Wikipedia:Peer review/Puertasaurus/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Puertasaurus

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to a) get this article to B-class and b) see how close it is to the GA-criteria to see if it might be worth nominating for GA status.

While expanding this article, I used the format of Brachiosaurus as a reference for building it. I have added four of the five major headings to this article (Paleobiology being the one not making the cut) based on what I could find using Google Scholar. This is the first major entire-article expansion that I've ever done, and to be honest, I'm not yet very confident in my article writing skills, so any input is welcome. I plan to update the scale diagram and add a life restoration once they pass review at WP:DINOART. I'm considering making a skeletal diagram for this guy if I can find proper resources.

Thanks, --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting! I'll start listing some suggestions, I think it should be good practice if I ever wind up doing a GA or FA review in the future. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My comments as I'm reading through it:
  • I'd suggest either shortening the lead or expanding the article body, since right now they're very disproportionate in scale.
I'll do this once the other changes get implemented. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • It was discovered in southwestern Patagonia. It was described by Fernando Novas et. al. in 2005. Perhaps this could be It was discovered in southwestern Patagonia and described by Fernando Novas and colleagues in 2005.?

 Done

  • Also, if you're planning on going for GA or FA, I would avoid terms like et al. (which the general reader wouldn't understand) and replace them with the more common alternatives "and colleagues", "and others", or "and his/her team"

 Done

  • I wouldn't use "biggest", as it's a rather vague and simplistic word. Even simple.wikipedia prefers "largest".

 Done

  • The discovery of the more complete Futalognkosaurus revealed that these estimates were likely too high. More complete than Argentinosaurus or Puertasaurus? Also clarify whose estimates you're talking about.
It is more complete than both taxa, but I clarified which estimates I was referring to. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2012, Thomas Holtz estimated it - Again, estimated Argentinosaurus or Puertasaurus?

 Done

  • (thought to be the second dorsal vertebra) - thought to be "a" second dorsal vertebra.

 Done

  • A 2017 study stated that its mass was estimated to be roughly around 60 metric tons --> A 2017 study estimated its mass at roughly around 60 metric tons.

 Done

  • A lot of terms under the description section could use links, parenthesised explanations, or simpler terminology. Examples being "craniocaudally", which could be replaced or parenthesised with "front to back"; fossae, parenthesised or replaced with "depression"; etc.
Done most of it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The per- and postspinal fossae on the neural spine are wide and deep, did you mean pre and postspinal?

 Done

  • Is there any more information on the caudal vertebrae? Right know it's just a fragmentary sentence, which IMO would be better to merge with the above text (your choice on that though).
Only that there is no more information, but I added the information about the lack of information (I hope that makes since...) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discovery section looks a bit short, surely there could be more to add?
I added the formation. What else should be added? Other Patagonian sauropods? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of the most diverse groups of sauropods. perhaps "sauropod groups" would be better?

 Done

  • Many of those animals, especially Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan were especially massive. Add a comma before "were".

 Done

  • It is generally recovered as stable, although a 2017 study found it (along with Quetecsaurus) to be the least stable members of the group. - What is generally recovered as stable?
Clarified (hopefuly) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

 Done

  • There's some very close repetition of the words "reported" and "environment" under Paleoecology.

 Done

I personally found the paleoecology section a very confusing read. So, you open with saying there's dispute, give the actual answer, and then talk about the past interpretations (the aforementioned dispute). This is a bit jarring since you slap the answer in the middle of the "dispute" discussion instead of at the end, and it's not in any sort of chronological order to make up for the bizarre subject order. Additionally, I'm left unsure of what the actual answer even is, since the answer is Cenomanian according to the Cerro Fortaleza Formation page (as well as the Talenkauen, Orkoraptor, and Austrocheirus pages) but the last statement on it in order is this: "These deposits were finally decided to pertain to the Cerro Fortaleza Formation, which dates to the Campanian or Maastrichtian." This statement leaves me thinking it came from the Campanian or Maastrichtian, since "these deposits" were "finally decided" to be from that time. Which are you trying to say is correct? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk |

contribs) 20:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better in flow, but I'm still pretty sure the Cerro Fortaleza Formation is supposed to be Cenomanian, not Maastrichtian, contrary to how this concludes. Also, "lithologic unit" probably won't mean much to a general reader, perhaps a more basic word or an explanation in parentheses would help. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure myself what it's supposed to be. The 2014 papers on Dreadnoughtus and Lamniform sharks both say the opposite. What should I do in this case? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A similar flow issue occurs with the Description section; it begins with "Due to lack of material", but the amount of material isn't explained until the paultry Discovery and naming section. The latter section should be first and Description second, so the appropriate context has been given. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]

