Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Article workshop

Welcome to the Article workshop of the WikiProject Palaeontology, a place for collaborative article editing. Paleontology-related articles of any length and quality can be listed here – to obtain feedback for your latest work; to get help in developing an article or request copy edits; to bring an article up to B-class level or to prepare for a Good or Featured Article Nomination; to collaboratively rework our oldest good and featured articles; and more. Submissions here invite everyone to contribute with comments, edits, and/or content additions. It is expected that the nominator will act as the main author, taking the lead in developing the article and responding to comments. This workshop is a novel concept that aims to combine the traditional formats of WP:Peer Review and WP:Collaborations. Unlike the Peer Review, we will not only list comments on this page, but edit the article directly wherever possible. Unlike collaborations, we do not vote on which article to work on together, but rely on a main author who submits the article and feels responsible for taking it forward. The aim of the workshop is to make article work less daunting and more fun by sharing some of the workload. Articles can benefit from the combined skills of several contributors. It also invites everyone to contribute to the listed articles with quick edits or comments, or even substantial content contributions that can lead to spontaneous collaborations. Listed articles will be automatically archived after 100 days of inactivity. Archived articles may be re-submitted any time. History The current Article workshop has several predecessors. The Dinosaur collaboration started in 2006; a total of 29 collaborations took place, resulting in 14 "featured articles" and 7 "good articles". Its last successful collaboration was Brachiosaurus, which was promoted to "featured article" status in 2018. In 2019, the Palaeontology collaboration was initiated as a supplement, focusing on less complex articles. Its only collaboration was Acamptonectes, which was promoted to "featured article" status in 2021. The Paleo Peer Review was started in 2020, with a total of 43 articles receiving substantial comments, of which 6 were subsequently promoted to "good article" status and 3 to "featured article" status. The Article workshop itself was launched in October 2024 as a direct continuation of the Palaeo Peer Review in a revamped format. Click here to submit an article

Submissions

Where to go with Glacialisaurus?

So a while ago Augustios Paleo nominated Glacialisaurus for GAN but abandoned it mid-review (and doesn't seem to be active), so I took over it, without really knowing much about the subject or its sources, and it got promoted on the strange condition that I removed most of the description section, which I since re-added. So it certainly wasn't the best outcome, and I've since wondered if the resulting article was really up to snuff, and if it could be taken further and how. Any thoughts on anything about the article are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, I will look into it. There is much more sauropodomorph material from Antarctica, including at least one skull, but apparently belonging to other (new) taxa, but I don't think that is published already (all Field Museum material). I have photos of those, and of the Glacialisaurus holotype too; all of it was presented in a moving Antarctica exhibition that was in several museums in the US. Not sure how to incorporate that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find room for images you have, a few of the ones in the article are kind of filler... Either way, good to have handy on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I uploaded what I have of that exhibition: [1]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool, didn't know they made a mount of that unnamed sauropodomorph! Will come in handy when it is named... I think this[2] couldbe a good taxobox image for Glacialisaurus, then the more schematic image there now can be moved into the description. FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Now added, but the presence of that other taxon makes me wonder how safe the referral of a femur to Glacialisaurus, whose holotype is foot bones only, really is... FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool! But with my comment above I was actually referring to content, not images. I think that the article, at the moment, lacks context. I would very briefly say something about the history of paleontological research in Antarctica, the discovery of the first dinosaur (Cryolophosaurus), and then the events leading to the discovery of Glacialisaurus. Then, I think we should also briefly discuss this new, undescribed material; here, we might have to scrape some news article and conference abstracts. But for an potential future FA, I would expect this sort of context, and I think that readers would really appreciate that, too. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I was thinking about taking it to FAC at some point (not in the immediate future), but collecting suggestions here as a start. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• I did a couple of edits for language and fixed some minor errors as I read through, but nothing major.
• The green "Hypothetical life restoration" does not show much detail and does not really add anything that the silhouette in the size comparison does not already show, in my opinion.

The uploader agreed to make a new version, he has improved a lot artistically since then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• The description section is still a bit too technical and could use more explanations.
• Other than that, looks very good. Not much has been published since its description, but I agree that a lot can quickly become outdated when more sauropodomorph material from the locality is published. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Strange, any further reason given for having to remove the description? The Morrison Man (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Basically this:[3] Doesn't make much sense to me, but seems the reviewer was also using the oldest FAs as standards for description sections, which is not ideal... FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thescelosaurus

Hi, I don't really work on dinosaurs (Cenozoic placentals are my specialty), but since we have thrown around the idea of revamping old GA/FA dinosaur articles without throwing them into the FAR and GAR processes, it's worth bringing up articles that should be revamped and how they can be brought up to modern quality standards. As mentioned on the Discord server, we'll start with an easier dinosaur genus, so I selected Thescelosaurus, so go ham (note that I won't participate in dinosaur articles in general, I was just the one who started this idea). PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea, and I have been wondering what ornithischians to work on, so I'll start, likely by revising the history section and then moving to classification. Paleobiology/ecology are the last sections I normally touch so any changes there shouldn't cause edit conflicts. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I am also on board. I can do the description section then, if nobody else wants to take that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

