Wikipedia:Peer review/Mosasaurus/archive1

Mosasaurus

The Mosasaurus is among the most famous and recognizable prehistoric marine animals today. I was genuinely surprised about how crappy and inaccurate the article for such an important genus initially was, and was what I was working on through the year. Over seven months in the making, I've finally finished rewriting this article in its entirety from top to bottom. Considering that this is a lot of content that would have to be done over, I would like to get some peer review for this article while I am having it copyedited and before I nominate it for GA. I would best like reviews regarding the content of the article itself. This would include checking on any inaccuracies, undue conclusion jumps, unacceptable loose implications, and bias. One part I would especially like to make sure is acceptable would be the size subsection, of which its content is in a large part based on the opinions and arguments of amateurs from a public online community. I've only cited amateurs I believe could be credible enough, but I also want to make sure violations of original research policies are not made in the subsection. Macrophyseter | talk 01:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• I'll just say that I have a few long ongoing reviews, so I'll either return here to review once those are done, or when the FAC starts. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I've addressed all of your comments. I ended up spending the month in a mix of researching to address Lythronaxargestes' high-level points, going over a copyedit, and life stuff, which is why I was in a bit of hiatus. Macrophyseter | talk 07:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I've also been busy. I'll review the rest of the article soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• In the meantime, I was thinking of some image suggestions. Wouldn't it be appropriate to show a life restoration under description? Such as this one?[1] If this one[2] seems better, I can give it a tail fluke. Perhaps they also need more apparent lips. Or maybe move the one under classification to description.

Most of my image positionings are based on ensuring suitable formatting, which is why I placed the Mosasaurus restoration in Classification rather than Description. However, that was just because it was the only other good restoration (other being in Paleobiology) and it was to big. But I think that the restoration of Image #2 (the one with the turtle) would work quite well under Description if a fluke and additional up-to-date material are added; if you are going to add such, you should model the tail either after that in Prognathodon [3](which some of the major paleontologists like Lindgren prefer) or after the reconstruction based on the skeletal. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I can try to edit the one with the turtle, seems it also has too visible fenestrae and lacks lips. Anything else that should be fixed in it? FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There's really nothing much to fix besides the tail and head that isn't nitpicking. I just think that it would be most important to get the tail in the correct shape as detailed earlier, which might include angling it downwards although it's your discretion. Out of curiosity, how do you edit DiBgd's restorations so seamlessly? Macrophyseter | talk 19:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Modified now[4], what do you think? DBogdanov's images are relatively easy to modify because they are kind of rough, and it isn't too far from my own drawing style, so it's easy to get in sync with it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that looks amazing. My only problem is that the tail might be too small, but that can be interpreted as a visual perspective thing. Nevertheless, that image is perfect for the article. Did you modify DBgd's paleoart digitally or on paper? There are so many artworks drawn by him that I love but need to be updated, plus I would love to see if I can try learning a bit of his style. Macrophyseter | talk 02:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I can make it a bit bigger, I thought the fluke got a bit too dark too. I just modify them in Photoshop, some of the same texture can just be copied with the clone tool and then I use it to "paint" over areas to make it cohesive. If you have some other of his images in mind for modification, we could take a look at them at the paloart review one day. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice to see if it can get bigger. I do have Photoshop, but there are still a lot of things I have yet to learn in it. Maybe I should get my hand in trying it myself. Thanks for the explanation, though! Macrophyseter | talk 22:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I made it bigger overall, but not too much longer, since it doen't look too long in the skeletal? Anyway, it's easy to tweak. We can maybe make a little Photoshop tutorial on the review page... FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I was meaning bigger as in scale rather than length (I'm not sure if "height" is the correct word), so you had the correct point.Macrophyseter | talk 19:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps it could be interesting to show a historical restoration in the history section? Such as one of these:[5][6][7][8] The Crystal Palace model should probably be a must, being one of the earliest restorations:[9] Mark Witton wrote about it here:[10]

Funny, I added the Crystal Palace model right before reading this. For historical images, I would best like to get my hands an a depiction of Mosasaurus with webbed feet and land limbs, but I haven't been able to find anything. The oldest depiction I can find is the Crystal Palace model, which surprisingly appears to have aquatic limbs. As for the other ones you suggested, most of them do not pertain to Mosasaurus (Most are Tylosaurus or likely based on it, the journey to the center of the earth one is actually an Icthyosaurus). The one with the ichthyosaurs could be usable, but I'm not sure where I would place such in the history section.

Cool, that model is probably enough, I wonder if it should be discussed in the text, as it's pretty significant? Another very early restoration (1867) is this one[11], but not sure how useful it is. It seems some old restorations show a long neck, maybe something that could be discussed? FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have the Crystal Palace model discussed if possible, but I'm not sure where I would put it if added. Do you think placing it in research history underneath the limbs paragraph would suffice? Macrophyseter | talk 19:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, since it already discussed historical interpretations of appearance. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph discussing the model. Macrophyseter | talk 07:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice, perhaps move the image down to that paragraph then? FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• List species synonyms too? I don't see M. horridus discussed, for example.

It's in the taxobox. But if you mean the main text, I think that discussing synonyms here would bloat the article to unreasonable levels. Perhaps an article like Synonyms of Mosasaurus would be useful. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if we were to discuss all of the synonyms, this article would be 50% just that. It's only reasonable to just discuss the ones that are taxonomically important such as the now-synonymized species established by Russell (1967). Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not a big deal, but classification sections are usually placed after description sections in at least dinosaur articles. It's a bit far before the readers get to the part that most of them are probably here to see...

I developed the article being more used to the format for non-dinos having taxonomy before description. I could try moving the section behind it, but I'm worried that such formatting would ruin some prose continuity. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a very big deal either, we could maybe have a look at it again later. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

One point I have to add on this: if Classification comes after Description, you have the liberty of talking about (syn)apomorphies that e.g. have systematic significance or unite clades. I think the reduced continuity is a major disadvantage of the current organization. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that's also one of the main reasons why we argued for this order a while back somewhere when talking about section order in general, once the various features of the subject have been listed, it is easier to describe them in the context of classification afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Any news on this issue? FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've decided to try moving Description in front of classification. Look better that way? Macrophyseter | talk 20:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Historical images should have dates in the captions.

Added. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• On the issue of using Deviantart and Carnivoraforum at sources, I don't think it'll fly at FAC, or even GAN. A recent FAC[12] got a couple of opposes just for using newsletters. You may be able to use blogs written by paleontologists, though, if any contain such info. I got away with that in for example Nemegtomaia and Giganotosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I raised this concern too. Perhaps it would be best to completely comment out the second paragraph for now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I ultimately decided to remove that part altogether. I'm hoping that the fact that no rationale was given for the 1:10 ratio and that at least one paper used an alternative ratio is enough to get the message across. Unfortunately, I haven't found any blogs to work with on the issue. Macrophyseter | talk 22:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Something will probably be published down the line. But often popular books can contain size estimates not found in the peer reviewed literature, I've had to go for size estimates in Gregory S. Paul's books when no paper made one, for example in Xixiasaurus. And such sources would be accepted by most standards here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Welp, there really aren't any books I know of that scrutinizes Russell's ratio. Macrophyseter | talk 22:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Mosasaurus went extinct as a result of the K-Pg extinction event; its last fossils were found at or close to the boundary." Though it may be obvious to us, I'm not sure most layereaders would understand the connection between that caption and some cliffs (which we of course know show the boundary). Would need some more context in the caption, or another, more obvious image.

Explained where the boundary line is in the picture. Macrophyseter | talk 02:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• "such as the Platecarpus and Hesperornis." I'm pretty sure genus names should not have "the" in front of them, as they are inherently definite? Also check if there are more of such wording.

Placing "the" before the genus is not used scientifically but I've seen literature outside scientific journals place "the" before the genus, probably for a more dramatic read. Cut anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 22:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• "by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark's Corps of Discovery during their famous 1804–1806 expedition across the western United States" Wouldn't it be more informative to link their individual names, and then link their expedition at "their famous 1804–1806 expedition"?

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 22:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• "led by paleontologist Federico Fanti of the University of Bologna" Why do we need to know university affiliations?

I thought that adding university affiliation would add more at-face credibility. I didn't do this before, but after seeing some FA articles doing this I decided to try it out on this article. Macrophyseter | talk 20:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I also think these are not ideal; they are a bit misleading since many of those studies are actually international cooperations, and the affiliation of the first author (which nowadays tends to change rapidly anyways), or even their nationalities, does not add much to the topic. Depends on you of course, but this kind of "meta-information" blows up the article quite a bit, and people at FAC might argue that the article could be much more concise even without loosing actual content. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I agreed earlier up, especially in an article as long as this, it only bloats the size with little gain, and it is done inconcistently anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So should I simply change all of the mentions to their respective in-text citations (i.e. replacing "1995 study by Lingham-Soliar of Nelson Mandela University" to just Lingham-Soliar (1995))? Macrophyseter | talk 17:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Just removing the university is enough, the dates are fine as they are. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• When looking up what species of Mosasaurus this[13] old restoration may show, I ran into the name Mosasaurus mitchelli. Any idea what that is? The restoration shows either that or M. missouriensis.

M. mitchelli is a dubious taxon as declared by Russell (1967); the paper also suggested that it might be a synonym of M. hoffmannii (stated as M. maximus) in part. M. hoffmannii and M. conodon are known from the New Jersey area; as far as I know M. missouriensis is usually found in the Western Interior Seaway. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• "hich was historically considered a separate species" You could name it in the caption.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• If we want to follow the manual of style suggestion that subjects of images should face the text, the Hawkins sculpture could be left aligned.

I could, but I felt that the formatting would be more awkward with all images of a large section being left aligned with no images right alighned than having one image not facing the text. I haven't been able to find any additional images that could mitigate this formatting so far...Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a big deal either, but if you want another image on the right, this classic early restoration could also be interesting:[14] FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "which was nicknamed the "great animal of Maastricht" Link Maastricht?

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The first remains of Mosasaurus known to science are fragments of a skull" Do we need "to science"? Are there any indications remains wer eknown before?

It just acknowledges the possibility that fossils may have been found at any time earlier but had no scientific process with it; the case that most fossils probably have. Is that unessesary?Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. But does the source make this point? FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Identification as an extinct marine lizard" Shouldn't "naming" also be part of this title? Maybe just call it something simpler like "identification and naming"?

