Talk:Patagosaurus

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• For some reason I'm the only person who seems to review dinosaur articles (not to mention rock music articles) as of recently, but I tend to wait so others can get the chance, so I won't "hog" them. But well, this one has waited enough, I guess... Some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, what am I, chopped haggis?! lol. IJReid (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Why isn't Amydgalodon linked in tyhe intro?

Done.

• Info about referred specimens and such should be under history rather than description.

Done

• Also, I'd merge the skull subsection with the text above it under description, since it is so short anyway. That will also prevent the image from clashing with the subheader.

Done

• Could be nice to note what museum the taxobox image is from. I uploaded the image myself, but couldn't find the info on Flickr...

Argh! I just found this out when I nominated it, but my brain racking isn't helping! :( IJReid (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, refound it, now in article. I will add it to the image page as well. IJReid (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Many specimens of the taxon were all found" Would be good to write the name of the subject in the first sentence of the article, also "all found" seems redundant, I'd remove all...

done. Also reworded to portray intended meaning.

• "It can be distinguished from Cetiosaurus, a similar genus, by features of the ischium and vertebrae" Isn't this more relevant under classification or some such?

Moved

• "Over twelve specimens have been referred to the species" Earlier you write only a dentary has been referred, what is correct?

Corrected

• Also, I'd probably collect all the referred specimen info in the paragraph at the end of the section, which already has this as its focus.

Moved

• "He named for them the genus Patagosaurus, as well as its type species P. fariasi." An odd sentence, I'd think he based the taxon on the fossils, and that the taxon is what was named?

Reworded

• The sentence about the name meaning oddly hangs by itself, would make more sense right after the part where you mention the coining of the binomial.

Moved

• "Patagosaurus is a more generalised sauropod" Doesn't mean anything to most people if you don't state compared to what.

Reworded

• "although juveniles are known to be much smaller in size" Isn't that so obvious as to be redundant? Does the source say this?

Removed

• "Patagosaurus is almost completely known, with many articulated specimens found covering almost all of the skeleton, including parts of the skull." Would also seem to belong under discovery.

Moved and reworded

• Remember that wikilinks should be used at the first mention of a word, not at later mentions.

Removed duplinks, will finish rest later. IJReid (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• "with a recent revision by Oliver Rahut identifying only a few jaws are certainly referrable to it" What is identified here? "Determining" would make more sense.

Reworded

• "are similar generally to" Isn't it more common to say generally similar?

Changed

• "Starting from the very end of the first vertebrae" Singular, so should be "first vertebra".

Changed

• There are words in almost every sentence of the postcranial skeleton section that most readers would be unfamiliar, try to simplify, wikilink, and explain as much as you can.

I think I got them all

• Several features are referred to as "unique", without the text explaining why. Unique compared to what?

Explained

"as they become thinner and thinner the farther from the scapulae" Why "thinner and thinner" and not something like "gradually thinner"?

Changed

• I miss a general description of the animal. The average reader would have no idea how this animal looked like by reading all the anatomical minutiae. "Generalised bauplan" means little to nothing, you need some more explanation. Was it four legged? Did it have a long neck and tail? As simple as that.

A little more detail, like what about the small head? IJReid (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think the changes are good, and it is almost there, I'll comment on the rest of the article now, and when those issues are fixed, it should be good to go. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Anything that suggests what kind of plants this animal ate? Tooth morphology?

Not much on teeth, what is available is added

• Derived and primitive need explanation or links.

Linked

• "finding Patagosaurus as a cetiosaurid." Maybe add "again"?

Added

• "and cetiosaurines were the only true cetiosaurids. Upchurch found Patagosaurus, Cetiosaurus and Amygdalodon to be the only cetiosaurids" Repeating essentially the same info in two sentences, could be merged.

Merged

• "They found that Patagosaurus was in fact not a sister taxon of Cetiosaurus" Seems they also obliterated cetiosauridae? Should be noted.

Added

• Not sure why Fauna should be separated form palaeoecology. The sections are so small, and fauna is part of ecology anyhow.

removed subheader, kept paragraphs separate

• "Patagosaurus is from" Was found/discovered in sounds more accurate.

Corrected

• "In fact, "the fossil record" Direct quotes and claims need attribution in the text.

Added attribution, first name unknown

• "The Cañadon Asfalto Formation, which existed about" It still exists, it is dated to have been formed/representing that time.

Was deposited

• "and dinosaurs." Since it would had interacted with other dinosaurs, you could mention which are known from there.

Mentions in the next sentence of the paragraph

• The lead is shorter than usual, which is good, but there is no overall description of the animal, only anatomical minutiae. You wouldn't know what the animal looked like if there weren't images!

Added

• Alright, looks good. I think "debunking" is a bit too informal, though. Cetiosauridae wasn't a hoax after all... FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed to "invalidating". All querries have now been fixed. IJReid (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that means PASSED! FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)