One thing I am running into is that I have been adding citations as I go, but the current reference names are hard to follow. I think I may revise this so that every citation is "[firstauthorsurname][year]" for consistency. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, these reference names are confusing, and author year makes clear what source it is and avoids mistakes. One additional think we could do, if it helps, is to move all full citations down to the references section, where we can put them in order (this appears to become standard in the future anyways as the upcoming page number feature requires it). It might help to keep an overview, but please do whatever you deem best. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Having finished revising the discovery and classification sections, I can bring down the citations I've used quite easily to references, so I will do that. I will leave the other sections untouched though (apart from where there are duplicate references). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! We probably need to add more subsections and brake up longer paragraphs; I can do a copy edit once I got time. I'm slow with the "Description" section but I'm on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@IJReid:@Jens Lallensack: I've rewritten the lede in my sandbox. Its much longer, but I suspect it may be too long, so if there's any parts that seem superfluous or overly detailed, I'd like to get some feedback before I update the page. Draft here A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad. There is some space for adjustments I think, like moving the paleoenvironment paragraph to the end, and some fiddling with phrasing, but the only issue I see is the synthetic comments on things like size compared to a human, or being alive for 3 mya, which isn't in the article body and it a bit of a stretch to directly add. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I should say, further refinements can be done after adding it into the article, which I think could be done at its current state. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the draft is too long. It should be three paragraphs. I recommend using recent dinosaur FAs of similar size as a template, such as Ankylosaurus and Brachiosaurus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, try to keep it as simple. The lead has to be as accessible as possible. For example, "extinct genus of thescelosaurid neornithischian dinosaur of the Late Cretaceous period in Laramidia (North America)" violates MOS:Seaofblue ("thescelosaurid neornithischian dinosaur") and it's just too many terms, I would remove the "thescelosaurid" here. Also, we don't need to have "Laramidia" here, it's just another term that is not pertinent for the lead and only confuses. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've made the specific adjustments suggested pertaining to WP:SYNTH and MOS:Seaofblue and also removed one of the paragraphs and split up/consolidated the information a little bit. I'll go ahead and post it to the article, but I plan to do a little more refining of the word choice and phrasing to try and keep the sentences more simple. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

One curiosity I have at this point is what to do about T. edmontonensis and T. infernalis in the taxonbox. Both are considered undiagnostic in reviews, but not synonyms of other species, so should they be listed as undiagnostic? There are similar things done in Mosasaurus and Diplodocus and Iguanodon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Since we list synonyms, I see no reason not to list those species too. Should we just add "(nomen dubium)" as done in the Iguanodon article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried doing that, and it looks okay but I'm not the most happy with how the linebreaks end up happening. But it does work. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it looks better if we just remove the linebreaks (I just did), what do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

To me removing the linebreaks only changes one thing, where the nomen dubium of infernalis is split to a new line. Probably monitor width differences. If its a net positive for others and net neutral for me, I think we can keep it this way. Only way to get it all one line for me would be replacing the nomen dubium with a footnote, but that feels like unnecessary effort for minimal improvement. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Citation Bank

To start, I wanted to try and take a quick survey of literature published in the past decade that could probably be relevant here (just going quick and dirty with titles for now):

• The phylogenetic nomenclature of ornithischian dinosaurs | Madzia et al. (2021)
• Dental microwear texture analysis reveals a likely dietary shift within Late Cretaceous ornithopod dinosaurs | Kubo et al. (2023)
• Evolutionary Trends in the Jaw Adductor Mechanics of Ornithischian Dinosaurs | Nabavizadeh (2016)
• A new phylogeny of cerapodan dinosaurs | Dieudonné et al. (2021)
• A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis on early ornithischian evolution | Fonseca et al. (2024)
• TAKING COUNT: A Census of Dinosaur Fossils Recovered From the Hell Creek and Lance Formations (Maastrichtian). | Stein (2016)
• The systematic relationships and biogeographic history of ornithischian dinosaurs | Boyd (2015)
• The Paleontology, Geology and Taphonomy of the Tooth Draw Deposit; Hell Creek Formation (Maastrictian), Butte County, South Dakota. | Stein (2022)
• A new semi-fossorial thescelosaurine dinosaur from the Cenomanian-age Mussentuchit Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation, Utah | Avrahami et al. (2024)
• Anatomy of the neornithischian dinosaur Parksosaurus warreni (Parks, 1926) from the Upper Cretaceous (lower Maastrichtian) Horseshoe Canyon Formation of Alberta, Canada | Sues et al. (2023)
• Neuroanatomy of the late Cretaceous Thescelosaurus neglectus (Neornithischia: Thescelosauridae) reveals novel ecological specialisations within Dinosauria | Button & Zanno (2023)
• Forelimb motion and orientation in the ornithischian dinosaurs Styracosaurus and Thescelosaurus, and its implications for locomotion and other behavior | Senter & MacKey (2023)
• The cranial anatomy of the neornithischian dinosaur Thescelosaurus neglectus | Boyd (2014)
• The Paleobiology, Paleoecology, and Evolution of Thescelosauridae (Ornithischia) from Alberta, Canada | Thesis by Michael Naylor Hudgins; not sure if citeable but might be a nice reference point while researching
• Dental assessment of Stegoceras validum (Ornithischia: Pachycephalosauridae) and Thescelosaurus neglectus (Ornithischia: Thescelosauridae): paleoecological inferences | Hudgins et al. (2022), adapted from above thesis

Can format these all into proper citations later. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's useful for a start, and incorporating these should be our first goal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Coord note: We are at least two people now (IJReid and myself) who want to put some significant work into this. If anyone else likes to join, you are more than welcome – just let us know on what section you like to work on so that we can coordinate! You can also just pick one paper from the list above and add the relevant information (if any) to the article, or contribute with more minor edits. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Images