The original title sounded nicely dramatic for a read IMO, hence why I originally had it that way. But I renamed to your suggestion anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "there were no widespread ideas of evolution and extinction" Think these terms.

Are you suggesting that I should use alternative terms? Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, no, just a weird typo, I meant link! FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Linked. Macrophyseter | talk 02:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• "were based on the following. First," Shouldn't this be a colon instead of a period?

But if that would be so, wouldn't that lead to the need to unite all the other points in to one run-on sentence? The copy-editor didn't comment about the passage, so it could be okay.Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know whether it would actually need to be one sentence then? I'l ping and ask Gog the Mild, who is more well-versed in the English language... FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys. Interesting point(s) You shouldn't say "Camper's argument for a whale were based on the following" unless it is followed by a colon. But if one did, one would indeed need to unite the run on points, which clearly wouldn't work. The solution is to rephrase "Camper's argument for a whale were based on the following." Perhaps 'Camper based his argument for a whale on four points.' Just a suggestion, there are lots of other acceptable constructions. Hopefully you see what I am getting at. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion! Macrophyseter | talk 01:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• "pointed out that all fossils from Maastricht are marine fossils" Say "all other fossils" instead? Also, I don't think you need to repeat "fossil".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• There's a good deal of WP:duplinks in close succession, they can be highlighted with this script:[15]
• "it remained being referred to as the "great animal of Maastricht"." A bit clunky. Continued being referred to?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Paleontologist Mike Everhart of the Sternberg Museum speculated that the fossil may have been that of a mosasaur, possibly Mosasaurus" When?

Fixed with corrections; Everhart was among many who speculated the mosasaur identity, but someone else specifically speculated Mosasaurus. Macrophyseter | talk 04:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• "discovered in the continent at the time" On?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• "In 2004, it was rediscovered inside the collections of the National Museum of Natural History, France" Is it known when and how it endedvup there? You go ftom it being in the US, and suddenly it's in France with no explanation.

Explained. Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "At the time, scientists like Goldfuss argued that known skeletal features of Mosasaurus at the time" Not sure why there are two "at the time".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Link paleoart.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• "that M. lemonnieri fossils were endemic to Belgium and the Netherlands, areas that have generally not attracted the attention of mosasaur paleontologists. The second reason was that M. lemonnieri was overshadowed by its more famous and history-rich congeneric M. hoffmannii" This seems contradictory, as the hoffmanni is also from the Netherlands?

It was a bit weird to me too on why scientists would be ignoring a locality with such a famous discovery; reading from scientific literature almost everyone was focusing on North American mosasaurs, and M. hoffmannii wasn't recognized in the continent for a very long time. I've noted a despite statement. Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• The Later discoveries section implies only five species were named, and while you go into more detail about synonyms under classification, it seems a little misleading that you don't at least mention that many other species were named, but are now considered synonyms of other species. I'd also make the naming and structure clearer in the classification section, so that it is easier to understand that one subsection is about the relationships within the genus, and another is about the relationships of the genus.

Since you've weighed in on this part - what's your take on the Pacific species that likely aren't congeneric with Mosasaurus proper? They're introduced only in Classification. I mentioned this in my review but there was no resolution to it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think there should at least be some general statement in that later discoveries section that there are both species that are now considered synonyms of other species and species that may not belong in Mosasaurus, just a short paragraph, and then it can be elaborated on under classification. If a reader for whatever reason just reads the discovery section, thinking all info on species was to be found there, they would leave with the impression that no other species had been named, so I think it needs to at least be implied, without necessarily listing them there. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit weary of giving too much attention on species that Street and Caldwell (2017) and Street (2016) highly suggest will be moved elsewhere in a future paper, as cases like these happened many times before in the Mosasaurus genus, although I can see that this case is special in that its "official" resolution awaits a future paper. Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be merely an akcnowledgement of these species historically having been assigned to the genus (no further detail needed), even when they are split some day, it is worth mentioning they were initialyl assigned here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Then it would only be a temporary mention that will have to be removed in the future since there's nothing notable about the Pacific species except that the issue is current; otherwise we would be obliged to mention every single species that used to be within Mosasaurus, which would excessively bloat the article. Macrophyseter | talk 02:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Not really, because a history section should also deal with species that have historically been assigned to a genus, not only what is currently considered part of it (see for example Brachiosaurus, Elasmosaurus, Paraceratherium, etc.). So it would be something like "a number of species have been assigned to the genus, including X from country X, Y from country Y, etc., but these are now thought to be outside the group". Likewise for synonyms, just somehting like "various adittional species have been named which are now considered synonyms of other species." I know we are dealing with a lot of species, which is why I don't think you should go into any detail, but it does need to be mentioend that aditional species have been named that are either synonymous or may belong elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• "that differences between the two species can only be observable in "ideal cases"" What does this mean? More complete specimens?

I didn't want to try to interpret this for neutrality, hence why I quoted it. Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• As I mentioned below, maybe the restorations under description and feeding should be swapped? The text under feeding specifically mentions turtles, as shown in the first image, but the current image there shows it eating a dinosaur.

Done. In honestly, I don't like how one of the pictures shows Mosasaurus eating a dinosaur among all things; I agree that this could have happened, but there are no fossils suggesting this happened, although you seem to be okay with this per Talk:Mosasaurus#Eating_a_theropod?. For now I've noted that this is entirely speculative, but do you think there could be credibility issues with this image? Macrophyseter | talk 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine for a section that doesn't explicitly go into likely food items. If a theropod or any other dinosaur ended up at sea, I don't think there would be much doubt mosasaurs would have eaten it? Now in the size section, it gives a good sense of scale. But perhaps the caption should make the connection to its placement, like saying the depicted species was one of the largest member of the genus or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 02:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• During FAC, image reviewers will probably ask for some kind of verification for the various usermade restorations. You can avoid this by adding sources that support those images (proportions and other morphology) to their Commons descriptions.
• "this skeleton is currently cataloged as IRSNB 3119" Why say currently here and not for other specimens?
• You mention some specimen numbers in parenthesis in the description section, others in their own sentences, could be consistent.

Do you think just putting most in parenthesis or at least not explicitly mentioning the museum every time would be good enough? Macrophyseter | talk 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you could just pipe link the museum articles through their acronyms in the specimen numbers? I think full museum names are mainly important for the specimens under history, where they give relevant context. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Wasn't there a size comparison diagram there at some point?

Yes, but there are verifiability issues. See §Size under my review. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we could request a new one then, which is closer to published sources. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I made that size comparison but decided to retract it due to verifiability issues as Lythronaxargestes said, which was specifically the use of ultimately amateur skeletal reconstructions of Mosasaurus (although they are rigorous, informative, and allegedly had the input of paleontologists like Johan Lindgren, the authors are relatively anonymous). The thing is that published literature provides almost no real size estimates of Mosasaurus despite the existence of skeletons with more or less complete vertebral columns in M. lemonnieri and M. missouriensis; almost all estimates are derived from the 1:10 mandible-TL ratio by Russell (1967), which is stated without evidence and seems to be scrutinized by the amateur paleoart community based on observations of available fossil material. For some reason, scientific literature has not made any new attempts at a new size estimate for Mosasaurus species; even papers that examine most known major skeletons like Street (2016) mention only at most the sizes of the skull and the vertebral counts. So IMO, the only choices we have are either (1) remake the size estimates using only published literature, from which at the moment we may only be able to add in M. hoffmannii (With the Russell (1967) proportions and/or the Prognathodon proxy used by Fanti et al (2014)) and M. lemonnieri (Based on Dollo's estimates of 7-10 meters depending on the skeletons he examined) (2) return with the amateur-informed size comparison, or (3) simply use no size comparison at all. Macrophyseter | talk 02:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think option 1 is the best solution, until we may some day get more estimates. We are fortunate that there are even any estimates, unlike for example Acamptonectes, where the authors haven't even considered an estimate, judged from what one said when I asked. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to have to revamp the size section anyways to make the information more clear, fix certain errors, and add information I previously thought were erronous. If we are going with option one, then I guess we could get a request through the paleoart requests. Macrophyseter | talk 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The study also described more complete M. beaugei fossils in the form of two well-preserved skulls recovered from the Oulad Abdoun Basin." But didn't we conclude here (when discussing this[16] image) that nothing apart from the teeth had been described in the literature

I was not very clear on what I meant that time, I was referring to the type specimens in regards to only teeth being known. Macrophyseter | talk 02:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, maybe that image is worth including after all, then (maybe it needs corrections)? Perhaps in the second paragraph under Mediterranean Tethys, which mentions its distribution, and that part of the article doens't have many depictions of the genus. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I was concerned about the proportions of the restoration but in retrospect, I guess the image would still be usable. I've added it as suggested.

I can probably fix issues that would remain, you mentioned the head may be too largr? I kind of saw it as a perspective thing? Also, maybe add "known from Morocco and Brazil" to the caption, to make its relvance to the section clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It may be that I am just overthinking the issue, but it is correct that I have some concerns with the size of the head; but I agree that it could simply be a perspective thing. Added your text comments.Macrophyseter | talk 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Annotated schematic of the M. hoffmannii skull" "The" seems awfully specific, what about "a"?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• "and conical rostrum" Link and explain rostrum.
• "The external nares" Also explain this.
• "They are positioned more posteriorly than any other mosasaur" Than in?
• "The neurocranium provided a brain" That is pretty strange wording. Contsined a brain?
• "while being a species being only" Second being is unnecessary.
• "On the upper jaw, there were three types and were the premaxillary teeth, maxillary teeth, and pterygoid teeth." A bit clunky, you could just use a colon after "three types" and avoid "and were".
• The dentition section should make it cleare that it and mosasaurs in general had teeth on their palate, which is of course a given for us, but would probably seem very unusual for layreaders. This could be done by explaining in parenthesis when you mention the pterygoid teeth.
• There is a mix of present and past tense under description which could probably be looked over. For example, while it makes sense to talk about the fossils in present tense, does it make sense to talk about tooth replacement in present tense? After all, it is something that only happened when the animal was alive?
• "arious partial skeletons of M. conodon, M. hoffmannii (M. maximus)" What is the meaning of the parenthesis?
• In the paragrapgh about bony correlates to the tail fluke, you should mention that tail flukes are known from soft tissue in other mosasaurs, so are not just inferred. And perhaps even that this is quite recent discovery, with mosasaurs not being depicted with such flukes until just a few yars ago.
• "The paddle is supported with five sets of finger-like metacarpals and phalanges" Fhinger-"like"? but the phalanges are the fingers? Wouldn't it be more correct to specify that the actual fingers were encased in the flipper, and supported it from within?
• Sentences like the folowing and manyothers read really oddly in present tense: "and is well-suited for utilization for faster swimming", "The tail is bilobed and hypocercal, which means that the tail vertebrae extends toward the lower lobe".
• The life restoration under Phylogeny and evolution of the genus still seems a bit misplaced, I think it would make more sense under for exmaple Habitat preference. I'd expect images of diagnostic features and specimens, or relatives, under classification.
• I think I'll review classification and onwards later, this is already a big chunk to deal with for you first.
• All footnotes should preferably also have citations.
• "IRSNB R25, with an infected fracture" State species?

