Talk:Ichthyovenator/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 03:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, I'll take this guy, always seemed strange to me! FunkMonk (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for reviewing! Feels good to be back working on articles again. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Mortimer hypothesized in 2017 that Ichthyovenator may not have been a spinosaurid at all, instead possibly being a sail-backed carcharodontosaurid dinosaur" The end of Mortimer's entry says this, though, which I think makes that claim less definite: "I'd put it in Orionides incertae sedis for now, though given the information in Allain's abstract, it will probably end up being spinosaurid once the new material is described and coded."

Added that part, seems I'd forgotten to do a checkup on the source for that previously added statement. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• It seems Aptian, basal, and Barremian are duplinked.

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps the skeletal should specify it excludes the later found parts of the holotype?

Done, hopefully I'll be able to update it to include some of that material soon, based on the Paris museum image. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Those images also seem to show all the sacral centra intact, but the text says some of them have eroded?

Yeah, I noticed that, it appears they've been reconstructed, which I've also clarified in the caption. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "and the Chinese species "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis in 2009." Remove link and state it may be synonymous with the former?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Tangvayosaurus hoffeti" If you go with full binomials, why only link the generic names? Same goes for some other taxa mentioned.

Hmm, I also did this at Cristatusaurus and Oxalaia, and the same can be seen in Kentrosaurus. I think it stems from a discussion on a talk page or GA review but I can't seem to find it.

• You only give full binomials under paleoecology, I think it would be best to be consistent throughout the article.

Removed the species names, which should take care of the above suggestion as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "traits all shared with Baryonyx, Suchomimus, Sigilmassasaurus,[5] and Vallibonavenatrix." Maybe add "shared with the spinosaurids".

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Link fossil trackway at trackway?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "The type dorsal rib" I think this would be confusing, why not just "single known dorsal rib" or similar?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "both of which had singular sails" Wouldn't "continuous sails" or something be more accurate?

True, fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Baryonyx is linked at third instead of first mention in the article body.

Fixed, must've resulted from copyediting. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "which only showed the beginnings of a sail" This kind of implies that Baryonyx was somehow bound to get a sail, maybe imply that it was just less developed instead?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "creating a sudden hiatus" In what, the process/profile? Maybe it could be explained more clearly.

Added "in the profile of the sail". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "d towards the front of the animal." Maybe specify "front of the animal's back? Because it seems evident they stopped by the neck.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "lateral processes" Processes on the sides maybe, to make it easier to understand?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "he 92-centimetre (36 in) ilium" Maybe say ilium of the pelvis, I wonder if most people know the word?

Added, I'd say its one of the more generally known terms when it comes to anatomy so it should be ok. Linked it as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "than with any other known" Than in?

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "the lower end of the pubis has an L-shape, resembling that of Baryonyx. The pubic apron (expanded lower end of the pubis) features a large pubic foramen." The surrounding text is past tense, why present tense here? Maybe look for more such inconsistencies.

Fixed and also corrected a few other sentences in present tense. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "with unknown regions such as the skull" Say "head" maybe, since you don't actually show the skull?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "named from continent" From the?

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "(the latter may represent the same animal as Siamosaurus[9][10])" Maybe this should just be moved up tot he history section?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "In 2019, Spanish palaeontologist Elisabete Malafaia and colleagues also suggested a complex biogeographical pattern for spinosaurs during the Early Cretaceous, based on anatomical similarities between Ichthyovenator and Vallibonavenatrix" Maybe you should have a paragraph after the cladogram that go into detail about paleobiogeography? Now the classification section is a bit all over the place in that regard, and biogeography is glossed over. I also did a section on that in Baryonyx.

Moved all of the biogeographical info down to palaeoecology (that section was looking a bit paltry anyways) and added some more information on that from Siamosaurus. Hope it looks better now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Irritator is only linked in the cladogram.

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "led many palaeontologists to believe that spinosaurids were largely piscivorous" Maybe mention again here in parenthesis (as implied by Ichthyovenator's name) or something?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "A more generalist diet for spinosaurs has also been proposed, based on fossil evidence including a Baryonyx specimen found with Iguanodon bones in its stomach cavity, and an Irritator individual known to have eaten a pterosaur." Then you should mention the fish scales found with Baryonyx too then, because now it reads as if the only evidence of spinosaurid piscivory is the shape of their skulls.

Added, as well as a mention of that Onchopristis vertebra found with the Spinosaurus snout. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "and an Irritator individual known to have eaten a pterosaur." This makes it seem like pterosaur bones were found in Irritator's stomach cavity or something, I think it should just state that a tooth has been found in a pterosaur bone.

Done.

• "have been instead been" Double been.

Removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "their dense bone histology" Isn't histology the study of this, though?

Replaced with "the high density of their limb bones". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• " was observed in Spinosaurus aegypticacus" Full binomial here, unlike all other genera mentioned earlier.

Removed specific name. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "as well as the rest of the skeleton from the same individual" Wasn't it just further vertebrae, though?

There was a pubis as well, so replaced with "as more vertebrae (backbones) and a pubic bone the same individual." to be more specific. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• "analyses place as" Place it as?

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Though I can see why you would show part of another Asian spinosaur under classification, that vertebra doesn't really add much information, I wonder if maybe you should show a more complete spinosaur skeleton there to give readers a better idea of how it would look? Like for example this Irritator mount, as it seems to be the closest relation with a good reconstruction:[1]

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Looking good! I only noticed one last thing, which is that some years are linked, such as 1986, while most are not. But I'll promote this once you reply, at this rate you'll be done with the Spinosauridae before there's a cure for COVID-19! FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully so! Thanks for reviewing yet another one of my spinosaur nominations. I think I'm ready to take this one to FAC as well. - As for your comment, usually I only link years in which taxa were named, since content related to research history on those articles is rather lacking until more recent ones. Just linked 2009 as well since that's when "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis was reassigned as a spinosaur, will be adding that onto the 2009 in paleontology article later. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)