  • Since Lusotitan's review is so thorough (don't think a review can ever be too thorough, though), I may save my thoughts for the GA review. I wonder if more sources could be found, as the article is surprisingly short, and I found this uncited paper[1], which though it is mainly about Alamosaurus, appears to have some info on Puertasaurus that could maybe be used. Though the journal is CC licenced, the photos of Puertasaurus material appears to be taken directly from the original description, and can probably not be used. FunkMonk (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to say "since PaleoGeekSquared's review is so thorough"? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, haha, it was kind of hard to make out who said what above (I guess that's why different reviewers make sections during FACs)... But I will probably add more comments here soon. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the peer review itself is being reviewed... anyways,  Done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Changed it to "vertebrae" --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and see also above. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the image layout would look better if you left aligned the size diagram and right aligned the vertebra photo. Looked good when I tried it out, now the diagram is pushed down by the taxobox, as far as I can see on my screen. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Got a few more things. Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty weird wording for a vertebra! How is it worded in the sentence (quote?)? Perhaps Jens Lallensack knows. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"As well as a considerably inflated distal end," on page 38. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The distal end of a cervical is the front, the part facing towards the skull. Thanks, btw., for notifying me of this Peer review; will see if I can contribute some comments soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • The formation is composed of mostly sandstone, mudstone, and lignite. – Not sure if this is central enough to appear in the lead.
 Done
 Done, Just removed it, since that's a pretty standard Mesozoic formation vertebrae faunal composition. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Put it in the other way around. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The largest of the four preserved bones is the dorsal vertebra, which is the broadest known vertebra of any sauropod. – Why not give the measurement here?
 Done
 Done, any recommendations on how to make it sound better or is this currently fine? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know why, I'm just going by what the source says. Should I just remove the date? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Not sure if we can/should include Hartmans weight estimate from his personal webpage when he states "I'll speculate maybe in the 60-70 tonne range, but treat that as arm waving until it's verified by volumetric or double integration analysis". At least, I would somehow reflect this uncertainty. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done, changed to the correct terms and found a source. That statement was there before I started expanding the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, along with procoelous. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
  • Puertasaurus is differentiated from other sauropods based on a variety of features. – Make clear that these are not autapomorphies, but a unique combination of characters.
 Done, changed to Puertasaurus is differentiated from other sauropods based on a set of unique features. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is incorrect. They are NOT unique features. It is the combination of features that is unique (and for this reason, you should mention all of them). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listed the one I missed and changed it from set of unique features to unique combination of features. Does this work better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 19:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually  Done now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • especially Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan, were especially massive. – two times "especially".
 Done
  • Puertasaurus is generally recovered as a stable lognkosaur, although a 2017 study found it (along with Quetecsaurus) to be the least stable members of the group. – I think you should explain what stable means here.
 Done, added (a firm member of the group). Is this adequate? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Hopefuly  Done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 23:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
That may take awhile, but I'll work on it. Still new to these cite templates. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will fix, for more info, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review#Puertasaurus_Mk._II. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done, I found one on CBS, about Futalognkosaurus, oddly enough, but it's the best that I could get. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The stage that Puertasaurus was alive in is debated, but I suppose that the regular reader might not be looking for that specific of information? Perhaps I could replace it with (stage uncertain)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be doubt it was from the Late Cretaceous, though? Which is all the taxobox really says... FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
It might be good to note which museums the photos were taken in (and that casts are shown). The one under description seems to be Museum Koenig.[3] But Hectonichus might have to tell us where the taxobox image was taken. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fossils under "description" were part of a special exhibition on South American dinosaurs that was touring through different museums, including, as far as I remember, the Museum König and the Senckenberg in Frankfurt. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, the Flickr album[4] says Bonn, so that should specify Museum König, no? FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was the Museum König, yes. But right now, they don't have any dinosaur on exhibit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could say temporary exhibit maybe, like I wrote in some of the captions at Gallimimus. FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, though as usual, I'm not much of a sauropod expert. By the way, if no one else gets to it before me, I'll GA review this when the time comes. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the skeletal diagram and have requested a copy edit. Once that's done and I finish ironing out the other issues that you've mentioned above, I'll nominate it for GA status. Thanks for all the comments so far! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 22:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it should be ready for GAN now? FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll probably start on Saturday. How does a peer review end, anyways? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like this[5]! But you can of course keep it open longer, if you want to see if more people will comment. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might review this, since it could serve as a good introduction for me to GA reviews (being a pretty short article). Plus, I've had a couple articles reviewed for me already so it's only fair I give something back. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A short article like this would be a good place to start, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Puertasaurus/archive1&oldid=874925649"