Done.

• Any reason why this head musculature image[17] isn't used anymore?

It was supposed to nominated for deletion, but it looks like I didn't. I removed it because of possible copyright issues as an adaptation of a non-free work, which was uploaded earlier when I wasn't as versed in copyright. I've just nominated it for deletion. Macrophyseter | talk 04:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Having read further, I think some of what's covered in the first paragrapgh under classification is what I'd like to see at the end of the history section. So you introduce that there has been issues with synonyms and assigned species that may not belong to the genus, and then you could continue this discussion under classification, which really only begins in 1967 anyway, as you kind of skate over earlier taxonomic work. That could be covered by just mentioning some significant synonyms and those Pacific species under the end of history, then classification can be used to disentangle these issues.
• "(and as a result did not examine European representatives such as M. hoffmannii)" and "He identified eight species that he considered valid—M. hoffmannii" now reads as a contraxiction, could be clarified.

I don't think there is an issue here. Russell can declare a taxon valid without having examined it first hand. This probably happens all the time. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• In connection with the above, weren't some M. hoffmannu specimens identified from America?
• "In 2016, the doctoral thesis of paleontologist Halle Street of the University of Alberta was published. This thesis, supervised by paleontologist Michael Caldwell" Not sure why we need all this introduction in two separate sentences, especially since it doesn't really have much relevance. You could just say something like "In a 2016 doctoral thesis supervised by paleontologist Michael Caldwell, paleontologist Halle Street performed the first description" etc.
• " It was named M. glycys, the specific epithet being a romanization of the Ancient Greek γλυκύς (ɡlykýs, meaning "sweet") in reference to the skull's residence in Belgium and the country's "reputation for chocolate production"." It seems inconsistent that you introduce and give etymologies for all other species except this one under history. Ideally, classification section should only be about the phylogeny of taxa, while discovery, naming etc. is under history.
• "The taxonomic revision of the genus has yet to be formally published but has been verbally referenced in Street and Caldwell (2017)[5] and by two abstracts presented during the 5th Triennial Mosasaur Meeting in 2016[55] and 5th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology in 2017." I think this is also excessive detail for something that could be summarised as "has not been formally published, but has been referenced in various conference talks."
• I must say that I'd really like to say a short paragraph or even brief section solely about synonyms, it seems kind of incomplete now without it. Certainly more important to use space on this than the university affiliations of various writers etc., if it's a space issue. It would help the reader figure out where to find such info, instead of now where it is spread over several sections, whih seems arbitrary.
• What distinguishes Mosasaurus from other mosasaurs? I know this isa tricky issue, but should be possible to cover somehow. For example, I usually just weave diagnostic features into the general description instead of making it a specific section or paragraph (or hiding it under classification).

There are a number of cranial features. I suggested adding them to the text in my review but this seems to have not yet been done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll be getting to them, but I'm addressing the comments out of order. Macrophyseter | talk 04:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding to that, a lot of both comments are converging to the issues regarding the structure and content of Description and Classification as a whole. I'll try some rewriting and see from there. Macrophyseter | talk 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• You go into minute detail about Mosasaurini, but could we also get some details about the higher taxa that are based on the genus? In fact, if it is an issue of size, I think you could cut out on some of the detail on Mosasaurini in favour of more info on for example Mosasauridae, which I'd believe is a much more important historical taxon. And since Mosasaurini has its own article, I don't see why we need more info about it here than just "Mosasaurus is a member of the tribe Mosasaurini, whose monophyly has been disputed".
• I may have mentioned it elsewhere, but I also think the discussion about relations with snakes and monitors is way too detailed, since it relates much more to mosasauroidae rather than Mosasaurus itself. I think the first paragraph could be kept as is, since only Mosasaurus was known at the time, but that the closer we get to present day, with many more taxa (and the importance of Mosasaurus itself to phylogenetic analyses diminished), much of the detail could be moved to a higher taxon article. If we want to save space and details, I think actual synonyms, dubious species, and possibly misassigned species of this genus which can't practically be discussed anywhere else on Wikipedia should have priority over higher taxon info that could be discussed in several other articles.

Giving it a closer read, I think the two first paragrapghs in the section are ok, since they include Mosasaurus itself in the context, but the two last paragragph are very detailed, without being directly relevant to Mosasaurus itself. That especially goes for the molecular stuff, not sure why so much technical detail is needed in this particular article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• We have a photo of a supposed juvenile skull[18], perhaps worth showing under life history (probably needs some cropping)?
• "Exquisitely preserved fossil of M. missouriensis" Exquisitely seems a bit loaded/informal, when we could just as well say "well-preserved".

That was what the paper describing the specimen called it. But fixed anyways. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "which reignited research on the placement of mosasaurs as squamates" But wasn't that the only proposed placement? So shouldn't it be "research on the placement of mosasaurs among squamates?"
• "In a span of about 30 to 40 years" I think it's mor einteresting for thwe reader to know when this span was.
• "published Classification of the Lizards" You don't mention the names of othe rpublications, not wure why it is necessary here.
• "Prior to Lee (1997)" Since you mention the date in the preceding section, I don't think it's needed again.
• "Lee observed to be part of the reason for the trend of consistently classifying mosasaurs as varanoid lizards." I don't understand this sentence.
• Link Jacques Gauthier.
• " which creates many rooms for data interpretation" Much room?
• "However, Russell used a more primitive method of phylogenetics in his study as at the time the works giving rise to (since) the modern field of cladistics had yet to be widely established." I don't think the bolded part isneeded.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• "However, a number of issues in this analysis have been pointed ou." By who? Also, missing T in out.

Fixed the midding T. Wouldn't the subsequent explanations and their corresponding citations be enough to explain by who? Macrophyseter | talk 19:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems most of the subsequent citations are to the same article? So if the main response is by Street 2016, I think you could state this. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "However, the study utilized a method completely foreign to" Foreign is an odd word for this context, what about "a method not previosuly used"?

"A method not previously used" implies that it is a novel "next-step" development, which I doubt the authors of the source are suggesting. Perhaps maybe changing to "unorthodox" would work? Macrophyseter | talk 19:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• " another led to a chronospecies sequence which contained in order of succession M. ivoensis, M. missouriensis, and M. maximus/hoffmanni" But was maximus and hoffmanni synonymised at the time? If not, it is a bit misleading to retroactively apply this synonymy ot an older study.

Such a setup was what was used by Russell (1967); based on the text it's likely that he recognized their close relationship as close enough to just lump them together in the phylogenetic tree rather than as splitting branches (but still recognized as distinct species). Added a note explaining this. Macrophyseter | talk 19:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link bite force?

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• "one of the muscles attaching the lower jaw to the cranium and has a major role in biting function" I think you need a "which" before "has".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think you need to mention date and authorship of the studies under paleobiology. For example, you have the sentence "M. hoffmannii utilized a sub-carangiform swimming style, which is best seen today in mackerels, while M. lemonnieri was more serpentine and likely moved in a more anguilliform eel-like style" cited to a 1991 article; do we really think this is up to date now, and that so dramatically different modes of swimming is accepted?
• Link ichthyosaurs at first mention.

Fixeed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "was likely present in all mosasaurs. Endothermy, which is unique among squamates," This reads as if endothermy is only found in squamates. I think you could instead say "was likely present in all mosasaurs, uniquely among squamates" or similar.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The eye sockets are located at the sides of the skull, which prevented good binocular vision" Again odd change in tense within a sentence.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Another notability is that" Not sure this is the right use of the word "notability" (maybe say "adittionally")? And is it even necessary? Maybe the sentence could just begin: "Many of the fossils with injuries possibly attributable to intraspecific combat".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• In regard to when some species are moved to new genera, I think a bigger problem is that there is alot of info on M. conodon in the paleobiology section, which wull then have to be cut anyway?

If Street (2016) holds into an official publication, then we can simply either remove the mention of M. conodon if the EC representatives are concerned and change to M. missouriensis in WIS representative concerns. The mentions of the EC conodon representatives are largely paired with M. lemonnieri, so a removal of mention won't be that damaging.Macrophyseter | talk 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "have found extremely low values of δ13C, and are the lowest in all mosasaurs" I'd cut the bolded part.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "by dismembering and consuming bits at a time" So the fish wasn't articulated?

Clarified that the fish was dismembered. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Carsosaurus marchesetti,[87] a Plioplatecarpus primaevus fossil associated with fossils of two mosasaur embryos,[88] and fossils of newborn Clidastes" Why menton species names for only some?
• Link paleopathology somewhere?

Linked at first mention of pathology. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "has been described to resemble a tooth mark" A bit clunky, either "has been described as resembing" or just "resembles a tooth mark"?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "which gives the possibility that such was the location of an attack by another mosasaur" Also a bit odd, "possibility that it was"?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• You mention authors and dates under Paleopathology, but not in most of the rest of paleobiology.
• I'd recommend sending this to the copyeditors.[19] With a long article like this, it is very difficult for the writer to have an overview of the entire text, so it would make it more bullet-proof at for example FAC.

It's already been copyedited by the guild. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Avascular necrosis has been reported by many studies to be invariably present in M. lemonnieri and M. conodon." Any pattern in which bones were hit?

Added some additional details. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "There is no direct evidence specific for the genus, but there is such that at least a number of mosasaurs gave live birth" Oddly worded, how about "There is no evidence for live birth in Mosasaurus itself, but it is known in a number of other mosasaurs

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "During the Late Cretaceous, they made up the three seaways" What is meant by "they"? The aforementioned regions?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Multiple oceanic climates encompass the seaways including tropical, subtropical, temperature, and subpolar climates.[93][94][95] The wide range of oceanic climates yield a large diversity of fauna that coexisted with Mosasaurus." Is present tense appropriate here?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "were at a height of radiation" Would probably make little sense for most readers, how about "radiation of their diversity" or something?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "and their extinction was a sudden and unexpected event." Unexpected by who?

