.[25]" Repetition of the same sentence. Also remember links.

Fixed

• "provide evidence for fleshy cheeks and chewing created a fleshy cheek which covered the tooth rows" Something odd about this sentence. Chewing created a fleshy cheek?

Fixed

• "specimen's taphonomy" Link and explain the term.

Fixed

• Anything on how the armour and tails were used?

Added general information

• "during the famous" Hyperbolic word not needed.

Fixed

• "more recently in the Early Cretaceous and several distinct anatomical characteristics" And had?

Fixed

• Weren't nodosaurs also distinct in having sacral shields?

Fixed

• "and is in a flux." A state of flux?

Fixed

• "Euankylosauria encompased all members of Ankylosauria except for the clade Parankylosauria, which is a smaller group known exclusively from a few taxa that lived in the Cretaceous of Gondwana, rather than Laurasia where Euankylosaurs were endemic to. Ankylosauria and Stegosauria are now grouped together within the clade Thyreophora. This whole group first appeared in the Sinemurian age, and survived for 135 million years until disappearing in the Maastrichtian. They were widespread and inhabited a broad range of environments.[37][38]" Is any of this really relevant in an article about a nodosaur?

I've decided to keep the info on Parankylosauria since it provides some context for Ankylosauria itself. The section on Thyreophora including Stegosauria has been removed

• "James Kirkland and Kenneth Carpenter placed the taxon as a potential Nodosaurid" Only use last names at second mentions.

Fixed

• "Vickaryous et al. (2004) considered it" Give full name for this and others mentioned after.

Fixed

• Why is discussion of earlier classification schemes given after the first cladogram? Should logically come before.

Fixed

• "while Gargoyleosaurus is more advanced, further proving their distinction" But has there been cast doubt on their distinction? If so, should be discussed in depth, because that's one of the main things I wondered about.

See previous comment on the distinction between the two

• " In 1877, this formation became the center of the Bone Wars, a fossil-collecting rivalry between early paleontologists Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope." Is this needed in an article about a taxon named much later?

Fixed

• The end of the first paragraph under Paleoecology lacks a citation.

Fixed

• "This formation is similar in age to the Solnhofen Limestone Formation in Germany and the Tendaguru Formation in Tanzania." Why is this relevant here?

Fixed

• "Mygatt-Moore Quarry has been interpreted as an attritional accumulation of dinosaur fossils" But what is its age and level within the Morrison Formation?

Fixed

• " (Brushy Basin Member)" Expand on this in the Paleoecology section instead of too much detail about the overall formation which is not relevant to this taxon, such as the age of the whole thing.

Done in sofar as its relevant

• "Allosaurus fragilis, a large carnivorous theropod, and Apatosaurus" Why full binomial for Allosaurus?

Removed binomial for Allosaurus

• "The Morrison Formation in total is interpreted as a semiarid environment with distinct wet and dry seasons, and flat floodplains." Already stated in the preceding paragraph.

Fixed

• Really only three dinosaur genera known from the quarry?

Fixed

• The image under Paleoecology could probably benefit from being right aligned.

Fixed

• "described by Drumheller et al (2020)" Full name etc.

Fixed

• Link and explain denticle.

Fixed

• " (Meaning "Vannetta Moore's shield" after a combination of the name Vanetta Moore, one of the discoverers of the Mygatt-Moore Quarry that the genus is known from, and pɛltə "shield")" This is not what the discovery section states.

Fixed

• "is a monospecific genus" Too esoteric for the intro, you can just say later it is known from the species M. maysi, and then the reader knows there is only one. Now you don't even mention the specific name in the intro.

Fixed

• "The suborder name Ankylosauria was first erected by American paleontologist and fossil hunter Barnum Brown in 1923 for his genus Ankylosaurus and several other ankylosaurs that had been named earlier, though fossils of ankylosaurs have been known since the early 19th century with genera like Palaeoscincus, Polacanthus, and Hylaeosaurus." Why is this relevant for a nodosaur named in the 90s?

Fixed

• "most complete one is the holotype, or name" Odd way to put it. Say "name-bearing specimen" or such.

Fixed

• "and the best known nodosaurid genus from the Jurassic." Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info, needs to be mentioned in the article body with source. And isn't Gargoyleosaurus more complete?

