WP:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article workshop

I recently unsuccessfully nominated Triassic-Jurassic extinction event for the Featured List. A number of those who identified problems with the article are in this group, and I'm wondering if we can get its flaws resolved and renominate it once the two-week wait period between nominations expires. The consensus seemed to be that the article was rich in information and that the main problem was the lack of readability for a general reader, as while I am very good at adding information, my prose is very technical and not the most engaging, and I'm wondering if I can get some assistance from other WikiProject Palaeontology editors in making it more readable for an average Joe. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Jens

Will have a detailed look when I got the time, but in general I think this is what we need:

• a background section. This should very briefly introduce mass extinctions, say how large this one was compared to the others etc. Then, I would say briefly something about the fauna/flora and events preceeding this mass extinction (PT extonction, Carnian Palluvial episode etc.). It should be especially easy to read and understand.

• technical language: introduce/explain difficult terms and concepts at first mention, or replace with plainer wording where you don't loose pecision.

• A FAC also need to be very comprehensive. I don't see anything about research history? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

::I have just added a fairly barebones paragraph-long section on the research history of the TJME (that can be built on easily), discussing the ancient, dogmatic, uniformitarian theories about gradual climate change and sea level fall being the culprit, to talking about the asteroid impact craze of the 1980s and 1990s when the Cretaceous-Palaeogene extinction event was found to be caused by the Chicxulub impact and everybody was going around attributing every mass extinction to some impact event, to the development of the modern day consensus that the TJME was caused by the activity of the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Looks good content-wise, but this new section, too, needs to be made more accessible to the general public. Let me know if you need further help with that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Yes, I'd appreciate if someone with better prose could help with altering the wording to be more readable for the general public. When authoring Wikipedia article, I'm already trying to write at a level lower than what I typically write at in any academic or professional writing I do, and my baseline knowledge is so far from the general public's that I'm not sure how to convey information accessibly; whenever I'm at public outreach events for palaeontology and get asked something, I regularly end up having to explain something twice or thrice even though the first explanation was already "dumbed down" to what I thought was a very basic level. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::I tried to edit the lead and the history section accordingly. Will try do some more when time allows. Some more things I noted:

:::::*We should not provide citations in the lead (exceptions may apply), since everything is supposed to be cited in the main body. It's like the abstract of a paper, where we also don't have citations.

:::::*Plants, crocodylomorphs, dinosaurs, pterosaurs and mammals were left largely untouched,[4][5][6] allowing the dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and crocodylomorphs to become the dominant land animals for the next 135 million years. – This is repetitive and inaccurate (Crocodylomorphs were not really the dominant land animals, for example). Can we remove this?

:::::*The lead only says something about the extinction of archosauromorphs but nothing about the marine roam, for example, so this seems quite incomplete. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::@Jens Lallensack I have overhauled the lead so that it no longer has in-text citations in it and have given the lead a little bit more context about what happened on land and in the sea regarding the extinction and survival of different clades, as well as addressing the many points raised by @Dunkleosteus77. Do you think the article would be ready for a Good Article nomination or a Featured Article nomination at this point, or is more work still needed in the lead and/or in main body sections of this article? -- Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding taking it straight back to FAC in two weeks, I'd recommend instead taking it through WP:GAN first, even most experienced FAC nominators continue doing that, it's the safest step towards FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