I just decided to remove that part; I guess saying "sudden" itself is good enough. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The youngest fossils of Mosasaurus occur up to the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary (K-Pg boundary) and its demise" What does "its" refer back to? Maybe you should just say "and the demise of the genus"?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• What were the last species of the genus?

Added mention of that. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "the layer also yielded fresher Mosasaurus remains" This could imply more recent, say "more well-preserved" instead?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "there are several possible explanations" Probaby say alternative, since you don't revisit the idea that the animals could have survived.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "the "Cretaceous cocktail deposit"" Anything to link?

Linked Tsunami deposit. Macrophyseter | talk 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Other mosasaurs that have been found in the European side of the northern Tethyan margin include smaller mosasaurs such as" The last "mosasaurs" is repetitive, could be "smaller geners"?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "have been occasionally known" Found?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "and the exclusively feature M. conodon" They?

Typo. Macrophyseter | talk 17:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• I wonder if ages in years could be given for the various periods mentoned under Paleoecology? It would be nice to know when each species lived, and which were contemporaneous.
• "The southern Tethyan margin is located along the equator between 20°N and 20°S" Past tense?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "in the African and Arabian domain, Halisaurus arambourgi and 'Platecarpus' ptychodon were also the dominant mosasaurs" Isn't the latter what is now Gavialimimus?

Strong et al. (2020) never nessesarily make the ptychodon taxon entirely a synonym of Gavialimimus; the authors stated that the dental morphology from which the former taxon and most referred specimens are based on can be any other mosasaur species with similar morphology, and that each specimen may have to be examined for redesignation (some may not be able to be properly identified at all due to the issue of morphological convergence with mosasaurs such as P. somenensis). Gavialimimus merely represents the new valid taxon for at least one species that was represented under the ptychodon taxon. Made note of that. Macrophyseter | talk 17:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "had a profound impact in the restructuring of marine ecosystems." Impact on?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The biogeography of the region is generally subdivided into two Interior Subprovinces characterized by different climates and faunal structures, which border around modern-day Kansas." Why present tense?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "were still many fauna that" I'm not sure this is the correct use of "fauna"? As far as I know, it refers collectively to the animals in the given place, and individual animals cannot be called "fauna"?

Changed to "diversity of fauna". Macrophyseter | talk 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "and specimens are described in open nomenclature." This seems as way too esoteric wording if what you want to say is just that specimens are often impossible to identify to species or similar.
• "biogeochemical one, Compared" Decapitalise the C.

Typo. Macrophyseter | talk 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "as they all prey on similar animals" Preyed?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "evels in multiple teeth of M. hoffmannii and P. saturator from Maastricht Formation" Shouldn't this formation, and any other formations where Mosasaurus is found, have been mentioned in the sections about where it lived? And should ther ebe "the" before the name of the formation?
• "the teeth of P. saturator are much more robust than those in M. hoffmannii" Why the difference?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "prey that may be less suited for P. saturator" Why present tense?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "are specifically equipped for preying on robust prey" Likewise.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• "dealt from a ramming-attack by a Tylosaurus bernardi." How is it known it was that species?

Elaborated. Macrophyseter | talk 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• " With the enormous known diets of Tylosaurus" What is mean tby enormous diet? Range of dietary items? Or amount?

Decided to but that out because the paraphrasing was shaky at best anyway. Macrophyseter | talk 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "when he named it Mosasaurus in reference to its origin in fossil deposits near the Meuse River." I think you could give the etymology of the binomial here instead of right after the first word of the intro, which looks a but confusing.

Moved. Macrophyseter | talk 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The relationships between Mosasaurus and modern reptiles are controversial and scientists continue to debate whether its closest living relatives are monitor lizards or snakes." I think you should say mosasaurs, as this does not specifically apply to Mosasaurus.

But given that this is an article about specifically "Mosasaurus and not mosasaurs in general such a change might come out as redundant. Additionally, I don't think that specifying the problem to Mosasaurus in this article will necessarily imply that other mosasaurs don't have this problem. Macrophyseter | talk 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "and a high metabolic rate that suggests it was warm-blooded" Warm blooded is supposedly an outdated term, probably better to say endothermic, and if you must, put warm blooded in parenthesis with quotation marks.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "an adaptation found in other mosasaurs but no other squamates" Or less complicated "only found in mosasaurs among squamates".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think the intro should mention it had paddles for limbs.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Are there any more recent sources about mosasaur swimming style? I think it may be a bit iffy to use a 1995 source alone, when it wasn't even known how their tail flukes looked back then, and mosasaurs were apaprently thought to be more eel-like in movement.
• " its diet would have included virtually anything" That would indicate it was omnivorous, so perhaps "virtually any animal"?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• "which are known to feed on similar prey" Odd present tense.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• " attacks on Mosasaurus individuals by another of the same species" Members of the same species?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• That should be it!

Lythronaxargestes

Good work! I have not read the entire article yet, but it looks like a thorough effort to catalogue the genus' research history. I am a bit concerned about the size section, though. It may receive a pass at GA, but FA is very hard on reliable sourcing (see here: [20]); even if the content is reasonable, it may be rejected at some point during further review.

Also curious about your reasoning behind the organization of the sections. There's a "biology" section and a "palaeobiology" section but it's not obvious to me what the distinction is (in particular, "physiology" and "life history" seem a lot more inference-based than the largely descriptive "description"). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The size section is indeed the part I would expect would be of most concern given its sourcing of amateurs, but I put them in any way because I thought it is important to note and relevant, even if the people are not exactly professionals on a professional platform. Nonetheless, it is something I am will be able to remove if needed, but I'll see how well it is received when it comes.

As for the organization, it was what I had done for an earlier article that has been promoted to FA, which was ultimately inspired by the organization for the Megalodon article. To me, the distinction for biology and paleobiology is that biology focuses on the more "anatomical-ish" or "internal" aspects (as in the characteristics of Mosasaurus in Mosasaurus alone) and paleobiology focusing on the non-ecological interactions and behavior of Mosasaurus with its environment. But if organization based on the distinction between inferral and descriptive subjects is more important, I can try moving Physiology to under the Paleobiology section and elevate Description to a primary section. This was something I had considered doing at one point during drafting but for the sake of prose continuity, I ultimately chose not to at that time. Macrophyseter | talk 04:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about moving sections, but I would rename the "biology" section by e.g. elevating "description" or using a different name. I'm not sure the current titles imply the distinction you're thinking of. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've renamed Biology into Description and Description into Skeletal anatomy. I also elevated Size into a higher subsection. Now as I see it, I might simply move Physiology to under Paleobiology in the future per how things fold out.Macrophyseter | talk 08:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The holotype's specimen number is never mentioned even though the first specimen's is. Also, is there a record of when the first specimen was recognized as being Mosasaurus? It would also be useful to add specimen numbers for some of the other species holotypes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 05:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Very nice additions, especially for M. conodon and M. lemonnieri. Is there not that much in the literature about M. beaugei? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering that beaugei is just based on a tooth and Street's thesis thinks that it shouldn't be a valid taxon, there really wouldn't be much information that can go around. But I did make a bit of an expansion on that part. Macrophyseter | talk 23:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I momentarily forgot that it is a tooth taxon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I wonder what this[21] restoration was based on then.... Seems there is a skeleton, but it may be something else?[22] FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

One of the most annoying things in paleontology is that you could have some amazing fossils out there but it would be useless if nobody bothers to publish a study on it. There's a couple of really good fossils out there that I'm frustrated about because nobody ever made a publication about it and so can't be of much use, for example a near-complete M. missouriensis skeleton that could help settle a lot of issues that the article can't really address well with available sources but has zero useful publications of, making any attempt to discuss it into the field of original research. For the beaugei skeleton, I don't know if that's made up of real fossils or just a reconstruction but it won't be of much use for now. As for the restoration, my assumption has been that it's a very speculative restoration (with a possibly oversized head?) made for the popularity of M. beaugei among fossil collectors. Macrophyseter | talk 05:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

On a similar note, this issue really presses with the size section of this article. The 1:10 ratio for M. hoffmannii made by Russell (1967) is probably bogus, but no publications have directly challenged it yet (I have seen a couple of publications simply disregard it, though). However, amateur paleontology communities have directly challenged it and some amateurs who have had close contact with major paleontologists like Lindgren have alternatively proposed what could be more accurate proportions. Funny enough, this has been pointed out a bit in this article's talk page and the skeletal reconstruction (and by extension my size diagram) is an amateur reconstruction using decisive but unpublished fossils. Considering that they've been associating with paleontologists, I believe that their arguments could have some credibility. But then amateur-driven research may have a reliability issue that might make it unsuitable for Wikipedia. Still, I believe that they deserve some spot but it may as well be a most controversial part of this article. Macrophyseter | talk 05:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Fingers crossed for their description, I could modify that image too if we want it at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think that adding that image to the article might get redundant in the future, since Street (2016) already proposed that beaugei is a synonym of hoffmannii, meaning that her future official paper on the issue will probably make it official soon. As a result, that would just make the restoration another hoffmannii image, and I think three is enough for one species. What I think would be a really great addition would be a restoration of M. lemonnieri since there seems to be none of that despite its well-studied anatomy. Macrophyseter | talk 22:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I know a full treatment of synonyms is neither useful nor realistic, but it might be better to organize those listed in the taxobox by current specific identity. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. It turns out that half of the taxons I put in the synonyms are actually nomen dubium and technically aren't real synonyms, which is why I removed a lot of taxons from the list. Macrophyseter | talk 21:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Good work. I would perhaps remove the list for M. lemmonieri since it would be a junior synonym of M. conodon (if the hypothesis holds up), and typically junior synonyms are listed under senior synonyms. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 05:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mosasaurus was repeatedly misidentified as an ichthyosaur in North America. Is there an anatomical or historical reason for this? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any records of the identity of the guy who claimed the skull De Kay studied to be an ichthyosaur, much less his rationale for it other than having "unreservedly declared" it. This could either mean that the guy made the identification with absolute certainty or with no rationale depending on the intended definition. Elaborated on that point. Also elaborated a bit on Harlan's identification and on why he made his identification. Macrophyseter | talk 06:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn about the Pacific species. It might be useful to discuss them under "research history", and that discussion can be excised if they are removed from the genus. But at the same time there's a real possibility that they will be removed soon, making the work redundant, since the proposal has already been made. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think discussing the Pacific species in Classification is good enough at the moment, but maybe more opinions could be used on this issue. Macrophyseter | talk 23:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, lower-level comments on Research history to come soon... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Research history

As promised...