I'm thinking of maybe contributing for now with image uploads and image editing. I noticed we don't really have any images of individual bone elements apart from skulls, but the original PD description has a lot of illustrations:[4] So I'll upload some of them, perhaps someone has requests for particular images. Or know other free papers we could upload images from) On restorations, I already removed weird osteoderms from some, but some text in the article indicates the presence of special scales on the legs, and that feathers may have been unlikely, anyone know more about this, in case restorations need modifications? FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The 2014 PeerJ description of the skull by Boyd should have many good images to pull from, Button & Zanno 2023 has free images as well, together those should be good to illustrate the skull and sense-related details like posture. The leg scales comes from the Tanis site, so really now much can be said since none of it is published. The scales on the neck were from Morris 1976, but now known to be crocodilian. Theres also images in Senter and Mackey that are freely-licensed. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, speaking of, seems Leandra Walters revised their restoration design from this[5] to this[6] less feathered version (but same colouration), which has some unusual scales on the leg, I wonder if that's based on the Tanis leg? FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No real way to know at this point. Of additional note, theres photos at the USNM online collections that can be used. But it is important to be careful, some are labelled CC0 [7] while others are labelled as "Usage statement: Not determined" [8] which we cannot use. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Expansion completed

I think I have my sections (Description and Paleobiology) finally complete too, sorry for the wait. Just need to finish the copy edit, and then it should be ready for review. @FunkMonk: Do you think we could move the Gilmore 1915 model image down to "Posture and locomotion", as we discuss that model there now? And maybe we could combine it with Sternberg (1940) model in one plate? What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure. But on the other hand, there are a bunch of unused free images that would also be relevant in the posture section, maybe more:[9][10] FunkMonk (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm yeah, maybe. I am undecided, and will let you choose the appropriate pics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the first one is cool, as it also has a life restoration that may reflect that grilled leg... Adding it will still leave room for the model or other images if we want that, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that fig shows the excursion of the humerus and the unfeasible quadrupedal posture, both of which are also discussed in that section (albeit briefly). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added it there for now. Speaking of images, the postcranial anatomy section has no illustrations, but we have some old drawings of skeletal elements from the 1915 paper. Anything particular we should show? FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. For the postcranial anatomy section, the manus and the pes would be most useful I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Added with pelvis to make the gallery frame less tall. We also have this[11] interesting image, but the source itself doesn't have much relevant text. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk's FAC-style review

• I'll review this in detail as if it was a new FAC nomination. My time is a bit limited, so I will review it bit by bit. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks, very helpful! @IJReid: I would be happy to address these, unless you like to? As FunkMonk, I was also thinking that the "Discovery and history" section has, in some places, too many details which could negatively affect readability for most of our readers. I found some additional details, such as "100 ft (30 m) above the water level", which we could cut as well. I think we won't really loose important information when doing so, but we would gain a lot by making the article more concise and thus more readable (after all, this is a FA that will appear on the main page again at some point, attracting a very broad readership, so we are not primarily writing for specialists). I would be happy to go through it again to do some light pruning (and you could just revert anything you disagree with), but let me know what you think first! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

    Feel free to do pruning. Generally when I write I try to include the maximum reasonable amount, since cutting out is easier than adding. Some things about who found what etc can probably be cut down, or known material details. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

    • Thanks, good to know. Will do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure if there are conventions for this, but are the citations for the species after the authorities in the taxobox really necessary? The authorities are really citations themselves, and there usually aren't citations there in other articles.
  • I can only speak for myself, but I found them super useful; when I started working on the article, I was using them several times to quickly find the respective species descriptions. Sure, they won't be a benefit for most readers, but do they come with any tangible disadvantage? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• "which was at the time part of Converse County." Is this detail needed? The sentence could be condensed to "The specimen was found in Doegie Creek, then part of Niobrara County", not sure we need to know more than that.
  • Removed.

• "Gilmore found it unique from all other members of the ornithopod family Camptosauridae" I think this detail should be left for the classification section. You've already said this earlier "when it was identified as a new taxon by American paleontologist Charles W. Gilmore".
  • Removed.

