Talk:Aigialosuchus

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• In the first sentence of the lead, maybe say "fossil genus" or "extinct genus" for extra clarity?

Added "extinct". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the lead is a little bit long (and therefore already difficult to read for people who just want to know what this article is about). Since the Danish material was not formally (?) referred to the genus, I'm not sure if it warrants mention in the first sentence.

Yeah, removed the Danish stuff from the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• until recently, recent research favours it within the more basal family Dyrosauridae. – Better to be specific here, "since 2016, it has been repeatedly placed within the more basal family Dyrosauridae" or something?

Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• fenestra exonarina communis – you probably need to explain this term.

I don't even know if this term is actually a properly established one, I can't find much use of it beyond Persson (1959), but I've explained it based on what Persson says. I don't know what to say about the fenestra exonaris, that's a term that is used quite a lot but I haven't found a source that explains where this fenestra is located. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• The description section seems incomplete; the fenestra exonaria is not mentioned at all, and there surely should be more to add overall? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Depressingly little work has been done on Aigialosuchus - though the fossil material allows for it, there isn't even a published size estimate. The article mentions details such as the fenestra exonaria and the fact that the fossil preserves a distinct notch, but these are already discussed under other headings than the descriptions (do they need to be repeated)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry here as well, I somehow forgot about both your nominations! Concerning the point: I think that the current section "Description" is a bit pointless, since its content is discussed in other sections. Repeating is not ideal as well, because of the redundancy. Would it work to move that information instead? Or, if you repeat, keep the other mention of the feature as short as possible, so that it does not feel so repetitive?

No worries! I don't really want to yeet the description section, but it's been built up a bit more now so see what you think. I shortened the later mention of the notch in the jaw but couldn't find a good way to shorten the early mention of the fenestra exonarina communis. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• I see, though, that the description in Persson 1959 is actually quite substantial. There is a lot of interesting information that could be added; not even all diagnostic features are included in the article so far.

I've added some more (anatomy like this is far from my strong suit); is there anything you feel is still missing? Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• You talk about "fenestrae exonarinae" and "external naris (nostrils)", I think those are the same. We sometimes call them "bony nostrils" which is more accessible to readers.

Substituted the latter and added to the explanation of the former. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Image "Illustration of the holotype specimen of A. villandensis": Can you add the view direction (top view?). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• The mandibular symphysis (a ridge – the mandibular symphysis is the suture of the two mandibles. If you want a ridge, you need to write "The mandibular symphysis forms a ridge" or something.

Changed "ridge" to "suture". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Still not correct. It is only one suture ("the" suture), and its on the internal side. Try "the connection between the left and right mandible" as an accessible explanation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Would be good to mention which features are diagnostic for the genus in the description section, so that the reader is informed about their relevance.

As far as I can see Persson only gives the extension of the nasals right to the bony-nostril-fusion-thing as a diagnostic feature, added this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

He also mentions the long mandibular symphysis and the contact with the splenial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Aigialosuchus was long and was reached by the splenial bone.[1] The mandibular symphysis was unusually long – Here you mention that the symphysis is long two times, which is repetitive.

Merged into one sentence so that it's only said once. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• at the spot of the fourth mandibular teeth, – "at the level of"?

Yeah, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• top jaw – upper jaw? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nice. Article is fine now. One last thing: You need to create a redirect for "Aigialosuchus villandensis" that leads to this article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you; I've created the redirect. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)