§First discoveries

Does TM 7424 consist of a rostrum? That's what it looks like in the image but would be good to make it clear.

Is there any importance is knowing whether or not TM 7424 has a rostrum or not? That seems trivial to mention for this particular specimen... Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. No big deal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Netherlands is linked. Usually countries are not linked.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"he published a description of the fossil": Not clear this refers to van Marum.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"a second more complete partial skull": The juxtaposition of "complete" and "partial" is confusing. Consider simplifying.

Removed "partial". Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"took the keen interest of [...] Hoffmann": This is unconventional wording. Usually it would be phrased as "Hoffmann took a keen interest in".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"who had collected various mosasaur bones in 1770": "Previously"?

Added. Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Godding was stricken by its beauty": "Stricken" usually has a negative connotation. Consider "struck" instead.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"during the French Revolutionary Wars by French revolutionary armies": Reads a bit redundantly.

I decided to rewrite parts of the first discoveries section after getting across an additional resource. Changed to "the armies of general Jean-Baptiste Kléber."Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a substantial improvement — the story is much clearer now and TM 7427 has gotten some closure. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it known how de Saint-Fond knew of Godding's fossil?

Per change as mentioned above, I think its simply because the fossil was that famous. Also turns out that his mission to secure the piece was probably another lie. Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Frécine sent six armed soldiers to Godding's cottage...": This sentence reads weirdly. I would maybe add a comma before the "and", and em dashes after the "and" and before the "ordered", provided I haven't misread the meaning.

Rewrote the structuring. Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggest adding a translated title for Faujas' publication in parentheses, if available.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Italicize the translation perhaps? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"to anyone who is able to": "would be able to"

Decided to simplify it furthur and removed "able to". Macrophyseter | talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

§Identification as an extinct marine lizard

"the two most popular theories": I am wary about usage of the word "theory". Suggest "hypothesis" instead.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"were that it was either a crocodile or whale": A bit weird to talk about a fossil skull as an animal. Suggest "it represented the remains of either".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"and the skull superficially resembled one": Specify "crocodile".

Done. I'm not sure if I got it grammatically correct, though. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"creating an illusion that claws are present, a misobservation": Sentence fragment. Suggest removing "a misobservation".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"evidence of a crocodile" ... "argument for a whale": I think it's best to talk about this in terms of affinities to crocodilians and cetaceans.

But I think both men were arguing that the skull was exactly a croc or whale, not an animal with affinities to them.

Okay, still find the phrasing awkward but I think this is probably the best that can be done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"based on a number of observations": Everything following these words is basically redundant to the next few sentences.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"in which he noted significant differences between that of a crocodile's and features that suggested a paddle-shaped limb": A bit messy. Suggested rewording: ", which he noted to be significantly different from those of crocodiles and instead suggested paddle-shaped limbs".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"and by this time the specimen referred to as": Missing words? Maybe you meant "and by this time they referred to the specimen as"

I meant to add "was", fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"One of these new scientists": "New" is not needed. Clear already that Camper Jr was uninvolved previously.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"both arguments": Should refer back to the crocodilian and cetacean hypotheses here.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"In on his own examinations": Typo? Replace "In" with "Based".

It is a typo. Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"more affiliated with those in squamates": Affiliation implies relationship, not similarity (which is what I think you mean).

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Cuvier had studied MNHN AC 9648 since its arrival at the museum": Not clear what the purpose of this sentence is.

Changed to "Cuvier himself studied MNHN AC 9648" Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"despite the well-establishment of the binomial system": Awkward phrasing, perhaps something like "even though the binomial system was well established". Also, "binomial system" is just dropped with no explanation — perhaps a hyperlink to binomial nomenclature would also help.

Added. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"In 1822, a publication was made": Did Conybeare write this publication himself? If so, make this clear.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"to refer to the species as Mosasaurus": Is it not a genus? Maybe more appropriate to talk about the specimen.

"Mosasaurus" was not a genus until Cuvier later designated it as such. Added some specification to that. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"deriving from the words": Make clear this is for the name, e.g. "with the name having been derived".

I don't want to use "name" to avoid redundancy of subsequent usage. Changed to "Mosasaurus, a portmanteau derived from..." Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That works. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"and instead adopted Mosasaurus himself and": Repeated "and". Maybe use a semicolon in place of the firs and rephrase.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Footnote: You have not explained what the ICZN is. Perhaps write out the full name with hyperlink.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"drop the extra letter": Perhaps "final letter" would be clearer.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, another section done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrapping up Research history...

§Later discoveries

Full names for Lewis and Clark should be given. Being non-American, it was not obvious that I should know who they are.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"famous 1804-1806 expedition": The dash here should be an en dash "–". Same goes for subsequent numerical ranges.

Done. Is there a significant difference between "–" and "-"?

"a partial skeleton of "a fish"": The sentence should be reworded so that this comes at the front, otherwise what you are talking about is unclear.

Done.

"Later authors speculated": The sources cited seem to just be Everhart. Is there further commentary on this?

Changed to specify that Everhart said this. Macrophyseter | talk 07:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"to the Mosasaurus genus": "Genus Mosasaurus".

Done without capitalizing "genus". Macrophyseter | talk 21:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that was my intention. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Link marl.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"the M. hoffmannii holotype from Maastricht, which at the time had yet to be given its scientific name": This could be shortened to "the then-unnamed M. hoffmannii holotype", the implication is clear enough to me.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"doubted as to if it were indeed of the": Awkward. Rephrase to "doubted whether it belonged to"?

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 21:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"larger in proportion": What does "in proportion" mean? Seems redundant.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"Whether the two were conspecific": Jargony. Consider defining in parentheses as "belonging to the same species".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"Indian": Does this mean "Native American"? If so, suggest changing for political reasons.

legally, I think that they are explicitly called "Indian" agents, after the Bureau of Indian Affairs (there's a wikilink for the former, which I added) Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"who purchased the fossil": Suggest sentence break and replacing "who" with "he".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"under the specimen catalog": Catalog number.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"a new second species of": Should the second species not be dekayi?

I have realized that I need to amend the information on dekayi. I have previously not realized that the taxon was already invalidated prior to Street (2016), and that Street and Caldwell (2017)'s description of the taxon was intentionally minuscule (and it did not address the dubious status at all). Moreover, I misidentified the type specimen, which turns out to actually be lost. As a result, I've amended the article's status on the taxon, which should address this point in the process. Macrophyseter | talk 02:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. If it's a nomen dubium, though, I don't see how it could be entirely a synonym of M. hoffmanni (beyond just those specimens you mention at the end)? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Does the text read in that way? In the history of taxonomy section, Street defined her usage of the taxon during the study as all specimens that have been traditionally identified as M. dekayi, which were all found to be reassignable to M. hoffmannii; in her thesis she claimed that the only known illustration of the holotype suggests that the lost specimen was more like M. hoffmannii than a distinct species. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Earlier in 1834 however": Comma before "however".

Added. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"same locality of": "as".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"which he thought belonged": Run-on sentence. Probably break here.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"the shape of the teeth, type of dentition": Not clear what "type" means here. If it's too convoluted, suggest simplifying to "features of the teeth".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"the snouts of the fossil and of Ichthyosaurus": Reword to "the snout of the fossil and those of Ichthyosaurus".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, this could not be confirmed...": I would suggest simplifying the story here to something like "This could not be confirmed until the snout was relocated".

But wouldn't it need context as to why the snout needs to be relocated? Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, fair point. Okay, not an issue. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"land limbs": Not clear what this means. Weight-bearing limbs? Limbs suited to moving on land?

Changed to terrestrial limbs. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"better suited with": "By"?

Changed to "better supported by" Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"At the time... features of Mosasaurus known from fossils at the time": Repetitive. Perhaps simplify to "known skeletal features of Mosasaurus".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"which Schlegel extracted": Clarify that it was from the gypsum.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"it was not until... was it commonly agreed that Mosasaurus had flippers instead of feet": Grammar? Suggest simplifying to "that Schlegel's hypothesis found wider acceptance".

Done. But based on the historical context I have the impression that people would be crediting the hypothesis as being originally formulated by Marsh, Cope, and their colleagues (since Schlegel was still disregarded). If two of the same hypotheses are independently formulated and the latter's formulation is proven, does the former get the naming credit for creating the same hypothesis first? Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. I think there are examples of this in mathematics but none come to mind at present. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"the third Mosasaurus species": Again, it's not clear why you're arbitrarily excluding dekayi from the count. Same for lemonnieri and beaugei.

See previous. Macrophyseter | talk 02:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Are there etymologies for conodon, lemonnieri, and beaugei?

Added. Macrophyseter | talk 07:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"since Clidastes was a small mosasaur": I feel the implication is clear enough to omit.

Decided to cut out the parenthesis entirely. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"despite its strong similarities with Clidastes": Doesn't add much, suggest removing.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"Ciply Basin in Belgium": "Of"?

Done. Some of the weird grammatical wordings in the article are sometimes because I am trying to avoid plagiarism. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"its more famous and history-rich congeneric": I've never seen "congeneric" used as a noun. Add "species"?

I used nominalization here. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. That's fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"is historically a controversial taxon": "Has historically been"?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"to be of different species": "To support species-level separation"?

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"better studies of M. conodon are needed": Would be needed?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Can the full name of L. Verding not be found?

Found it, although it seems that his first name is typically abbreviated in many of his publications. Macrophyseter | talk 07:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"there are still some differences in dentition": Cite Madzia in text here. It also feels unnecessary to talk about dentition and quadrates if you mention fluting not long after.

Cut the dentition and quadrate part. But considering that all content in the paragraph subsequent of the last inline citation (including the concerned phrase) are cited only by Madzia, wouldn't an additional inline citation be redundant overcitation? Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. Without an inline citation, it feels too objective instead of being presented as another opinion in the literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just added the inline citation; I'll see how this turns out later. Macrophyseter | talk 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"In all, it has been expressed": Is this a general consensus in the literature? You've cited Madzia only for this.

I used it to try to illustrate the context of it meaning "in the big picture" or something like that, I might have misused the phrase. Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"that are now in the National Museum of Natural History, France": Run-on sentence, suggest breaking here. Link the museum.

Done for first. The museum is already linked earlier. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Didn't realize. That's fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"variations of the species": "Within the species".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"but the study ultimately did not refer them to it": Pronouns are unclear. Suggest "but were ultimately not referred to M. beaugei".