Fixed

• "with large, with two horns" Something wrong here.

Fixed

• "and used these spikes for defense." Missing "it".

Fixed

• " to a giant sacral shield" Only called "giant" in the intro. Was it really?

Fixed

• "In the Morrison Formation, the area was dominated by gigantic sauropod dinosaurs like the famous Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus" But none of these are mentioned in the Paleoecology section.

Fixed

• "the herbivorous ornithopod ornithischians Nanosaurus and Camptosaurus, and the giant plate-backed Stegosaurus." Likewise, in Paleoecology you only mention animals from the same quarry, it seems. All this extra info should not be in the intro alone, either move it, remove it, or duplicate it to Paleoecology.

Fixed

• By the way, the easiest way to link to the dinogloss is with the template I use for the following link: vomer

Fixed

• I'm thinking "postcrania" could be called "postcranial skeleton", the former won't make sense to most readers.

Fixed

• I wonder if there is anything to add from this paper, it mentions Mymoora and we use images from there: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079887
• I wonder if there are other overlooked sources, which could be searched on Google Scholar and similar.

As for these last two, I might do a wider search for any literature that might have been missed originally. I have already been able to add some papers that provide good information for the paleoecology section.

Status query

Hello @Augustios Paleo and FunkMonk:, what is the status of this article? Editing seems to have died down. Is there more review needed, and are changes needed best addressed within this GAN or worked on more steadily over time? Best, CMD (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe Augustios Paleo has taken a break, and TimTheDragonRider has expressed interest in taking over. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I currently have a free week, so I'll hopefully be fixing up the remaining changes in the coming days starting with a copyedit review of the entire article. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes I have been very busy and will be busy for most of the year, though I may be able to find time at some point to work on Wiki articles again. Augustios Paleo (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging FunkMonk, TimTheDragonRider, and Augustios Paleo: the Discovery and naming section was edited shortly after the above posts, but nothing else in the six weeks since; the article still has a "copyedit" template on it. If the issues raised in the review still aren't being addressed after such a long time, the nomination should probably be closed as unsuccessful. It can always be renominated at some point in the future after all the issues raised have been fully addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It is still going to be worked on, and I expect some edits soon. FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

FunkMonk, it's now 2023, more than three weeks later, and no edits have appeared. Neither editor has reappeared since October 22, nor had the courtesy to post here after my recent query. If you're still inclined to extend things, may I suggest a hard stop at six months, unless significant work has begun? Or, better, that you close it now, expressing a willingness to review a renomination once the issues you've raised have been addressed, so it doesn't hang around at GAN indefinitely. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, edits are continuing now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, it's now 3 weeks since the ping from BlueMoonset. I think it may be time to call this one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, as you can see there has been progress recently, and I'm sure it'll be done soon. The GAN instructions say nothing about a time limit other than that the reviewer needs to give the nominator a minimum of seven days to address the issues given. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no explicit time limit, but six months is an extreme outlier, and I don't think it's unreasonable for people scanning the GAN list to pop in and see what's going on, especially as it's been weeks since anyone has replied here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be clearer if I show the progress by marking the comments off as done? TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added comments for what issues have been addressed. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimTheDragonRider and @FunkMonk we are now into March, well into 8 months of this nomination being open and no work since minimal edits were made mid-February. It's time to call it one way or the other - good enough or a fail. The article can always be renominated at a later date if it's a fail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am working on the final edits (literally) at the time of writing this. There were a number of complications, mostly due to me taking over halfway through and having to search for any extra research while that would normally be lined up already. There are less than 5 points left for me to address, and the lack of edits can be explained by the fact that I chose to move to my sandbox for ease of work. The ETA for my final edit is today or tomorrow. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Finished up my final edits here. Porting them over now TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice, if you mark the remaining issues listed above as done, I'll go over them. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Done TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, I've added some answers to comments above, and once these are fixed, I should be ready to promote. I think it could even go to FAC later on. FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Considering the up and coming literature on the animal, including a possible redescription and more papers on Morrison Formation ankylosaurs in general, I could definitely see that happening, yeah. The final pointers have also been dealt with. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That should be all, will promote it now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)