• "Gilmore also referred a partial skeleton" Probably better to say "assigned" for most readers.
  • Replaced all.
• "Both the Lance Creek and Doegie Creek localities are part of the Lance Formation, which is a Maastrichtian deposit that spans from 69.42 million years ago until the end of the Cretaceous.[8]" Not sure all this detail should be in the discovery section.
  • Removed.
• "Preparation of the type specimen of Thescelosaurus" You don't need to repeat the genus name, also, genera don't have type species, only species do.
  • Not there anymore.
• "These additional specimens include the scapula and coracoid USNM 7760 found in 1891 by Hatcher in Deer Ears Buttes in Butte County, South Dakota, the neck vertebra USNM 7761 found in 1891 by Hatcher, Sullins and Burrell in Beecher's Quarry in Niobrara County, the phalanx of the foot USNM 8065 found in 1890 by Hatcher in Niobrara County, and three undescribed partial skeletons at the AMNH found in Dawson County, Montana." Not sure this level of detail is needed, I think you could just say briefly that these elements where found in the 1890s and consisted of partial skeletons.
  • Removed.
• "The type skeleton of Thescelosaurus was first displayed" As above.
  • Done.
• "It was taken to the United States National Museum (USNM)" and "of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (formerly United States National Museum)" You should explain this at first mention instead second. You also seem to link two different articles (one to the Smithsonian Institution), it would seem only the museum should be linked, and only at first mention. First time you should just say "United States National Museum (USNM, now the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History)" or similar.
  • moved the explanation into a footnote.
• " a selection of dinosaurs that did not live at the same time" Not sure this detail is needed.
  • removed.
• "Preparation of the type specimen" Link fossil preparation.
  • linked.
• "with the skull based on a specimen described in 2014" Isn't that Willo? Then that's misleading, indicating it wasn't known until 2014, and that's not really what the source used says either.
  • I can't find this anymore, but maybe it referred to TLAM.BA.2014.027.0001, which was described in 2014 and includes a skull.
• Since Parksosaurus is not part of this genus anymore, the text about its discovery and history is way too detailed for this article. I don't think we need to know details about its discovery, the meaning of its name, finer details of its former classification, etc., that should be kept in its own article. An example of how I treated a formerly assigned species can be seen in Dilophosaurus, where D. sinensis only gets a short paragraph.
  • removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I went through the entire article again, editing what I could, removed undue detail, and also added some new material. We have two new sections now ("Function of the intercostal plates" and "Abundance"). Another look would be highly welcome! @IJReid: I hope I didn't mess it up, and that I didn't remove too much now – happy to put stuff back in if I did. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I did a few image position edits and replaced a photo with a better one I took (I'm unconvinced of the copyright status of the old one anyways) but the text reads nicely and I don't think I have any comments. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice, I'll continue reading soon! FunkMonk (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Great to hear, thanks both! FunkMonk suggested to remove the Willo skull image because its a cast and we have other photos of that specimen. I personally really like that image though. Willo is a pivotal discovery, revealing the full anatomy of the skull for the first time, so it fits nicely in the discovery section, and the other images of Willo do not show the skull that nicely. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I moved it and another image up to keep them nearer to the relevant paragraphs, though. I also added an interesting image of the paratype's toe bones to the image template with its other elements to make the image box less tall. FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "and described additional specimens, resulting in a total of 15 specimens known" Perhaps add that some of these were found since before the genus was even named, if these are some the specimens you removed the details about earlier? Either way, would be a shame to not briefly mention those specimens in some way that were removed?
  • Right. The only specimen that I for some reason removed was the 1892 one of Wortman and Peterson; all the other substantial specimens listed by Galton (1974) are mentioned, and it does not really make sense to skip just this one. I added some things back in: [12] – is this enough? I was not sure whether or not we should provide the specimen numbers (as IJReid did), or would they clutter the text too much? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

As long as there is a mention, I think that's enough. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "parts that do not overlap with the diagnostic regions of the Thescelosaurus," You mean with the T. neglectus holotype in the end there?

Of course, fixed.

• "at the youngest locality from which dinosaurs were found." Perhaps say "could be found" or "can be found", if it's still true today?. "Were found" is a bit vague, and I wasn't sure what was meant.

the source says "were found", and since the source is from 1974, I don't know if it is still the youngest; probably it's not. Do you have another idea, or would you suggest to remove this? I think we need IJReid here.

Don't think it should be removed, but could be nice to be more precise if possible. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "elevated to a genus of its own, within hypsilophodontids" - elevated to a hypsilophodontid genus of its own? Less wordy.

Done.

• "The name was a combination of the Latin bu, 'large' and gena, 'cheek', as well as the Ancient Greek saura, 'lizard'. The specific name is a reference to the lower levels " Why is the explanation opf the generic name in past tense but the species in present? It's still a name, so both should be present tense?

fixed.

• "The specific name is a reference to the lower levels of the Hell Creek Formation from which it is known" It may go without saying that "infernalis" would refer to hell, but I wonder if it needs to be explicit anyway?

Galton gives "belonging to the lower regions" as translation, so I stated that now; not sure if he had any religious connotation in mind.

It's tempting to think that the name "Hell Creek" also has something to do with it...

• "In a 1999 study on the anatomy of Bugenasaura, Galton assigned a tooth in the collection of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP 49611) to Bugenasaura." Perhaps say "to that genus" to avoid repeating the generic name?

I now wrote "to the later" to avoid ambiguity.

• "as well as of NCSM 15728, the specimen with the complete skull described by Boyd and colleagues in 2009" You've mainly called it "Willo" until this point, isn't it better to stick with that throughout the article to avoid confusion?

Seems I misunderstood something there. Fixed.

• "mostly thanks to an almost complete example (specimen NCSM 15728)" Likewise. If you prefer the specimen number, perhaps best to only use the name "Willo" at first mention.

Right, fixed.

• "In April 2022" Is the month significant?

No, removed.

• You abbreviate some measurements, others not, should be consistent. Probably best to abbreviate all to save space.

Fixed those still left from the old version.

• "The animal's size has been estimated in the 2.5–4.0 m range for length (8.2–13.1 ft)[13] for various specimens, and a weight of 200–300 kilograms (450–660 pounds)" This is written in a pretty convoluted way.

Was still from the old version, rewritten now.

• "Juvenile remains are known from several locations, mostly based on teeth" I'm not sure this belongs under description rather than discovery, as it says nothing about their size or how they differ in morphology? Perhaps you can add measurements of those teeth compared to adult teeth or something to make it more relevant?

Still from the old version, and quite outdated. Removed, but added something on the juveniles from the "convenience store locality" instead.