• "The earliest research on the TJME was conducted in the mid-20th century" I mean surely someone must have noticed a major extinction event between the Triassic and Jurassic way earlier when the terms Triassic and Jurassic were coined? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• "were dismissed as catastrophism" link catastrophism and it might make more sense to the reader if you mention catastrophism's association with young Earth creationism Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• "gradual environmental changes were favoured as the cause of the extinction" any specific environmental changes anyone suggested? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• "caused by a bolide impact" would meteor not work here instead? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• "The theory that the TJME was caused by massive volcanism" it wasn't because someone dated the formation of the CAMP to around the time of the TJME? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• What is Modern evolutionary fauna? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Maybe include a picture of the Triassic timescale with how often you reference it? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• "The Lilliput effect affected megalodontid bivalves, whereas file shell bivalves experienced the Brobdingnag effect, the reverse of the Lilliput effect" You could just say that they shrank or grew and in parentheses say the actual term Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• "weathering of the CAMP's aerially extensive" why specify from the air? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Some clades recovered more slowly than others, however, as exemplified by corals and their disappearance in the early Hettangian" you already said this with the Hettangian coral gap Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• :Sorry for the wait, but my latest edit to the page addressed nearly all the points you made, other than the timescale picture and pre-1950s research on the TJME (I couldn't find any). The Modern evolutionary fauna is very briefly described as the marine fauna that dominates oceans to this day, "bolide impact" is changed to the simpler "impact event", the dating of the CAMP showing a temporal correspondence with the TJME has been mentioned in the research history section, the Lilliput effect is now briefly described in layman's terms, the redundant part about the coral gap is gone, the relevance of the aerial extent of the CAMP is clarified, the gradual environmental changes once thought to have caused the TJME are now more specifically described, and the association of catastrophism with creationism is mentioned. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I've worked on this article for the last month(ish) or so and have gotten it into what I consider a decent state, thanks to some help from a few other editors. If anyone would be willing to provide a content assessment/further feedback it would be appreciated, I'm trying to get this one up to B-class. Not promoting to GA until I get access to/English translations of a few extremely obscure sources, but for the time being this is about as far as I think I can go content-wise. I'm especially looking for fluent/intermediate Russian speakers, since most of the relevant sources are in Russian and I've had to rely on a combination of machine translation and very unenthused acquaintances to figure anything out. Gasmasque (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Looking very good. I did copy edits of the entire article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parahelicoprion&diff=1255046765&oldid=1255005268]; as always, feel free to revert anything you do not like.
• The characteristics of this whorl are unique to fishes of the order Eugeneodontida, – this somehow implies that taxa outside Eugeneodontida also have whorls, is this the case?
• Later sources have reported a holotype specimen spanning 25 cm (10 in) across and consisting of six tooth crowns,[9][13][24] based on a reconstructed cast of the material photographed by ichthyologist Svend Erik Bendix-Almgreen during the 1970s – should say "incorrectly reported", because a reconstructed cast is never a holotype, right?
• I probably messed this up in my copy edit, but you use both "Denticles" and "serrations"; I guess you use "serrations" when you talk about them collectively?
• The Artinskian deposits of Krasnoufimsk, or the Arta Beds – In the lead, you call them "Artinskian Beds"
• We usually have the section on size (here "Estimated length") in the "Description" section. Consider moving it up, because at the moment, size is mentioned earlier but the reader does not know at this point that the genus was particularly large, this information comes a bit late.
• "... might have been over 30 meters (100 ft) in lengths - perhaps the largest fish of all time", – just checking, does the original quote indeed include the conversion to feet, has the typo "lenghts", and does not use a proper ndash?
• a claim made based on extrapolating size from the preserved section of the whorl. – I am not sure this adds anything; of course the estimate is based on preserved fossils, I don't think this needs to be mentioned?
• authors Dagmar Merino-Rodo and Phillipe Janvier – why "authors" instead of "paleontologists"? Does this mean they are non-academics (and even if, we should still call them paleontologists if they publish academic papers).
• "... unless it (Parahelicoprion) was an animal with a gigantic head or outlandishly oversized teeth, it had to have been a monster, at least 100 feet long and maybe more." – in case you added "(Parahelicoprion)" to this quote yourself (?), it needs to be in square brackets instead to indicate this.
• Physonemus grandis? (Moore) – In the taxonbox; do we have a year to add here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• :Thank you so much for this!
• :* Several other groups of extinct fish, including Onychodus, some acanthodians and the iniopterygians also had tooth whorls, although these were often "parasyphyseal" and paired and were unrelated to those of eugeneodonts
• :* I agree incorrectly would be right here, both Zangerl's 1981 handbook and the description of P. mariosuarezi make no note of the fact that the material is a cast, despite Bendix-Almgreen saying so and them attributing the figure to being drawn from his photograph. Side note, either this exact specimen or another model of it is/was recently [https://www.ammonit.ru/text/1496.htm on display] at the Moscow Paleontological Museum, and I've already tagged the talk page asking any Russian editors if they could photograph it or its label. Said label may have information that clears up when and why this reconstructed cast was made
• :* Serrations is the term used for the large number of curved indentations in clerci, and denticles is used for the three at the base of the "wing" on mariosuarezi. Since the two structures are homologous I see no issue with the same term being used for both
• :* Arta Beds seems to be a mostly historic term now that more specific formations are defined, although the 2010 Handbook of Paleoichthyology continues to list P. clerci as originating from the "Arta Beds". I'll update the lead, but Arta in this case is meant to be synonymous with Artinskian-aged. The description of Artiodus from the Divya Formation notes P. clerci as being from its same formation, so it may be worth changing the lead to say Divya Formation. I'm keeping it as "Arta Beds" for now, but do let me know what you think
• :* If I'm being quite honest the "estimated length" section was a bit of an afterthought. I was genuinely shocked when I found out there were actual (reputable, may I add) sources saying such nonsense, which I had previously assumed was relegated to mid-2010s internet blogs and lying Wiki editors. I can move the section to "Description", which would be in accordance with the similar situation regarding Walking with Dinosaur's Liopleurodon "estimate". I'm still giving it its own section and not integrating it into the section about known material, if that's alright, since I worry of giving undue weight
• :* The passage in Perrine's book does indeed have [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sharks_Rays/g3QWAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=parahelicoprion&dq=parahelicoprion&printsec=frontcover strange grammar, misspell "length", and state 100 ft as equivalent to 30 m]. It is not, however, a directly quote from Lund (only something he "calculated") as I had written before, and I've changed the text to accommodate. That misattribution is purely a mistake on my part
• :* They are paleontologists, I can change that
• :* Can change to square brackets. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GUoPrtNUB3qhU84pllxpo7Hq7lFSBvcB/view?usp=sharing This quote is real by the way], along with a similar passage about Edestus giganteus. Lund was cited as one of the primary scientific advisors for this book, too, although not explicitly for the Parahelicoprion line
• :* Neither Baird nor Karpinsky (nor Obruchev's 1952 summary of the Edestidae) provide the date for Physonemus grandis, although Baird does specify it was described by Moore. I can try to track down mention of this species, although there are many, many species of Physonemus and some of these papers are not available online, so no promises I'll have any luck
• :Again, appreciate the review, and can make the requested changes. I'm in agreement with your copyedits, the text definitely flows better now! Gasmasque (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::I did successfully find the authority for Xystracanthus (Physonemus) grandis (Moore, 1929) and have updated the text to accommodate. I've also found a full copy of Karpinsky's 1924 description and will be uploading the figures and photos from that onto Commons. Expect the page to see some pretty significant revisions now that I've gotten ahold of a couple more papers! Gasmasque (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:The rating tool already gives the article a B, so I've updated it. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:I've added a good amount of additional information and corrected some of the weird misspeaking/mistakes that came about from screwy translations, and I would really appreciate if anyone fluent in French or Russian could check over the cited sources to look for further misinterpretation. The [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/24588#page/775/mode/1up 1916], [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/151415#page/391/mode/1up 1922], and [https://viewer.rusneb.ru/ru/004546_000112_RuPRLIB12052766?page=17&rotate=0&theme=white 1924] descriptions are all in Russian, as is this [https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/xLoRAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 1926] source detailing the discovery of a segment of the tooth whorl. [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015082119366&seq=149 This article] focusing on comparisons with the genus and Agassizodus/Campodus is in French, and in particular I wanted to ask @Amirani1746 for assistance fact-checking the content sourced from it. I've primarily had to rely on machine translation software (which is infamously of pretty dubious quality) for the Russian sources, unfortunately I do not know any fluent speakers interested in helping with the project. All of these publications are quite short, and as far as I can tell several of them re-iterate a lot of the exact same points. Again, huge thanks if anyone is able to help me out with this! Gasmasque (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::{{u|Gasmasque}} As French speaker, I'm intersted to translate the french source ! But above all, i need to acess it. Amirani1746 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:::I appreciate the interest! If the HathiTrust link decides not to work, I can send the paper via Google Drive as well. It's public domain in both the U.S. and E.U., so I've also uploaded the relevant figures to Commons. Gasmasque (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Apologies, it seems Hathi may limit access to all works published after the 1890's outside of the U.S. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dRoDMxLFlocsF-P4BEvxPveoZ3GQgJIU/view?usp=sharing Here's a link to the Google Drive] Gasmasque (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

