Talk:Diodorus scytobrachion

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh that was faster than I expected, note I still need to expand the intro, will get to that soonish, so it's not just a oversight hehe. The rest of the article should be fine to review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not in a huge rush - my turn around time on GARs is not horrifically speedy lately! Drop a note here when you're ready with the lead? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice, I'll ping you! FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Fully expanded now, Ealdgyth. There might be some technical terms needing in-text explanation here and there, but should be ready for review. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • "in having forwards-tilted teeth" shouldn't that be "forward-tilted teeth"?

Probably, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• • "and the dentary is distinct in being bowed" link and/or description for dentary?

It is linked and explained in the preceding paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Discovery:
  • WHEN were they discovered?

Unfortunately none of the sources say, but this is usually the kind of info I'm eager to include. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• • "the first body fossil record" link/description for "body fossil record"?

Changed to "skeletal". FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Description:
  • "integument" link and/or description?

Already linked under discovery, but added "(external tissue)" there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Lower jaw:
  • "nutrient foramina" link and/or description?

Linked and explained. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Limb bones:
  • Link for "crista tibiofibularis"

Hard to make this easy to understand, went with "(a crest on the femur)". FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• • Link for "lateral condyles"

Tried with " (rounded parts of the lower end of the femur)". FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Classification:
  • Nothing "wrong" but I had to laugh at the "non-dinosaurian dinosauromorphs" phrase... as a non-specialist .. that's just amusing phrasing

Yeah, and don't get me started on "non-archosauriform archosauromorphs"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• • "these researchers did not find it unlikely that they belonged within Dinosauria" is awkward - can we rephrase?

Tried with this, if it's any better: " While most earlier studies had found them to be dinosauromorphs outside Dinosauria itself, these researchers did not find it unlikely that silesaurids belonged within Dinosauria, as a basal branch of Ornithischia." FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• • Shouldn't large chunks of this be in Silesauridae instead? Much of this section is about the family not about the specific species...

Well, I've tried to write it with focus on this particular genus within the framework of its entire group. The thing is that how silesaurs as a whole are classified of course has implications to what kind of animal Diodorus itself is, so I tried to focus on the parts of these studies that specifically deal with Diodorus or has direct implications for it (is it a silesaurid or an actual dinosaur?). If there is something you find conspicuously irrelevant, let me know, but I feel it's a fine line. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Paleobiology:
  • "obligate quadruped" link and/or description?

Changed to "strictly quadrupedal". FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Paleoenviroment:
  • "t5 unit" link?

Nothing to link, but it's explained earlier as "from the base of the Irohalene Mudstone Member (a unit designated as t5)". FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
• Spotchecks:
  • "They noted that the overall pattern of silesaurid evolution appears to have been a shift from carnivory (typified by zipodont, conical teeth) to herbivory throughout the Triassic, when sulcimentisaurians developed mainly leaf-shaped teeth, similar to the convergent development in sauropodomorphs which also became specialized for herbivory in the Late Triassic." is sourced to this source which I believe is supported by the paragraph beginning "An overview of silesaurid..." in the "Silesaurid paleoecology" section.
  • "Piechowski and the paleontologist Mateusz Tałanda concluded in 2020 that the short hindlimbs combined with the elongated forelimbs supported the idea that it was an obligate quadruped." is sourced to this source which supports the information
  • "They hypothesized that the beak-like jaws were adapted for pecking small insects off the ground like modern birds." is sourced to this source which supports the information (thankfully, this one was in the abstract which spared me endless pages of descriptions of individual bones - that stuff is as dry as the descriptions of individual letters in manuscript studies!)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've addressed the comments above now, Ealdgyth, with my comments under each. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The changes look good. Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Graphic for estimated size

The article says it was 2.3m long...when I look at the graphic for estimated size: the body is about 1m (one full square), and the tail fills up about half a square, so the size would amount to 1.5m. Am I reading or seeing something wrong? Lectonar (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are discrepancies between the published size estimated. SlvrHwk, who made the diagram, can probably explain further. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Size chart in question

• This one is complicated—Holtz's (possibly outdated) appendix from 2011 is used as the source for the 2.3 m estimate. However, none of the known Diodorus fossils scale to an animal of that size, unless one assumes outlandish proportions. Since it cannot be said for certain how many individuals the bones came from, I scaled the silhouette to the holotype (dentary), which produced the largest animal (~1.5 m) assuming average silesaurid proportions. An approximate size breakdown of specimen sizes can be seen here. Hope this helps! -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the caption should state that the diagram is scaled from individual bone measurements? Then it may explain to the reader that it's not based on the overall length measurement given in the article text. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@SlvrHwk: thanks for the explanation. I took the liberty of pointing out in the article that size could have been up to 2.3m long. I hope this doesn't break your GA-process unduly. Lectonar (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)