Fixed.

"previously only known from fragmentary or isolated fossils": Were there further fossils other than the teeth? If so, mention them briefly. If not, reword to something like "The study also described the first non-fragmentary M. beaugei fossils in the form of..."

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving on soon... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Classification

Some high level comments on Classification. I won't reiterate previously-raised points.

@Lythronaxargestes: Some high-level comments indeed. It took me a good month to get it through with the research needed, plus I had the copyedit review to also do along with life stuff in between, but I've finished addressing your points.

Great! Good news is that this is probably the section that I felt had the most organizational problems, so it gets easier from here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel like there are two parallel stories here: the intrageneric systematics of Mosasaurus, and the cladistic relationships of the genus as a whole. The first paragraph feels out of place where it is, and may work better just before the discussion of Russell (1967). Subsections may be helpful also.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 02:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Within the first paragraph, I also think the presentation is not ideal. I think it makes much more sense to first talk about the high-level affinities of mosasaurs, then drill down to the position of the Mosasaurinae.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 02:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary of citing the Reeder analysis as the final word. I would rather cite a few to show that there is emerging consensus — if there is one.

Turns out that I was just being super lazy, the subject is actually very controversial and far from final. I've added a new section explaining the debate between monitor lizard or snake relationships. Macrophyseter | talk 02:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Your overview of the literature is great! Just not sure if some of the more historical content on this specific subject should go in the main mosasaur article. What do you think, FunkMonk? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a difficult issue, especially since Mosasaurus itself is of course tied closely to this debate, being the first known mosasaur. So maybe I'll even see it the other way around, that most of the early debate is relevant here, as it would pertain mostly to Mosasaurus itself, whereas later research would focus much broader, and might be more fitting at the higher rank article (I had a similar issue when writing Segnosaurus). I'll take a closer look when I reach that section. In the meantime, I was wondering about the caption "Scientists continue to debate on whether monitor lizards (left) or snakes (right) are the closest living relatives of Mosasaurus." In this context it is stated as if it only affects Mosasaurus, when it should be mosasaurs in general. Maybe there are other issues like that in the text itself, will have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think some of the methodological details of the "integrated" analyses, at least, could be streamlined since they are not so important to the wider picture. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Simões' analysis is introduced without much fanfare. In fact, the general impression I get is that there's a big chunk of the story missing about developments in mosasaurine phylogenetic analyses between 1997 and 2016. I get that Simões' analysis is ultimately based heavily on Bell's, but can any comment be made about incremental improvements made in intervening years?

Apart from some tiny tid-bits that I added mentions of, there has essentially been no real change specific to Mosasaurus. There has been some large developments for some of its relatives, but that is out of the scope for this article. Macrophyseter | talk 02:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just a prospective comment... you may have to revise the organization of this section when the rest of Street's thesis is published. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 02:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

§History of taxonomy

"were not solid": Suggest "were not well defined".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"a proper diagnosis": Should link and define diagnosis in text.

Wikilinked Species description.

"As a result": Redundant.

Is this for every use of similar context? ATM I'm guessing that you mean the one used right after the point above. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Unless explicitly noted please assume that I refer to specific instances of each phrase. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 16:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"confusing ambiguity": Redundant. Remove "confusing".

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"junior synonyms": Might want to define this too.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"species that were found to be junior synonyms of species that were found to be junior synonyms themselves": Not sure I speak for all readers, but this leaves me wanting specifics.

Added a specific example. I initially hesitated to state the example because I fear it would be confusing to the narration as M. maximus being a junior synonym is focused on later. Macrophyseter | talk 16:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"one of the earliest proper diagnoses of Mosasaurus": This is where having Description before would be useful. I think it is appropriate to talk about some of the constituents of that diagnosis, and to compare it to e.g., Street's diagnosis.

Solved by prior Description swap. Macrophyseter | talk 16:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"such as M. hoffmannii and the holotype specimen": Clearly the holotype is important to the diagnosis, but I'd think that it is implied by saying just "M. hoffmannii".

Removed redundant holotype mention. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"and establish a clearer diagnosis of the genus": Bit repetitive. Also, what is "clearer" relative to if there is no prior diagnosis?

This one's a bit hard. Russell's description became the standard for other paleontologists for a long time, but technically it isn't a procedurally-correct diagnosis since it never examined the holotype, but is much more clearer than previous descriptions of the genus. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This explanation should replace the adjective "clearer", I think. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, done. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Later scientists": I think at least cursory mentions of these key players are warranted. So suggest replacing "in [year]" citations with "by [author] in [year]" citations, if it is possible to identify them.

Replaced years with study in-word citations as that states the years. Macrophyseter | talk 16:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"reclassified as a tylosaurine": Should mention something about the definition of Tylosaurinae (e.g. closer to Tylosaurus than Mosasaurus).

Changed the mention to entirely say that a reclassification to Tylosaurus itself was done, with the associated study cited. Macrophyseter | talk 16:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"full diagnoses": "Full" is a weird notion. What is a "partial" diagnosis?

Changed to "modern diagnoses". Macrophyseter | talk 16:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences": Drop "of Natural Sciences" for consistency.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"with questionable identification": Reads a bit weirdly. Suggest "that has been questionably attributed to the species".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"made with the supervision": Could be simplified to "supervised by paleontologist Michael Caldwell". The assumption that the supervisor belongs to the same university is a straightforward one.

Simplified. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"formal proper": Not totally clear in what sense these adjectives are true. I would focus on the specific methodological contributions that differentiate this description and diagnosis.

Removed "formal" to ease contextual confusion and also explained later in text how it clarified past ambiguities. Macrophyseter | talk 16:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"twelve candidate Mosasaurus species": Better to say "M. hoffmanni and twelve candidate species" so that the juxtaposition is clear.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"with results representing...": A bit vague and redundant to following sentences.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 16:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"found to be within the genus": I think "as distinct" is important here. M. beaugei is still in the genus, it's just been sunk.

Added "distinct species". Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"with the synonymy of M. dekayi and M. maximus": I think just "along with M. dekayi and M. maximus as previously suggested" is enough. I had to read this a few times.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"outside of the Mosasaurinae subfamily": First mention of the subfamily. Link.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"representatives of Moanasaurus": First mention of the genus. Link.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"M. conodon was placed in a unique position": Unless Street specifically calls it unique, I would avoid such commentary and just state the result.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Western Interior Seaway": This is the first mention of the WIS so it's very confusing. I would just talk about "western/eastern North American" unless you want to go into the WIS now.

Done, but I linked WIS in the midwestern mention. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"The diagnosis of the Mosasaurus holotype was published": Should start a new paragraph. I see this as bringing the last paragraph's contents into the literature.

Split. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"co authored": Insert dash or delete space?

Added a dash. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"has been foreshadowed in": What does this mean? Is it a statement like "a revision is forthcoming"? If so something like "referenced" might be clearer.

Changed to "verbally referenced". Macrophyseter | talk 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"5th Annual Meeting Canadian Society": "of the"?

Typo. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"premature": "Preliminary" might be a better word.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"previous literature" and footnote: Something like "independent of Street's thesis" would be clearer.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"taxons": "Taxa".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"The study declared that these "possibly valid" species will be formally reassessed in the future": I think this could be incorporated into "and considered the four Pacific species to be possibly valid, pending formal reassessment in the future".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

All my comments on this section for now. Again, it's clear to me that there should and will be more content in this section in the future, so I won't comment much further on its content. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the wait. More soon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving along... I see that you've moved the Classification section, which is good. I won't jump to the Description but I will comment with it in mind.

§Systematics and evolution

The opening paragraph is a bit light on citations. I think Russell and Bell should be cited.

"(the order comprising of lizards and snakes)": Don't need "the order", you said it is one already.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk

"comprising of": Comprised of.

Changed to "comprises of" due to grammar change Macrophyseter | talk 18:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Family" and "subfamily" need to be linked at first mention earlier in the article.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Paraphylys are typically regarded as an unconformable way of classification": This wording is a bit weird. A paraphyly is not a way of classification as much as it is an outcome. Consider rephrasing, and, if possible, citing to a source.

Reexplained to specifically say that paraphyly is not allowed in cladistics. Macrophyseter | talk 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Aaron Leblanc of the University of Alberta, Caldwell, and Bardet": This is awkward. Either put the institution in parentheses or remove it entirely.

Institution cut. Macrophyseter | talk 16:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Leblanc": Should be "LeBlanc".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"argued that while": Comma after that.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"would be unconventional to": Suggest "would not follow", per the source.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Linnean hierarchy principles": Should elaborate on this with something like "the name of the type genus must carry over to all ranks in the hierarchy".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"and that the original diagnostics": Put a comma before this.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"diagnostics": Diagnosis?

I am referring diagnostics to mean ways of diagnosis.

Something like "diagnostic methods" would be more appropriate. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

§Relation with snakes or monitor lizards

The first paragraph should be split at "In a span of about 30 to 40 years". Too long to read comfortably.

Split. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"has been extremely controversial": Avoid qualifiers like "extremely" unless it can be cited.

Removed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"examine the possible taxonomic placement": "examine" feels like the wrong verb. Suggest "analyze".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"the accuracy of such placement": this placement?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"alternative hypotheses, one such alternative": Needs a conjunction like "with".

Added. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"With the absence of fossils allowing clear anatomical distinction": Not clear what this means?

Rewrote. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"had little to work with and primarily relied on": Replace "and" with a sentence break.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Due to these handicaps": Not needed; the previous sentence is clear enough.

Changed to "thus". Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"critical research... critical research": Repeated. Also not clear what "critical" means.

Changed first occurrence to "in-depth". Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"more complete mosasaur fossils": To be clear, is this just Mosasaurus or also other taxa?

Other taxa. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"one that supported a monitor lizard relationship": In the interests of parallelism, this should be "a relationship with monitor lizards".

Should I also do this for the first occurrence? Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I see only one occurrence of "monitor lizard relationship". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"conceived": Cope could have thought of it much earlier. "published" would be more appropriate.

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"under a clade": Link "clade" and perhaps define it ("unified group") at first mention. But did cladistics exist then?

Sources called them clades, but that might be retroactive interpretation. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"had a sister relationship with snakes": "Relationship" is repeated in this sentence so I would "was the sister group of snakes".