: Given the supplemental material of "Cautionary tales on the use of proxies to estimate body size and form of extinct animals" says {{tq|However, there is no guarantee the tooth whorl was helical, and indeed given the proposed similarities between Sarcoprion and Parahelicoprion (Merino-Rodo & Janvier, 1986) a shorter, more Sarcoprion tooth whorl seems more likely. If a Sarcoprion-like arrangement were inferred, Parahelicoprion likely reached similar sizes to Helicoprion (~7 m?).}} I think you can be a bit less cagey and more specific about this size estimate in the relevant section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::That whole section needs a bit of a rewrite in accordance with the supplementary material, I agree I may be a bit overly cautious to provide a specific number. I'll also adjust the section on the proposed whorl shape to lend more support to the idea that it possessed a short whorl as well. Gasmasque (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'm interested in touching up this article a bit and potentially trying to aim for a GA promotion. If anyone able to read Russian is willing to give the article and sources a look-over I would appreciate it, since I don't think it is appropriate or defensible to submit an article for GA review that's based in part on Translate. Outside of passing mentions I've not found any additional English-language sources since November, and content-wise I think the article is about as large as it reasonably can be. Gasmasque (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

My current work-in-progress – an old FA I did some significant work on back in 2012, with the approval of {{u|Firsfron}}, the original main author. My plan is to finish the job now and give it the same treatment as we did for Thescelosaurus – a full revision. Several important papers have been published on it since, so there is quite a bit to do.

I am listing it here already in case anyone has ideas or thoughts, or likes to join in for a collaboration (be welcome!). If this is not the case, I am prepared to finish the job myself, but would probably need some help on the way, especially with images, and, of course, reviews in the end to ensure FA-level quality. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks, Jens. I recall the nice work you did more than a decade ago. I can see several updates are needed. I've been working on sauropodomorph paleontology for a couple of years, and may have some things to contribute here or elsewhere eventually. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Excellent – I will ping you once we are done with the updates, and, if you then have time to take a look, would greatly appreciate your input and your thoughts on whether or not the revision is going into the right direction, particularly regarding length and level of detail. The FA standards have changed since this article was promoted; in particular, we are no longer supposed to completely avoid important but complicated technical details such as autapomorphies, as this may be considered an oversimplification of the topic, but of course it is hard to strike a balance. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::::@Jens: I spent some time today fixing some of the grammar and punctuation, and also adding in links to free papers. The article is looking much more robust than it looked a decade ago! I can't say that I'm a fan of removing all of the external resources, but the text of the article seems much improved. More work to follow. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Firsfron}} Cool, many thanks for your extensive copy-edit! I still did not finish the work; the "History of discovery" and "Description" sections should be complete, but I didn't do anything on the remaining sections yet. I got very busy in real-life and now need a free head to get started again, but that will happen soon. Regarding the external resources, I boldly removed them because I just could not see how those entries can possibly be of use to readers. All but one of the entries in "further reading" were outdated conference abstracts; these are, in my opinion, just not relevant and nothing we should recommend. As for the weblinks, there were six, the last three pointing to the same outdated news article, and the others to other outdated news articles and one personal website that does not contain anything in addition to this article. That said, I am happy to reinstate those sections, but I think that their content need to be updated – any suggestions here? Thanks again! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• As we already talked about, I'll help with the images and otherwise provide a detailed review once it's ready. By coincidence, the Equatorial Minnesota blog (which I believe is run by a former editor) just published a post with a short summary of the taxonomic history of Maasospondylus and other "prosauropods":[https://equatorialminnesota.blogspot.com/2024/12/prosauropod-rehab.html] FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::The article currently doesn't have any maps, but do you think any of these[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spion_Kop_Farm_fauna.jpg][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stratigraphic_context_and_locality_maps_of_Heterodontosaurus_specimens.jpg][https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stratigraphy_karoo_system.jpg] could be used, {{u|Jens Lallensack}}? Perhaps with modifications? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Good idea! Maybe a map combined with a profile that also shows the biozones (in particular, the Massospondylus range zone). Will think about it when getting into the paleoecology section. At the moment I'm still working myself through the taxonomic history – it is quite complicated. The new part about the dubious taxa got a bit too long, so with a few more articles for some of the Nomina dubia I hope to be able to cut that down a bit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Let me know when Massospondylus is ready for review, and I'd be happy to give it a look. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I will, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been working on this article on-and-off since October (partly because I was surprised it wasn't already GA/FA-standard), and I've gotten it to what I think is a solid state. It was bumped up to B-class after my last round of revisions, when it was just a C-class when I started. Will admit, I'm not entirely sure what my plan for the article is, though at the very least I do hope to push it to GA. Borophagus (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Jens