• Was the info about Parksosaurus that was removed from here also present in that genus' article? If not, it should probably be saved from the edit history here and moved there so it isn't wasted.

Yes, the info is in Parksosaurus already as far as I can see.

• Link and perhaps define ornithischians at first mention.

Linked; we don't define these major groups in other FAs, so maybe we shouldn't do it here, as it adds quite some clutter.

• "The skull also shows many plesiomorphies, "primitive" features" link Basal (phylogenetics), and perhaps spell it out in parenthesis?

Done.

• "The external naris was formed by the premaxilla (the front bone of the upper jaw) and the nasal bone, while the maxilla (the tooth-bearing "cheek" bone) was excluded.[20]: 18  Another fenestra, the antorbital fenestra, was in-between the external naris and the orbit and contained two smaller internal fenestrae." Are any of these distinguishing features, or just general descriptions?

Just general description, following many other dinosaur FAs which describe the fenestrae; these are obvious features and landmarks in the skull, so I thought it's useful, but not strictly needed.

• "The ridges and position of the teeth, deeply internal to the outside surface of the skull, are interpreted as evidence for muscular cheeks." This has of course been challenged in recent years, and the sourced here are quite old. I wonder if those newer anti-cheek papers say anything about this? Or if this text should be more cautious in some way?

I don't know. Changed to "have been", do you think that's enough?

Probably if there isn't anything else published. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "small pointed premaxillary teeth (in the premaxilla, or upper beak)" Isn't the beak rather the keratinous covering? And the premaxilla not just the frontmost bone of the upper jaw or some such? Either way, I'm not sure if it's correct to say the teeth are in the beak, as implied here?

That's from the old version too … An oversimplification, fixed now.

• "Immature individuals may had less than six premaxillary teeth" Have had?

fixed

• "and unlike other neornithischians" You can't explained or link this group before.

Linked; but as above, explaining would be to much clutter I think.

• Perhaps more anatomical terms could be linked to their dinoglossary equivalents rather than their general articles? Some also don't seem to link to anything at all yet, such as metatarsals.

Should be better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "In 1940, Sternberg named an additional species, T. edmontonensis, based on another articulated skeleton (CMN 8537) that he had discovered in the slightly younger Scollard Formation northwest of Rumsey, Alberta." You don't mention Edmonton anywhere, so the etymology of the name remains unclear.

We can't state this outright because it is not explicitly mentioned in the sources, but I believe it refers to the Edmonton Formation; I restored some historical info on the stratigraphy from IJReid's version to provide the hint yet again (my fault to remove this in the first place).

Better, at least it's implied now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Charles Gilmore described patches of carbonized material" and "while William J. Morris suggested that armor was present" You don't need to spell out their name and link it again after first mention.

Removed.

• MOR 979 apparently preserves skin, so if published or mentioned in any source, shouldn't it be covered in the integument section?

I have not seen that mentioned anywhere. @IJReid:, do you know? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The only place it may be mentioned is in the 2001 chapter Horner first mentions the specimen in, but I don't have it. Beyond that, and the brief discussion in Boyd et al. 2009, MOR 979 is undescribed, so there would be nothing published on its skin. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Could be worth tracking down just for the mention? FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The holotype specimen of the species T. assiniboiensis" Overly wordy, you only need "The holotype of T. assiniboiensis".

Done.

• "Thescelosaurus was a heavily built bipedal animal." What is meant by heavily built? It doesn't look particularly stocky? You never seem to return to this point in the description, so it seems it could be elaborated upon.

That's from still the original version. I guess that statement was with Gilmore's super-slim 1915 reconstruction in mind, but I can't find it in the provided source. I removed the sentence, since this is discussed in detail under "Posture and locomotion" now anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Most of the animals weight" Animal's?

Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• "as are most of the features that separate T. neglectus from T. assiniboiensis." Could we get a few of those features listed? For postcranial features as well? Doesn't have to be exhaustive, just some representative ones, if that is possible.

Added.

• "He soon revised his opinion, however, and placed it instead" Not sure "however" is needed when you already say "revised" and "instead".

Fixed.

• The classification sections throws a lot of names and revisions around, but would help the chronology if you gave years for the revisions, especially in the beginning of the section where they are almost entirely absent.

Added.

• It still seems the discovery section repeats a good deal of the taxonomic revision history also covered under classification. I wonder if it could be pruned further from discovery to avoid repetition? Or what is the reason to go into revisions above the genus level there?

Removed all.

• "As a result, Hypsilophodontidae including 13 genera" Included?

Done.

• "who found Thescelosaurus to be the most basal (primitive)" The term should already have been explained by this point?

Removed.

• "Historically posed skeletons of Thescelosaurus with head and neck reconstructed after Hypsilophodon" Perhaps add to the caption something like "which was long thought a close relative" or similar?

Added.

• There seem to be a lot of duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.[13]

Removed most, instead some that occur in different major sections where I thought they are useful.

• "An issue with Thescelosaurus neglectus prior" No need for full binomial after first full mention.

removed.

• "and the unresolved question whether T. edmontonensis is distinct or not" Question of? And would past tense work better? Was instead of is?

Done.

• Bold the Thescelosaurus species in the second cladogram?

Done.

• "Phylogenetic analysis are the basis for hypotheses on the origins of Ornithopoda, Thescelosauridae, and Thescelosaurus." Why is this stated at the very end of the classification section when the bulk of text about phylogenetic studies precedes it?

