Talk:Bajadasaurus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll just start the review now, and go more into detail later. Shouldn't be too many issues. First some layout things. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks!

• The intro could be two paragraphs, a bit like a wall of text now.

Done.

• Perhaps the life restoration could be moved up to under the description header?

Done.

• There is some text sandwiching under the classification section, sicne the Amargasaurus photo is not used to illustrate the defensive posture any more, but just a relative, perhaps just use the taxobox image from the Amargasaurus article and right align it above the photo of the teeth

Done.

• "but rescued as a" Seems a bit uncommon to say "rescue" about bones, maybe just "excavated"?

Done.

• "as well as the first two and probably the fifth neck vertebra" Vertebrae, since you mention three?

Done.

• I wonder if anatomical direction terms could be replaced?

Done, except for "medially", which I kept but explained (there is just no easy and precise translation I am aware of).

• "of which initially only some teeth were exposed" seems a bit awkward to me, what about "of which only some teeth were initially exposed"?

Done.

• "although only in Bajadasaurus and the closely related Amargasaurus they are extremely elongated" Also a bit awkward, what about "although only extremely elongated in Bajadasaurus and the closely related Amargasaurus"?

Done.

• "as well as the lower and parts of the upper jaws" Seems a bit confusing (with "lower" isolated like that).

Done.

• "and is therefore the most complete of a dicraeosaurid known" Also seems a bit like something is missing, I think it is ok to repeat "skull" here for clarity.

Done.

• "Not preserved are parts" How about "The middle section of the skull is not preserved"?

Done.

• "which would have formed the floor of the opening" Lower margin? "Floor" seems a bit confusing.

Done.

• "The lacrimal, which formed the front margin of the orbit, had a straight ridge on its upper half that is similar to that of Dicraeosaurus." Is the change in tense needed?

Done.

• "a major opening in the rear part of the skull roof" On?

Done.

• I am often asked to explain "articulation" during FACs, perhaps should be here too.

Done.

• "The quadratojugal formed an obtuse angle that forms the lower rear corner" Change in tense.

Done.

• "The braincase is, in a complete skull, only exposed with its occipital region in rear view." Perhaps occipital also needs explanation, the sentence is a bit hard to follow.

Done.

• "were medially extended (reach closer to the skull midline)" Reached?

Done.

• "different to Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus" Different from/unlike in?

Done.

• In the images you uploaded, I wonder why you link to the article again, rather than list the authors?

Done.

Forgot this, but now done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• "alveoli (tooth positions)" Sockets? "Positions" seems rather vague.

Done.

• "first cervical vertebra" Cervical also needs explanation.

Done, replaced with "neck vertebra".

• "This pair of rod-like elements measures 58 cm (23 in) in length and are" Pair is singular, so "and is"? Not sure if there is some exception in English.

Done.

• "Unlike in the latter" Perhaps state they direct backwards here?

Done.

• There is a lot of tense changes, especially under vertebrae. Begins in present, then goes to past. For example "Unlike in the latter, the neural spine of Bajadasaurus is curved toward the front. Their base was triangular and compressed sideways".

Done.

• "Gallina and colleagues in 2019 found" Not sure you need to repeat the date?

Done.

• "is restricted by the timing of an unconformity" probably needs some explanation, I have no idea what this means, hehe...

Done.

• What animals other than dinosaurs are known from the formation, and how about plants and environment?

No further information here that I am aware of, unfortunately.

• is this UK or US English? I see both paleo, metre, and ize.

Done.

• There is some duplinking, as shown by that script.[1]

Done.

• ", Gallina and colleagues (2019)" Not sure if you need to list the date again, and the parenthesis is also inconsistent with how you do it elsewhere.

Done.

• "more derived than" Needs explanation.

Done.

• "vertically oriented neural spine of second cervical vertebra" Spines?

A single spine which is bifurcated into a left and right half.

• "deeply bifurcated" Explain.

Done.

• "were elongated to a similar degree than those of Bajadasaurus" Much longer, though? This wording makes it seem like Bajada's spines were longer, or even approaching those of Amarga in length, when this is not known.

Their absolute length is very similar at least. But reformulated, is it better?

• "enclosed an air sac" Explain?

Done, or should I add much more background on air sacs?

• "the semicircular canals" Linik and explain? The idea that the canals indicate habitual posture has also been criticised (summarised in the Nigersaurus article).

Done.

• "might have allow the animal" Allowed.

Done.

• "to look forward while feeding" Not sure, but I think this should be forwards.

Done.

• "while the sight of most other sauropods is limited to the sides" Change to present tense for some reason.

Done.

• "furthermore speculated that this feature could even" I don't think you need both furthermore and even.

Done.

• "of northern Patagonia." Usually the name of the country is mentioned in the intro too.

Done.

• There could be some skull description in the intro, after all it is more than half of the description section.

There is the information on the orbits visible in dorsal view at least. Yes, there could be more on the skull in the lead, but what to chose? I'm not a friend of chosing random facts for summaries. Is there anything in particular that you think should be mentioned in the lead?

I would at least say the skull was gracile in build and that the teeth were pencil-shaped. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• All comments adressed, thank you very much for the review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, added one comment above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion, added a sentence! Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks as good as it can get now I think, so I'll pass. One thing I was wondering (which we often overlook), does the supplemental pdf have more information that could be added? FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)