:Nice! I'm on it, making edits as I go (revert anything you don't like, please). I also leave some points/questions here (more to come):

• How can we make the assumption that Q. nothropi was solitary when there is only one specimen? I think this should read "Lawson speculated that Q. nothropi was solitary", to make clear it is not an uncontroversial fact.
• You should decide whether you abbreviate the genus (Q. northropi) or spell it out (Quetzalcoatlus northropi) and stick to it.
• He would then go on to become a doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley. – Why is it relevant where he got his PhD from? Why do you pick this particular detail from his life, while you, for example, not mention that he became a paleontologist, which seems more to the point here?
• Further material from the same specimen was uncovered in the form of a humerus and the first two phalanges (digit bones) of the wing. – I am confused why these are listed separately from the other remains. Have they been discovered later? If so, it's not mentioned.
• Andres and Langston (2021) seems to be the main source for the article, but you only cite a single page of that work. Was that intended?
• Second paragraph in "Early history" is slightly confusing, as you first introduce the discovery of Q. lawsoni, then go back to Q. northropi, and then state that "a detailed description was underway" without making clear if that is referring to both species or only one of them. Also, the reader is left wondering what happened to the much more complete Q. lawsoni specimens – they were discovered, yet the following text is only about the very fragmentary Q. northropi. That could possibly be better explained. Did you had a look at Wittons 2013 book "Pterosaurs: Natural History, Evolution, Anatomy"? I don't have it at hand at the moment but I remember that he was discussing why Q. sp was left undescribed for so long. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Made some of the more minor changes now (missing wording, clarity, abbreviations, etc; will have to go back to it tomorrow, as my tablet is appalling for mobile editing). Many of the errors you've pointed out are leftovers from older edits, and I'm honestly not entirely sure how I missed them. I have Witton's book, but for some reason it never occurred to me to actually look at it. Will definitely go over the rest as soon as I'm able. Borophagus (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Seems you did not yet include Brown et al. 2021? [https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2020.1780599] --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::I didn't. Big oversight on my part — I consistently manage to forget it exists. I'll include some information from it in the morning. Borophagus (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• A majority of estimates published since the 2000s have been substantially higher, around 200–250 kg – that's not really higher than the "30–440 kg" though?

::Done.

• from the eight specimens of Q. lawsoni that preserve skull elements – The "Discovery" section only mentions three Q. lawsoni specimens, and has nothing about these apparently later discoveries.

::Done.

• and one with a more semicircular sagittal crest and a shorter sagittal crest. – please double-check here

::Done.

• the beak, formed from the fusion of the dentaries – but that's the lower beak only?

::Changed. I removed that detail as I couldn't find an equivalent for the upper jaw (though I'll reinstate it if I can).

• so it is not clear how it ended – I think this is too unspecific; is it about the shape of the tip?

::Indeed. Changed the wording.

• a slight cavity – what does that mean? Did you mean "slight depression"?

::The paper was a bit vaguer than I would have liked. Reworded it (per the functional morphology paper) and I think it makes more sense now.

• was a small crest – do we really know it was small? In the skull reco it looks giant.

::Changed.

• Terrestrial locomotion in Quetzalcoatlus likely involved a pacing gait, with the forelimb on one side of the body moving forwards (to avoid collision with the hindlimbs), followed by the hindlimbs, and vice versa on the opposite side. – This is not really comprehensible. I should be able to help with that, will take a look tomorrow.

::I've attempted to clarify it, but still unsure of how much it makes sense.