I guess that's a leftover that we forgot to remove.

• "However, it has been suggested by some studies that Nanosaurus, from the Late Jurassic of North America, is the earliest thescelosaurid" What studies?

@IJReid: I believe this was your addition; I cannot find this claim in the two sources that are attached to the sentence?

• "Reconstructions suggest that the split" What kind of reconstructions?

"likelihood-based analysis with equal branch lengths (LEB); and, likelihood-based analysis with time calibrated branch lengths set equal to implied missing fossil records (LFR)." – I just went with "Boyd concluded that …" instead.

• "with food held in the mouth by cheeks while chewing" As mentioned earlier, the source is from 1974, and this idea seems to be contested now. Personally I don't think fleshy, non-muscular "cheeks" can be ruled out, but we have to follow the literature.
• Removed, along with the entire sentence that wasn't fully correct. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• "allowing both animals to share the same environment without competing for food" Can a link to niche partitioning be snuck in there somewhere?

Added.

• "One specimen is known to have had a bone pathology" What specimen? And link paleopathology?

That's one of the few things still left from the old version. I don't have the source, which is a museum's publication it seems. Apparently a specimen in the Minnesota museum, I don't think it is one of those mentioned in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• "animal that moved on two legs" I'm not sure this needs to link to bipedal; you already state it was bipedal under description, so the link should be there in any case.

fixed.

• "His own model, of the species T. edmontonensis, consequently showed limbs that were much more muscular." I wonder if we have a PD image of this model, did you mention that somewhere? Where can it be found?

Thanks for adding it!

• There is a random mix of when you use technical or common terms for skeletal features and bones, for example you say femur one place and upper arm, pipelinking it to humerus, in another place in the same section. Not sure how, but could perhaps be more consistent.

Used the technical ones.

• "and it was originally suggested that they are osteoderms" Were?

Fixed.

• "These conclusions were soon disputed. In 2001, the paleontologist Timothy Rowe and colleagues commented that the anatomy of the object is inconsistent with a heart" That first sentence seems like unnecessary editorializing/filler. The succeeding text speaks for itself.

Removed.

• You start with "The question of how this find reflects metabolic rate and dinosaur internal anatomy is moot, though, regardless of the object's identity.[60]" cited to the 2011 study, but then go on to "Both modern crocodilians and birds, the closest living relatives of non-avian dinosaurs, have four-chambered hearts (albeit modified in crocodilians), so non-avian dinosaurs probably had them as well; the structure is not necessarily tied to metabolic rate.[61]" cited to a 2004 study that would seem unrelated. This seems a bit synthy if the cited source isn't about this particular specimen. If the 2011 study cited the 2004 paper, I think this article should just cite the 2011 paper.

Correct, I removed the whole thing. That crocodilians and birds had four-chambered hearts was acknowledged even by the original 2000 paper; the point was to confirm that it was present in dinosaurs as well, so the paragraph was, yeah, synthy and misleading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Thescelosaurus is only known from Maastrichtian deposits of western North America." Could take the reader more by the hand here. Explain the Maastrichtian is an age of the late Cretaceous.

• "the Hell Creek Formation of North Dakota, Laramie Formation of Colorado, the Ferris" Why doesn't the Laramie get a definite "the" like the rest?

• "The deposition of the Lance Formation began 69.42 million years ago; the deposition of the Scollard and Frenchman formations began 66.88 million years ago; and the deposition of the Hell Creek Formation began at least 67.2 million years ago." isn't the only relevant part the ages of the exact part of these formations Thescelosaurus is known from?

• "At one site in the Heel Creek Formation" Heel Creek? That's a new one!

• "was historically thought to be a relatively uncommon in its" Remove "a" or add "dinosaur" or similar.

• "Pie chart of the time averaged census for large-bodied dinosaurs from one section of the Hell Creek Formation[65]" Probably add "according to a 2011 study" to caption to put it in context.

• While the restoration under Paleoenvironment is nice, it's not a scientifically published image, and is probably very general. I wonder if there are some that can be used instead that are more rigorous in showing the environment of one of these formations or a paleomap or locality map, but if not, it's probably fine.

• "that shifted to become more humid and wetland" By extension, this says "become more wetland", is that a proper way to put it?

• "cycad-palm-fern meadows" and "of conifers" shouldn't these plants be linked?

• Explain taphonomy.

• "Thescelosaurus lived alongside the dinosaurs including" remove "the".

• "The 2024 study argued that the acute sense of balance could alternatively be explained by possible burrowing behavior, as this sense also tends to be acute in modern burrowing animals.[53]" While I see why this text is in the posture section, as a response to something about balance, it seems a bit out of place when it isn't instead in the section about burrowing or elaborated upon there.

• "and questionable lancian deposits" You haven't mentioned, linked or explained "lancian" until this point, can it be replaced or explained?

• "with very young ornithischians also fed on by smaller dromaeosaurids" being fed on? Or preyed on?

• Link trophic.

• "Thescelosaurus (/ˌθɛsɪləˈsɔːrəs/ THESS-il-ə-SOR-əs; ancient Greek θέσκελος- (theskelos-) meaning "marvelous", and σαυρος (sauros) "lizard") is an extinct genus" I think it's better to keep all this etymology clutter out of the first sentence and put it by the text in the intro that summarises its description.