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"argue that mosasaurs should be placed": "argued"? Regardless of whether this is ongoing, we are still talking about those particular decades.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"lower classifications varying from": I think this sentence can be simplified in terms of "placements": e.g. "placed within Varanoidea or its sister taxa, or as true monitor lizards within Varanidae".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"although not all are able to complement others": Not clear what this means. Do you mean that they are not all compatible?

Changed to "compatible".

"such as the Mosasauria... It is a loosely-defined clade": This feels abrupt. I think Mosasauria should be introduced in a new sentence, e.g. "One of these was the Mosasauria..."

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Classification of lizards": Capitalize. Is there a "the" in the title?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"for approximately the next 70 years": "The next" is redundant.

Removed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"during those times": "that time"?

Cut out that part. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"continue": Again, I think "continued" is more appropriate.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"there had never been a modern phylogenetic analysis": Link "phylogenetic analysis", or maybe "phylogenetic study" earlier in the section.

Added to latter. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"part of the reason for the preceding scientific trend": This should be a separate sentence, it's a bit of a run on. Does this "trend" refer to varanoid-affiliated classifications? What are the other reasons?

Elaborated. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"This was supported": Suggest "This hypothesis".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"used to represent mosasaurs": What does this mean? Was Mosasauria treated as encompassing only mosasaurs or as a superset of mosasaurs (i.e. also including dolichosaurs and whatnot)?

Is it important in the scope of the article to define whether or not dolichosaurs are within it? Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm just confused about the point of the sentence. Is it that some studies are equating Mosasauria and Mosasauroidea? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"However, there still remained little consensus; for example": Semicolon should be a sentence break.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"polytomy, or multiple sister relationships": I personally think of polytomies as indicating unresolved relationships.

Changed to "unresolved sister relationships". Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"basal to both monitor lizards and snakes": Link and define "basal". I typically go with "less specialized than".

Added. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph needs shortening (in this article, anyway; it would do fine at Mosasauria) so I won't comment on it further for now.

§Phylogeny and evolution of genus

I think there needs to be a "the" before "genus" in the title.

Added. Macrophyseter | talk 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"which began with M. ivoensis and evolved into M. missouriensis": Is there more to the sequence? If not, I suggest simplifying this to "consisting of ivoensis, missouriensis, and maximus/hoffmanni".

Changed to "contained in order of succession". Macrophyseter | talk 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"in his study as at the time the works... had yet to be widely established": Unnecessarily complicated. "as modern methods in cladistics had yet to be established" is enough.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"cladistical study": Is "cladistical" supposed to be different from "cladistic"? I don't hear it that much.

I think cladistical means "relating to cladistics" Macrophyseter | talk 18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"and an unnamed species": What is this?

Bell (1997) identified this as Mosasaurus sp., which I guess would mean unnamed species. Macrophyseter | talk 18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you know if it has been named since then, or if it is one of Street's proposed species? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The only other mention of the associated specimen is in Ikejiri and Lucas (2014), which only briefly mentions some of its characteristics to compare with M. conodon. I've decided to rename Mosasaurus sp. to just "indeterminate specimen". Macrophyseter | talk 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"and concluded with a partial agreement to Russell (1967)": This should begin the next sentence. Also, it's not clear where Bell and Russell disagree. Make it clear.

Cleaned up. Macrophyseter | talk 18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"of the Mosasaurus genus": Drop Mosasaurus, the implication is clear. Same thing later in the paragraph.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"formed a sister relationship with Plotosaurus": Is there any reason why that does not make it Mosasaurus bennisoni by monophyly? Especially since other workers have recovered it (judging by the cladograms below).

Bell (1997) acknowledged the paraphyletic nature of Mosasaurus but he didn't move Plotosaurus into the genus for unexplained reasons (He did merge Mosasaurini and Plotosaurini to make the tribe monophyletic), and subsequent studies seem to just follow along with this. Although the general rule of thumb is to make monophyly by merging the paraphyletic sister taxa, there are cases where scientists argue that taxa are too distinct from each other to be congeneric and that it is just better to leave the relationship paraphyletic. An example I can pull up from this would be the Megalodon (Otodus vs. Carcharocles) and hastalis (Carcharodon vs. Cosmopolitodus) genus debates, which are still raging on quite fiercely as scientists still can't reach a consensus on whether the two are too distinct from their predecessor to merge genera or not (IMO, I support a Carcharodon monophyly by absorbing C. hastalis into it but I support keeping Megalodon within Carcharocles and acknowledging Otodus as paraphyletic because I believe the sheer morphological differences and temporal discrepancies between the two are too great to be grouped into one genus). In my speculation, it's possible that scientists agree that Plotosaurus is too morphologically derived to be absorbed into Mosasaurus. Macrophyseter | talk 18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, just want to make sure there isn't an explanation in the literature that has been missed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"basal sister group": I don't see how a sister group can be basal.

What would be a better term for that then? Macrophyseter | talk 18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think "sister group to Mosasaurus and Plotosaurus" is clearer — if this is what you mean. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"^[55][69][56],": Comma before citations. I personally also like to put citations in order but I don't think it's a requirement (this goes for the whole article).

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"a number of issues from this": Replace "from this" with "in this analysis".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"pointed out: first": In the interests of parallelism, "first" should begin a new sentence.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"led to paraphyletic results": What does this mean? Why is this bad?

Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"osteological comparative studies": "comparative osteological" works better. But I suggest dejargonifying this anyway, to something like "comparative studies of skeletal anatomy".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"which also hampered accurate results": Redundant, especially since the "how" isn't elaborated upon.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"in its phylogenetic": "its"? I think "his" would make more sense?

Typo. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"descending clades": Not clear what "descending" means.

Changed to "descendant". Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"M. hoffmannii and M. lemonnieri are not related by genus": This is redundant to the rest of the sentence. Or is it supposed to mean something different?

Cut out the latter part. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"as the operational taxonomic unit outgroup": I think just "outgroup" is fine. But you do need to explain "outgroup" (e.g. "a taxon assumed to be more basal than all others").

Cut.

"higher rather than lower classification": Unclear what "higher/lower" means. Do you mean "high-level/low-level"? Why does an artificial outgroup make a difference?

Wikilinked outgroup. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"it has been cautioned": Clarify that this caution comes from other workers.

Specified. Should I explicitly mention the cited study? Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"lower-classification results": Same issue with "lower".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"may contain technical problems that can affect its accuracy": I think "may be inaccurate" gets the point across.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"maximum clade credibility tree inferred by a Bayesian analysis": I'm not convinced that these methodological details are important but other reviewers may disagree.

There's many ways you can do a phylogenetic test, I thought it would be important to state the distinction if present. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"from the most recent major phylogenetic analysis": "from" -> "in".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Simões et al., (2017)": Don't need the comma.

Another typo. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"with proposals for numerous new taxa and recombinations": You mentioned the thesis before so you don't need to go into it.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"foreshadowed in the study": Same comment as before.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

That's it for now. Will loop back to Description soon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Description

A few general comments to begin.

Can general comments be made about the bodyplan of Mosasaurus as a mosasaur? For an example of what I am talking about, see the start of Description in Acamptonectes.

I would like to see more of Street and Caldwell's generic diagnosis incorporated into this section. For instance, you don't mention the maxilla, frontal, quadrate, jugal...

Is there a particular reason dentition is discussed before the rest of the skull? Especially since you introduce a number of jawbones in that section that would perhaps be serviced by the schematic diagram.

I wonder if the discussion of tooth replacement belongs better in Paleobiology. It fits in both places, honestly. Perhaps other reviewers could chime in on this.

§Size

Which size ratio for M. hoffmannii does the scale diagram match?

On second thought, there might be verifiability issues with this size diagram. For M. hoffmannii and M. missouriensis, the diagram just followed the information given by the creator of the skeletal the silhouettes are based on (SaltieCroc), which although might as well be one of the only rigorous attempts at reconstructing Mosasaurus with updated material technically counts as an amateur work unless the creator's correspondences with professionals like Lindgren can be tangibly cited.Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"the total length of mosasaur individuals": Change to "a mosasaur individual". You're not summing across individuals.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"which could then be used to yield...": Suggest simplifying to "and applying the ratio of its length to that of the entire body".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"a skull or lower jaw to body proportion": Not clear what "body" means. Is it the postcranial length or the total length?

Changed all to "total length". Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"which equates the ratio... being 1:10": "gives the ratio... to be".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"although no rationale is given for this": Has there been any speculation about the rationale?

Nope. Russell (1967) just states the ratio and gives no explanation as to how he came to that conclusion. Given that no study appears to have directly scrutinized the ratio, anything regarding it comes from amateur works and comments. From that, I've also heard unsubstantiated claims that the ratio may have been based on M. lemmonnieri.Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"When applying the ratio in the same study, Russell yielded": Suggest simplifying to "In the same study, he used this ratio to estimate".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"using the largest reliable skull"; "most notably a large M. hoffmannii lower jaw": Specimen numbers?

Done. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"largest reliable": What is meant by "reliable"?

Changed to "verifiable". Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"that reportedly "is reliably estimated at 1600 mm"": Make clear that the estimate is for the full length of the mandible.

Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"yielded a total length of 17.6 meters": I don't see how this works. If we follow 1700 mm -> 17 m, should this not be 1600 mm -> 16 m? That's assuming it's "lower jaw to total length".

That's the thing. A lot of people have brought this up (you can see one in the article's talk page), but for some reason, scientific literature has not scrutinized what is likely a misapplication of the ratio. I'm not sure if I can explicitly state that the ratio may have been misapplied unless it can be on the grounds of basic math, but otherwise stating the estimated mandible length in a quote seemed to the closest I could imply the potential inaccuracy. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"used to determine the total length of Mosasaurus": This seems obvious, so a bit redundant.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"of the mosasaurine": Since this is no longer after Classification, don't mention "mosasaurine".

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"this proportion is of": "they suggested" flows more smoothly.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"body proportion ratio": Proportion and ratio mean the same thing. "Head-body ratio"?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"recorded for M. lemonnieri... recorded by Dollo in 1892": Repetitive. I would suggest moving the 1:11 ratio upfront to between these two sentences as well.

Moved. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"consists of, but not limited to": "includes" is enough.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"When applying": "By".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"in his access": Awkward phrasing. "accessible to him" works better.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"recorded lengths": These are surely estimates, not recordings?

Changed to "estimates". Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"lengths... in total length": Repetitive. Replace the former with "total lengths" and remove the latter.

It confuses me as to how I managed to pull such a redundancy. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"When applying Dollo's ratio": This grammatically makes it seems like the skull yields the length — it's the ratio that yields it. So "When Dollo's ratio is applied".