• No information on how to distinguish this genus from other azhdarchids? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::Added a couple of diagnostic features for now. Borophagus (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes

:In The Palaeoartist's Handbook, Witton self-critiques many aspects of his terrestrial stalking image as being inaccurate. If there's a better image, I'd use it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::One could argue that it is in itself of historical importance to include, as it was for years the illustration of the terrestrial stalker hypothesis. FunkMonk (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Perhaps it could be moved to the history section or something, with an appropriate caption (though I'm not sure if a source for it being influential would available or not) and then a more up to date image could be placed in the actual section on its feeding strategies. It's definitely an important piece of palaeoart, but it probably shouldn't still be the posterboy today. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Wasn't able to find such a source, so I opted to move it and add a disclaimer noting its inaccuracy. As things stand, I imagine it sticks out like a sore thumb, so I'll have to sort that out (along with finding an alternative image). Borophagus (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::You don't state anywhere in the article that the terrestrial stalking hypothesis is now considered to be inaccurate, though? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::My bad! I meant that the image is inaccurate, not the actual hypothesis (working on a replacement image that depicts it at the moment, so I certainly don't mean to imply that it's invalid). Borophagus (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yeah, there has been little pushback against the hypothesis, a summary here:[https://tetzoo.com/blog/2024/10/29/azhdarchid-progress] As Darren Naish says about the image: "this life reconstruction of a foraging Quetzalcoatlus group accompanied Witton & Naish (2008). It’s a very dated image today and Mark probably won’t enjoy the fact that I’m sharing it (sorry Mark). But it’s significant in the story told here, since it was widely shared in news articles reporting our 2008 conclusions. It probably is, in fact, one of the most widely shared, most often reproduced, azhdarchid-themed images. Image: Mark Witton, from Witton & Naish (2008)." FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::This whole issue with the old terrestrial stalker image does leave me wondering about the history section as a whole. As is the initial history is covered, and the 2021 work is at least mentioned (though given it's a whole monograph with five papers collectively making up an SVP Memoir, I think more focus could be put on this as a landmark). But those two points in time aside, the Naish and Witton 2008 paper was the beginning of a big modernization in our understanding of azhdarchids as a whole, and though it's currently covered in the feeding section it feels like their part int he quetz story is surely a necessary of the research history of the taxon to note there as well. But I'm certain how well exactly you could quantify this impact and shift into actual citeable factual content instead of just the vibes I have from observing this impact ripple in real time. It's also worth noting the Memoir has a whole paper that focuses in large part on the history of discovery of Quetzalcoatlus and it doesn't appear to be used as a source at the moment; I might try and beef up the history section sometime next week if I get the time. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 08:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I do plan on writing a bit more on the monograph at some point soon, though at the moment my main focus has been copyedits and adding (some) information from that Memoir paper, which I completely overlooked. Probably not as rigorous as it could be, as I've never really been the best at writing history sections, so if you do have the time, I'd definitely appreciate it! Not sure what the best way to discuss the importance of the terrestrial stalking model would be. I did look at the functional morphology paper, to see if I could at least find a source for it being significant, but all that really says is, "Witton and Naish wrote about that model, but Langston came up with it at some point before 1980", which doesn't help at all. Will definitely have to do some digging to figure that out. Borophagus (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::For whatever it's worth, I did write a lot about ideas about azhdarchid biology at the Phosphatodraco FAC, including the terrestrial stalking hypothesis, which could maybe be adapted here. I personally don't think all sorts of disparate research history should be lumped together under history, but discussed in the relevant sections. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, that makes sense. I've just edited paleobiology section to include a lot of the information from the Phosphatodraco article, though I'll have to work at making it flow better (as there's now a tiny paragraph in the middle talking about the two species' differing niches). Borophagus (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

LittleLazyLass

:I've started working on expanding the history section myself, hopefully that's not a bother. Started with expanding the coverage of the initial discovery. I'm imagining a following paragraph about Lawon's initial description and naming, and then another one or two where I swing back around to the additional excavations at Big Bend and the Q. lawsoni stuff. Then the subsequent research and eventual monograph can probably be a separate subsection. Hope to chip away at it over the next week or so. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::That's very comprehensive now at least! I did a copy edit to the whole history section, and hope I didn't mess it up. I wonder if the paragraph on the memoir is way too detailed; it might have to be trimmed down considerably before bringing it to FAC. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Appreciated, though I added back in one sentence I considered a considerable loss of important information. As far as I the Memoir paragraph goes, I can't say whether or not I'll have trouble at FAC, but I would defend it is as justified. The publication is an absolute landmark in the history of taxon and I think properly capturing the breadth and significance of the project is worthwhile. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::The sentence you just added back-in is included twice. You should delete one of them. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Image suggestions

• I'll do image suggestions/edits for now until the article is ready for review. If the DBogdanov restorations has inaccuracies, I can try to fix them (already gave it some modifications). FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Witton's newer skeletal[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hatzegopteryx-Witton-and-Naish-2017.png] should be used either as part of this image, or cropped out as its own (it probably has more accurate proportions and pose). Then it may also be more appropriate for taxobox image. Headden's is still good to show known material either way.

::Still think this skeletal would be good to use, it's the most accurate one we have, so perhaps use it under description and the "known material" one under discovery? FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• This comparison of neck vertebrae would seem relevant under postcranium:[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azhdarchid_pterosaur_neck_lengths.png]
• Is this a better photo of a mount?[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quetzalcoatlus_northropi.jpg]
• This photo of supposed Moroccan material would make sense under "Reclassified or indeterminate fossils":[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aff_Quetzalcoatlus_-_Longrich_et_al_2018.PNG]