• "It was among the last of the non-avian dinosaurs to appear before the entire group went extinct during the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event around 66 million years ago." Shouldn't this be in one of the later paragraphs instead of at the very start to reflect some of the structure of the article body? Seems the entire intro is upside down in relation to the article body, with the discovery part last?

• "and also the largest member of the eponymous Thescelosauridae" I'm not seeing anything about it being the largest in the article body.

• "probably weighed several hundred kilograms" Why so vague compared to the article body? Also better to have numbers that can be converted.

• " It is also unknown to what extent the body was feathered, but at least parts of the legs appear to have been covered in scales." This seems to have the wrong focus; just mention skin impressions are known, the article body says nothing about feathers.

• "The genus attracted media attention in 2000, when a specimen unearthed in 1993 " The article body doesn't mention it attracted media attention or mention 1993.

• I'm having some problems with the taxon specific sub-headers under discovery; the subsections are not strictly about the taxa that bear their names (you often sneak in information about additional specimens of the type species or indeterminate soecimens), so I wonder if something should either be done about the naming of these subsections, or if the text should be moved around. For example, there could be one subsection specifically about T. neglectus specimens, but that would of course disrupt the chronological flow of the current text.

• "Initially, it was identified as a "hypsilophodont" — a wastebasket taxon that included a variety of unrelated, but superficially similar bipedal ornithischians" This seems much more critical of the term than the article body itself, which doesn't even mention "wastebasket taxon".

• "Additional species have been suggested, but these are not widely accepted." Are they accepted at all?

Dracopristis

Article was brought to GA by Fossiladder13, but I'm strongly inclined to say it could still use significant work. What would the best course of action here be? There has been a not insignificant amount of information published in the couple of years since, and a good amount of information of paleoecology/paleobiology and classification which was available at the time which is not present. Gasmasque (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If that information is added and the rest is also given a good lookover, maybe it could go to FA? Best course of action for new research is to add it regardless. The Morrison Man (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be reasonably well-written but also overly simplistic and short and needs significant expansion. For example, a description section does not really exist, and the article does not state how the genus can be distinguished from other genera. I don't think it meets the GA criteria at the moment as it does not cover some key points. Gasmasque, were you thinking about improving it, or was your idea to delist (reassess) it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I would be more than happy to help expand the article, but I don't know within what timeframe. It would probably be best to talk with @Fossiladder13: about the current and future state of it, and again I would be more than glad to provide references/help expand if need be. As it stands right now I agree the article is very lacking, and iirc was written very shortly after the taxon's description. Gasmasque (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with this statement. The article is pretty lacking for a good article, and I would be more than happy to help expand it to meet the requirements. I am not sure how it qualified for GA looking back in hindsight. Fossiladder13 (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also be happy to help out if needed, though I first need to focus on that collaboration above. The GA criteria are not particularly demanding, so if it is just about reaching those, it may not require too much work I think. I guess we need a coordinator/main author though, so that we get it moving and everybody knows what to work on. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that a next step could be to split the "Discovery and description" section into two distinct sections, one for "Discovery and naming" and the other "Description". I tried to do that, but I am not sure what reference refers to what since all cites are just attached to the end of the paragraph. We had better, more specific referencing earlier; @Fossiladder13: can we revert that again? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for that, I assumed that doing that would remove some of the clutter the article had, it should be undone now. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No issue, and thanks. I just made a copy edit of your recent changes, please revert anything that doesn't seem right. Next, the lead needs work: It should not contain information that is not repeated in the body ("The fish had 12 rows" – I can only find that in the lead, but again I'm not sure which of the many sources supports this). If all info is stated in the body, the sources can be removed from the lead entirely. Finally, the lead should be expanded, to properly summarise the entire article. Do you remember what source you used for "The fish had 12 rows of teeth"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I had been working on a rewrite/expansion of the article myself as well, and am going to move it to a sandbox to avoid edit conflicts. Once I get that into a more reasonable state I would be glad to share the draft with both of you and see where to proceed from there. The 2024 description of Glikmanius careforum and Troglocladodus has provided both some useable images and new classification information that I'm going to add. Gasmasque (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, I will wait with further edits, then. For my part, I would be most happy if you just boldly change as much as you deem best, without caring too much about preserving existing text – that's the best way to really level it up – if Fossiladder13 agrees? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Totally, thank you both for helping out with this. BTW, @Gasmasque sorry for the ping, but I have a draft of dracopristis that you can use Draft:Dracopristis Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also Jens, the Firstpost article is where the 12 rows of teeth came from. Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been working so far under my old Paredestus article draft, but would be glad to switch over to your draft to continue work! Gasmasque (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Going to continue working on this article, I have a couple of hours to kill to expand the description and classification sections. I know @EvolutionIncarnate has expressed interest in creating and uploading a rendered skeletal diagram for this taxon, which would be hugely appreciated! I'll let y'all know when I'm done editing, I'll be working in a sandbox since I may move/chop up some paragraphs. Gasmasque (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just massively overhauled the article. @Fossiladder13 @Jens Lallensack please feel free to adjust or add as you see fit, there is definitely still room for improvement. I really don't mean to co-opt the article or anything, but I've done what I can to make sure it is at least relatively comprehensive and well-organized. Gasmasque (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Very nice edits, thank you for helping out with the page, I’ll see what I can help improve. Fossiladder13 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The description section in particular may still be a bit barebones. The 2021 paper goes into very extensive detail regarding the anatomy of the animal, to the point I'm not sure if a lot of it would be all that meaningful for a lay audience. There's definitely a sweet spot between too much and too little, but I think a good amount more could be added in that area in particular. I may create more user-generated images relevant to Dracopristis itself, given the complete lack of fossil images on Commons, but it would have to be something I'm careful about to avoid copying figures given in papers 1-1. As far as I'm aware there are no CC licensed sources providing images or illustrations of the taxon, but do update me if one exists/is published. Gasmasque (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks great; I just gave it another copy edit, hoping I didn't screw anything up. I also think that the description section is appropriate at this length; if it is much longer, it will probably be to the disadvantage of the majority of readers.