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"and large M. lemonnieri": Does that mean that smaller individuals exist? How many of them relative to the large ones? Furthermore, 110 cm and 111 cm are not terribly far from 114 cm. I wonder if this statement is even significant.

Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"being measured at": "measuring" is enough.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

All for now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Macrophyseter, I've responded to a few old points. Please do a diff and check. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the second hiatus, I was forced to set aside the project to finish extremely important business. I've responded to your followups and some additional points; it should be kept in mind that I might be a bit arbitrary in what points I might address. Macrophyseter | talk 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

Thanks for this important article. May take a while until I am through!

• People at FAC may argue that this article is too long. I think it is at the limit length-wise; increased length means it is more difficult to read, review, and maintain. If it is too long, the correct way would be to apply WP:Summary Style, moving very long sections into dedicated sub-articles while leaving a shorter summary here. Not sure if this is needed.
  • Update: The history section looks intimidating but reads very well! Still consider splitting it up into more sections though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Would the "Relation with snakes or monitor lizards" be, with this level of detail, better placed in the general Mosasaur article, where it might be more relevant? This might be another possibility of reducing article length somewhat.

See above discussion from FunkMonk and myself. Some of the chronologically earlier studies primarily concern Mosasaurus and should probably stay, but the discussion of more modern work could perhaps be summarized more than it currently is. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Individual sections and paragraphs are often too long. The "later discoveries" section needs several sub-sections (or be split into several sections). Also, think about inserting more line breaks in very long paragraphs. Both will facilitate reading; the reader will be better able to breath and contemplate between the chunks of text.

I had also considered your point about splitting Later discoveries. I would divide the first three paragraphs into the sections "American discoveries"; the next two into "Hypotheses about life appearance"; then the rest can retain the current section title. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've split them. Macrophyseter | talk 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• he named it the Mosasaurus – also later in the article, can we get rid of the "the", since genus names are written without article?

Do you mean all instances of the phrase "the Mosasaurus genus" as well? The usage of the phrase above in the history section was used that way because at the time it technically wasn't a genus name until Cuvier made it so later on, plus adding "the" adds a nice tone IMO that I've seen used before. Just want to make sure if that still floats. Macrophyseter | talk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• making it one of the largest mosasaur genera of all time. – I would remove the "of all time"; sounds a bit like fan speech and doesn't add anything.

Removed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Traditional interpretations have estimated the maximum length of Mosasaurus to be up to 17.6 meters (58 ft), making it one of the largest mosasaur genera of all time. – I would be more neutral and give the range of currently accepted estimates instead.

The problem is that published literature typically doesn't talk about the maximum length of Mosasaurus, and those that do usually just cite Lingham-Soliar (1995) or the Penza estimate as the max or simply ignore the subject entirely. I haven't seen any notable followups to the 12m estimate that uses Prognathodon as a proxy. Hence, I call the ones using Russell's proportions "traditional" although nobody has seemed to directly challenge it in published literature. Macrophyseter | talk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• diet would included virtually anything – this is stated as a fact, when it is in fact speculative; also I think "virtually anything" cannot possibly be correct.

But that seems to be the general consensus among paleontologists for M. hoffmannii. I've changed it to specifically say that scientists believe so. Macrophyseter | talk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• that the remains were from that of an – "that of" is too much? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• non-fragmentary M. beaugei fossils – better say "more complete"?

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Camper's argument for a whale was based on the second skull's locality, features of the skull itself and other mosasaur bones he obtained, and its anatomical similarities with living animals. – Maybe this sentence can be removed, as it doesn't add additional content. While reading, I was actually a bit stressed because it doesn't have the necessary detail I wanted to know at this point (what about the locality, what similarities with living animals), and I (as the reader) didn't know/expect that more detail on this will follow. Deleting it would avoid these hiccup.

Changed to ".. was based on the follwing" since I think there still needs to be a transition from Hoffmann to Camper. Macrophyseter | talk 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Harlan it thought – "thought it"?

typo Macrophyseter | talk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• dorsal posteriorly-placed nostrils – "posterodorsally placed nostrils"? Maybe too complicated for the general reader, what about "at the rear of the upper side of the skull"?

Changed to "nostrils at the top of the skull" Or something like that. Macrophyseter | talk 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• laterally-positioned nose – See above; it was just mentioned the nose is located posterodorsally in the model?

As above, but mentioned as at the side. Macrophyseter | talk 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• conodon, But in 1966 – "but"?

Seems to be a typo in punctuation. Macrophyseter | talk 17:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• scientistic literature – "scientific"

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Taxonbox: "Mosasaurus lemonnieri Russell, 1967" – Russell did not describe this species, it was Dollo? And why is Mosasaurus lemonnieri listed twice, both as a synonym and valid species?

I previously advised a change involving this section of the taxobox but did not follow up. I think the intended meaning is that Russell 1967 sunk M. lemonnieri into M. conodon, but since the article follows Street's taxonomy it is listed as valid. Thus I suggest amending the entry to

• M. lemonnieri? Dollo, 1889

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• A popular method – would write "common method" because this is about science; "popular" somehow implies subjectivity.

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• The most well-known proportion for M. hoffmannii is one recorded by Russell (1967), which equates the ratio between the lower jaw and the body being 1:10, although no rationale is given for this. – When no rationale is given, why is it well-known? Do you instead mean "widely used"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Jens Lallensack: I've responded to all of your comments. Macrophyseter | talk 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• Drive-by comment: the picture of the sperm whale seems kinda random   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the best picture I can find that represents the open ocean at the surface; the sperm whales just happened to be there. I was told in the regular talk page that this is acceptable as a one-step-removed from subject image. Do you have any better images in mind? Macrophyseter | talk 17:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I also found it a bit random, considering sperm whales are not mentioned in the adjacent text. How about an image like this[23] (or similar), which actually shows mosasaurs? This image shows a species which may or may not belong in Mosasaurus I assume, but certainly closer than a whale. It does seem to show rather shallow water, but such habitats are also mentioned in the text. Or maybe use the restoration that is now under "Phylogeny and evolution of genus", which is not entirely relevant to that text either? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

And to take this a bit further, maybe the restorations under description and feeding should be swapped? The text under feeding specifically mentions turtles, as shown in the first image, but the current image there shows it eating a dinosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't really need a picture of the open ocean, so if there aren't any good ones, then don't put an image   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, cut. Macrophyseter | talk 20:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• For the picture in the Western Interior Seaway section, the caption is "Mosasaurus dominated and restructured marine environments that previously hosted diverse faunae such as Platecarpus and Hesperornis" but Hesperornis isn't in the image. Also at FA they'd probably ask you to put a ref for the caption   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The Hesperonis can be seen sticking out at the top right, but do you think I should still remove its reference? Added a citation. Macrophyseter | talk 20:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

the most prominent taxa in that image are Xiphactinus, Archelon, Platecarpus, and the ammonites. It's odd that you point out Hesperornis since it's pretty up there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I aimed to have a picture depicting Western Interior Seaway fauna that went extinct by the onset of the Navesinkan Age and the rise of Mosasaurus, but the best available free picture I could find was such. The thing is that Xiphactinus, Protostega (not Archelon), and the generic ammonite did not go extinct in the Navesinkan turnover. I thought that mentioning only Platecarpus did not issue enough variety to demonstrate the scale of the faunal reorganization, and so I tried to see if I could also mention another affected genus, which was Hesperonis and is also in the image albeit in a rather hidden position. But I'll see how not specifically mentioning any fauna would work out. Macrophyseter | talk 06:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It'd be better to have a picture of animals that did live with Mosasaurus rather than animals that didn't   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

So you think that it would be more informative to present an image demonstrating specifically the fauna that coexisted with Mosasaurus then one that demonstrates the fauna that were affected by the rise of Mosasaurus and the subsequent faunal turnover? Macrophyseter | talk 15:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Changed as such. Macrophyseter | talk 19:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• The caption under Intraspecific combat "Like modern crocodiles, Mosasaurus likely grappled their opponent's snout during infighting" is weird because the crocodile in the image is biting the neck   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That's the best photo of two crocs fighting I found that's closest to snout grappling. I don't presume that pictures of crocs doing nothing would make a suitable alternative. However, I believe I remember seeing a lithograph of two crocodiles snout-grappling although I'll have to find it again. It's not a photograph, but do you think that would suffice? Macrophyseter | talk 20:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

that'd be better. Just trying to look up pictures of that on the internet I only found 1 where they were fighting on a golf course, so I don't imagine it's a very commonly observed activity   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've found the lithograph and replaced the image on the article accordingly. However, the picture depicted crocodile grappling around the cranium, and so I ended up substituting mentions of the snout in text to just the head. Macrophyseter | talk 06:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any pictures of mosasaurs fossils with such pathologies? I think it would better to show than somewhat random images of other animals. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of any free photos of Mosasaurus or any mosasaur fossils with combat pathologies; currently I only know of a photo of a M. missouriensis skeleton from the Royal Tyrrell Museum (from the same formation as the TMP 2008 spcimen), but no images of it I know are free (I presume that non-free use is not appropiate here). That's unless a Canadian is willing to visit the museum and snap a photo of it... But another solution may be to simply adapt a drawing of such a fossil, but for that it needs to be clear on whether or not tracing a drawing of a public fossil from a nominally copyrighted photograph that can easily be reproduced without copyright means counts as infringement...Macrophyseter | talk 19:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A rough trace of a copyrighted photo would possibly be ok, I'm not entirely sure, but it could be brought up at Commons. I think the current solution is fine for now, I'm sure a free image will pop up either on Flickr or a free journal one day. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't already a free one somewhere, which may just not have been labelled properly so it's hard to find... I've found countless images of important specimens that just weren't properly labelled on Commons as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping that one of these days a free photo of the Royal Tyrrell Museum M. missouriensis skeleton with the embedded tooth may show up given that it is one of the main exhibits on display. Sometimes I wish to travel to museums all over the world with the purpose of taking photos of such specimens for use...Macrophyseter | talk 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Err, the peer review was just archived due to inactivity, but I assume all of us reviewers were planning on continuing soon anyway? Shall we just ignore the archival? FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I do have more to say on the remaining sections... just don't want the page to become too unwieldy with outstanding comments. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I held off for a while but I never intended to give up on it. Hopefully, I didn't break anything in my (half comical) reversal of the archive. Macrophyseter | talk 18:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)