Dunkleosteus77

• In the Size section, it only talks about wingspan. When it's on all-fours on the ground, how tall was it? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Sorted. Haven't been able to find any shoulder-height estimates for Q. lawsoni in the literature, but I've included figures for Q. northropi. Will keep looking, though. Borophagus (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This article was recently brought to Good Article status, and I have some mind to bring it further, but my main concern is the case of fossil species. In this genus, Pronolagus, there are two extinct names, intermedius and humpatensis. The former is disused, and the latter has been described only once, in 2022. If Pronolagus is to be brought to Good Topics, it should be complete including extinct species, but I don't think there is enough information on either to make their own articles. My goal is to provide comprehensive information on these within the genus' article somehow. Reconrabbit 14:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think you can go for Good Topic, I don't see any issue. The Nomen oblitum does not need its own article; you just cover what can be said in the genus article. The other fossil species should have its own article. First description [https://mme.gov.na/files/publications/74e_CommsGSN24pp67-97Sen_Pickford2022.pdf here]. Contains plenty of information, no problem to bring that to GA, I believe. Make sure you include any subsequent publications that have additional coverage (just search for the 2022 first description in Google Scholar by entering the paper title, then click on "cited by 7" and it will list you all publications that have cited it since, you should look through those if possible). Even if there is no additional coverage, that does not prevent you from bringing it to GA. We even have FAs that were just based on their first descriptions when promoted, such as Perijá tapaculo. Yes, that's a bird, and I know that the WikiProject Mammals has more restrictive rules here, but those don't apply to extinct species. You are welcome to post the fossil species here when done if you need feedback before taking it to GAN. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::I see - I have had trouble finding the cited sources other than another 2024 work by Sen et al., did not know that Google Scholar had this feature. I may post the fossil species here, since I have hardly any experience writing about them. Thank you!! Reconrabbit 17:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Jens Lallensack, I believe I've made progress with Pronolagus humpatensis but have no clue how to proceed writing a description. What material is relevant? Reconrabbit 18:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just real quick as I am quite short on time atm:

• What you have as "Background" we usually call "Taxonomy" or "History of discovery". Your current content of "Description" should be moved to Taxonomy. How it differed from extant members, that should be part of "Description"
• Ideally, if the sources allow it, start the description with some general information: Size, proportions (e.g., the paper says "muzzle short and robust"), maybe some useful background on the genus in general to give an idea how the animal looked like. Regarding the size, maybe include a measurement to be at least a bit more specific.
• You list the known fossils, but are these all from the same individuals and found at the same spot? (seems to be multiple individuals, should be made clear)
• State where the fossils are stored (which museum), and the specimen number of the holotype (Tc 2'90).
• "species name" should be "specific name", also link to article.
• You could better explain how this species is distinguished from other members of the genus. Particular attention was paid towards the diminished presence of the incisive foramen and narrowness of the anteroconid in the third lower premolar, which differ from all extant red rock hares. – Are these the only differences? Are these autapomorphies? You could make an attempt to better explain these (what is an anteroconid, for example).
• The features listed in "Diagnosis" in the paper are particularly important (but no need to include all of these features). You could also point out how it is distinguished from particular other species (Differential diagnosis).
• The "Description" section in the paper goes into more detail; that can help to better understand the features listed in Diagnosis, and can have more interesting information. From the "Description" section of the paper, just include what you think is interesting, without going into too much detail there.
• You should also discuss why this species can be assigned to Pronolagus. What is the argument here? Based on what features?
• The "Discussion" section of the paper is also important. Pay attention to background information that can help the reader to place the information into context.
• In general, try to give it more flesh, explain more. For example, you start the paleoecology with "The limestone breccias P. humpatensis is associated with", but you first should introduce these breccias, explain what this is, why they are relevant, and so on.
• Hope this helps. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, this is all extremely helpful!! I'll do my best. Reconrabbit 01:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

An older GA that was promoted very quickly after the taxon in question was described. The page features a dubious case of a fair use image (is it possible that another photograph of the fossil has been published in a CC paper sometime since 2009?) and may be outdated and/or in need of expansion, although I'm not familiar enough with radiodonts to say for sure. Is anyone more familiar with this group able to comment about its comprehensiveness, and does the fair use rationale of the used image apply now that illustrations have been created?

Also, I do hope that article workshop hasn't been forgotten or abandoned, I've noticed a lack of posts here for the last month or so. If there are still other users actively checking the workshop I may make similar posts for other old good articles. Gasmasque (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:This article probably shouldn't have passed, its quite barebones through many sections (especially description) but as well it has non-free images and just doesn't feel like a GA. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::Standards were very different in '09, this article was only about 5k bytes at the time it passed and has actually been added to significantly since then. Again, I don't know enough about this group of animals to say if those additions are comprehensive enough to adequately cover the topic as of 2025, @@Junsik1223, @@Ta-tea-two-te-to, and @@Junnn11 would be the ones to ask since they've contributed since the GA promotion. It's possible this article is still fully comprehensive, and issues like excessive citations, the dubious taxobox image licensing and some terms in the text that are unlinked/not adequately explained can be relatively quickly fixed. Gasmasque (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I removed the non-free image (clear case imo). There are many obvious things that could be improved (more background info for context, longer lead, etc.). I also don't have any knowledge about this group. If there are serious issues with the content that we cannot fix, we should have it delisted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think a lot of editors have this page watchlisted, so activity will increase as long as anyone posts stuff for review. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is in pretty bad shape, and is especially lacking in detailed coverage of prosauropods, which don't really have good treatment on wikipedia at the moment. Obviously, overhauling this article will be a big undertaking if we want to be even remotely comprehensive, and I've created an outline for the article in my sandbox here. I would appreciate some help in this effort, at least for some sections. The "research history" in particular is a difficult and tedious topic for me to write about, whereas I don't mind writing about the technical anatomy or classification aspects at all. If anyone feels that the article outline I've created is insufficient in any way, that's also not set in stone, I just created it so we would have a rough blueprint of what the final article might look like and to gauge progress. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is something I can put some effort to slowly over time. The outline feels a little bit too big to me, but maybe thats because some sections will end up merged and are just listed there as placeholders. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah that's entirely possible, it depends on how much each topic is covered in the literature. Generally I think higher-level clades should be more comprehensive, and I based this outline on what I did with Eudromaeosauria. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that there are way to many subsections. The challenge will be to produce a concise, focused, and coherent article, so I would focus on major sections and split them up later when you see the need. I wrote some articles about higher-level taxa for the German Wikipedia, long time ago, including "sauropod". There I went with 1) "Description", 2) "Paleobiology", 3) "Evolutionary history and diversity", 4) Systematics, 5) History of research.

:I would also try to focus on basal sauropodomorphs here (because we most often use the name "sauropodomorph" for non-sauropods). For example, I am unconvinced that an entire section on extinction is necessary, that might only need a sentence or so. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Extinction could easily be included in a section on evolutionary history and diversity, in my opinion. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Many of these sections would likely be consolidated in the final article, depending on how much coverage they get in the literature. My outline basically has the same five sections that you've outlined, just with slightly different names and more detailed subsections, and I'm not married to the section names. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

So at my own behest and somewhat inspired by the top article status discussions, I have undertaken a complete rewriting and recomposition of paleontology at My Sandbox. There has been some copyediting by @A Cynical Idealist, mainly of the first two sections of body, but I think this is a good place to bring the (mostly?) finished piece for some discussions or review. If approved by those here, I will replace the content at the mainspace article (I kinda wanna do it all at once to make it my largest single edit forever) and push the article through a FA nomination. It would be nice to have a very good article for one of the "concept" topics as a reference, and also as the foundational topic of this wikiproject I think it might be a decent thing to work on together. Of special note is that not all subdisciplines are discussed (an exhaustive list could be made of ones not focused on) but the selection of those to include is cited. Thoughts? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Some additional thoughts from me to put in writing for a discussion here. I think further copyediting of the draft should wait until we decide if it needs much more work before putting it to FA so that we don't have to worry about Help:Page history attribution policies. The current article is a GA but since the end goal here is FA I don't feel overwhelmed pushing straight for an FA once content is moved if we think it is unlikely to immediately fail. GA is not a requirement after all for content progression, just a good place to establish the basic standards are met. I am going to continue with some fiddling of things like the see also section or templates, and I might also add a pop culture section if there are good sources for it (probably are). There are other things I've noticed to bring up at the project talk so I won't mention those here. I feel pretty good with the state of the draft, and if others agree they can hold off on smaller comments to provide a more full-scale FA review if they want. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:One thing I wanted to mention is I'm curious why you made the choice to omit dedicated discussion of subdisciplines of paleontology based on subject matter (i.e. vert paleo, invert paleo, paleobotany, paleomycology, etc). They are mentioned in the article body, but they are generally prominent subfields in the literature to my eye, at least more than "paleobiology", which seems a bit overly broad as a subdiscipline. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Honestly it was mainly because it feels difficult to summarize them in a meaningful way that is not just duplication of text. "Paleobotany is the study of fossil plants" is about all you can really say that is unique to paleobotany and not part of paleoclimatology, paleobiogeography or paleoecology, and it doesn't feel worthwhile to have unique sections for that. There are also a lot of borderline cases of taxonomic paleontology that would add quite a bit to the article size, like whether "dinosaur paleontology" is its own subdiscipline. Wiktionary has 385 words prefixed with paleo- in the english language and covering them all is just too much. The subdisciplines listed are those found in Hall (2002) and Kelley (2013) where they are specifically listed as areas of overlap with other sciences, so that is how I chose what disciplines to describe (as alluded to in the section header). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That's a reasonable. I would say the importance of subject-matter-specific subfields warrants at least a single dedicated paragraph, maybe at the beginning of the "subfields" section, or within the "paleobiology" subsection. At least the subfields that have their own articles (Vertebrate paleontology, Invertebrate paleontology, Paleobotany, Paleomycology, and Micropaleontology). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think that first paragraph can be expanded to have a bit better scope yeah. There are mor fields even that aren't mentioned yet that I come across randomly to include. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Almost all additions should be done at this point so how does it look? Do we feel like it can be ready to move it into the mainspace and put it up for Featured Article? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm going to be doing some copy editing over the next several days, but when I'm done I'll give my personal go-ahead to push to FA. Not sure if anyone else has any input/opinions. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Jens

Just some quick notes for now:

• Can we really consider Paleogeography as a subdiscipline of Paleontology? Your article itself states that it is "a subdiscipline of the geosciences". Paleobiogeography should cover it.
• Ichnology is not restricted to trace fossils, it includes modern traces as well (although the bulk of research is done on fossils). The term is "Palaeoichnology". I see that the Trace fossil article equates it to trace fossils, but already the title of the cited source in that article contradicts it.
• He developed ichnotaxonomy – sounds as if he invented it, which is not the case.
• Some trace fossils show evidence of gregariousness in animals travelling together in the same direction or congregating at a site, while others can show pathologies in the form of uneven gaits or pathologic foot impressions. Trackways of footprints can even be used to estimate the size and speed of their creators and their courtship and nesting behaviors. – This is quite narrowly focussed on trackways, but trace fossils are much more than that. Overall, the ichnology section is quite biased towards vertebrates. "Courtship and nesting behaviors" are extremely rare cases only. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:I figured you would have better insights into ichnology than I do, so I'm wondering how you would restructure not only the section but also the articles. Perhaps we have to move "Trace fossil" to "Ichnology" and then establish paleoichnology as a subsection of that article? The vertebrate bias is largely because of sources that were easily accessible, I think they all largely focus on vertebrates. I'm equivocal about the removal of Paleogeography from the sections, it is listed in the source I drew from but overall its probably more of an edge field thats equally between paleontology and geology. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Regarding "Paleogeography", I am not convinced; most info in that section is not about paleontology (and the sentence on biogeography could be in the section paleobiogeography). Having two sections (paleogeography and paleobiogeography) on very similar topics at different places in the article does not make sense to me. Maybe you could combine them into one section ("Paleogeography and paleobiogeography"), but again, it is not clear why the former should be in an article on Palaeontology.

::Regarding the ichnology: Difficult, not sure on what to focus on. I would remove the "movement paleoecology"; it has just 15 hits on Google Scholar and is just not relevant. Maybe focus more on what a trace fossil is, listing examples (invertebrate, vertebrate, plant, and microbes), their properties (recording biological activity/behaviour; often occurring in rocks where body fossils are absent), naming (ichnotaxonomy), and uses? I think we should keep the articles "Trace fossil" and "Ichnology" separate (as we have "Palaeontology" and "Fossil" as separate articles). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Both suggestions have been done. I'm fine with cutting out paleogeography, there may be other subsections that end up being removed down the line but thats probably the most blatant. Paleoichnology has also been revamped and now should better reflect most of the field. I left in the details about vertebrate paleoichnology because the book is a fairly comprehensive and important resource and that is the focus, but with the other details added it should be more balanced. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Finished up the article on this new pterosaur, and I figured I'd bump it up to GA so I'm dropping it here first for any feedback. There is no tenable material for a palaeobiology section, seeing as there's not only no relevant literature for this species but none on the palaeobiology of targaryendraconians as a whole, only the historical Ornithocheiridae. I also did the recent pterosaur Garudapterus recently, so I wouldn't mind any feedback on it as well though I don't plan to pursue any higher rating for it at the moment. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Nice, I will take a look soon. At first glance, in Saratovia, the second paragraph of "Description" is unsourced. In Garudapterus, the deity image is extremely eye-catching and obtrusive; I would almost suggest to just remove that image (or at least put it to the right below the box and make it small), but this is a very subjective and possibly invalid opinion, so it's up to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fixed the missing citation. In regards to the image, I do tend to have a preference towards having more rather than less images; I've tried compromising with another clear image of a Thai depiction of Garuda that is far less colourful and a little bit smaller. Does it seem better to you? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, much better; the old one was the same red as the animal in the life reco, which was irritating as well; this one has a nice grey. You still have sandwiching with the taxonbox (when in Wikipedia's default view, what most readers see), you can solve that by moving the deity picture one paragraph down. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If it's one paragraph down it's going to indent the header of the description section, which in my eyes is a far graver issue than sandwiching. Between the options of that, having it all the way down below the taxobox, or excluding it entirely, it's current position is the lesser evil in my opinion (and likewise for Saratovia). LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Personally, I would simply right-align it, I think that looks best in any case. But GAN is not concerned with such layout nitpicks I think, so it should be up to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I must admit my intense distaste for the standards of image placements on Wikipedia. There's little more on this website I hate like I hate seeing an article with every image lined up on the right, and I find the value lost in not opening the first section with an image quite more egregious than a minor case of sandwiching. I'm sure it'll butcher one of my articles at FAC someday but until then I plan to continue doing things my own way - not that I blame you for upholding rules written by higher power than either of us. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:In Garudapterus, the watermark in the life reco is also a bit problematic because it looks like as if the pterosaur was about to eat something; but nothing to worry about for GA level I think (although chances are that some editor might come along and edit that watermark away). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• had previously only yielded various body fossils – "Body fossil" has a different meaning (as opposed to trace fossils); you mean postcranial remains here I assume?

::Yeah, I thought maybe it'd be a more intuitive term for laymen than postcranial. But I can swap it to that if there's a clarity issue.

:::Yeah it's just wrong. Maybe just write "bones from the body" instead, and link that to postcranium for extra clarity. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• The sockets are slightly elliptical, being wider than tall, as are the teeth, which are more extremely oval in shape – unclear: more oval than the tooth sockets, or more oval than in related pterosaurs? The grammar would suggest the former.

::Than the tooth sockets; the paper says the sockets are "slightly" taller than long, whereas the teeth are "quite wider" mesiodistally than labiolingually. Maybe "as are the teeth, which are strongly oval-shaped in cross-section"?

:::I would simplify to The sockets are slightly elliptical, being wider than tall, while the teeth are more strongly elliptical. Or even this, which might be clearer: The teeth, and to a lesser degree the sockets, are compressed front-to-back, giving them an oval cross-section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Otherwise looks good to me. I did some copyedits. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Six tooth sockets with partial are preserved in the holotype – partial what?

::Partial teeth, I think, but looking at it again there's no real reason to mention them in that setnece; removed "with partial" from the sentence.

• Also did a copy edit. Looks good to me, I think it's ready for GAN. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)