Once everybody is happy with the article, maybe it could be the first workshopped one that gets formal WikiProject approval (see discussion here)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I did a major copy-edit of the whole page. I shortened some sentences, removed some uneccessary clauses, and split some sentences up to make it a bit simpler to read. I also removed the bull shark image and moved the image of the Ctenacanthus dorsal spine to balance out the spacing of the images a bit (WP:Sandwich). Hopefully these are helpful changes. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The bull shark image was probably unnecessary, but it was included because the original GA reviewer had suggested a photo of a living shark for comparison. Also, I appreciate the grammatical fixes, the article reads much better now! Gasmasque (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Triassic-Jurassic extinction event

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)

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)

Parahelicoprion

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 [14]; 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 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 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. 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 1916, 1922, and 1924 descriptions are all in Russian, as is this 1926 source detailing the discovery of a segment of the tooth whorl. 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)

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. 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 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)

Yixian Formation

I floated the idea of using the article workshop to improve WP:PAL's coverage of geological formations (which are mostly lacking with only a few exceptions), and several people said they'd be interested in participating. I figured the Yixian Formation would be a good one to start with because most of the literature on it is relatively recent (so finding sources shouldn't be too difficult), it's among the most important Mesozoic deposits for the study of small animals (something generally lacking coverage on WP), and there's tons of candidate images for the article. I don't have any specific plans to bring it to GA or FA, but that could always change. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we have any other geological formation articles already at GA or FA? That way we have a rough framework to base the work on this one off of. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. But it would be an opportunity to develop a general structure that we all agree on. Maybe that's the first we should do, and then decide who would do what section? I may start with a proposal of a general outline that could fit most formation articles (but has to be adapted for the Yixian Formation):

1) Geologic history (including all the background on the general geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition, and where the formation outcropps today)

2) Stratigraphy (including the position of the formation within within the group, and the lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.

3) Depending on the formation, possibly other geological aspects (structural geology, volcanism etc.)

4) Dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate. Might be better to include in "Stratigraphy" in some cases where this has to be discussed for many members separately.

5) Fossil content, including the most important individual sites. Only general information; move fossil taxa to separate spin-off list.

6) Natural resources / mining (if any)

7) Geoconservation (where applicable)

8) Research history

Of course, this is far not ideal yet, so I am looking forward to seeing your ideas/versions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your idea is pretty solid. Taking from your outline, it might be possible to streamline it into 5 main sections as follows:

1) Geologic history (including all the background on the general geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition, and where the formation outcropps today)

• Depending on the formation, possibly other geological aspects (volcanism etc.)

2) Stratigraphy (including the position of the formation within within the group, and the lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.

• Dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate. (structural geology, etc.?)

3) Fossil content important sites

4) Human use / natural resources

5) Geoconservation

Take this with a grain of salt, as I'm only a novice when it comes to geology proper. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me add the research history back again (we cannot do without that); move "Structural geology" to "Geologic history", and other minor tweaks:

1) Geologic history (background info, general geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition, type locality, where the formation outcropps today)

• Possibly other geological aspects (volcanism, structural geology, etc.)

2) Stratigraphy (position within group or basin, lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.)

• Dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate.

3) Fossil content important sites

4) Economic geology / Human uses

5) Research history

• Geoconservation / Cultural aspects (only where relevant)

We might want to throw this to the bin once we actually work on such an article. But its a start. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think its worth including the paleoclimate and depositional environment in its own section because that's likely to be something of interest to many readers. It could at least be its own subheader under "Geologic history" or "Stratigraphy". Fortunately, the Yixian Formation already has a separate page for the paleobiota, so we will only need to write a general coverage of that. I think the sections you proposed are just fine, although I think "research history" should be the first section in the article body (as is the case for most/all pages for fossil taxa). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably, yes, we can maybe group Research history, etymology, type locality, and definition together, as first section? I wonder if we need a separate section on geography. I mean modern geography, i.e., where the formation is outcropping today (which can be quite complex), and maybe its relevance to geomorphology, natural hazzards or whatever has to be covered. That doesn't really fit under "Geologic history". Maybe (but just maybe) we should have "Geography" as major section and "Economic geology" (and cultural aspects) as subsections of it. Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think grouping all those together is probably the best move. Etymology and type locality are all tied to research history very closely. We can re-examine the question of a separate section for geography once the bulk of the article is written because it will become clear by then whether or not it's a substantial enough matter to warrant a dedicated section. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. Let me just update it though, for the record:

1) Research history (also including etymology, type locality, and definition)

2) Geologic history (background info, broader geological setting, palaeogeography, earth history events after deposition including volcanism, structural geology, etc.)

3) Stratigraphy and sedimentology (position within group or basin, lithologies of the members, thicknesses etc.)

• Subsections on dating, depositional setting, and paleoclimate

4) Fossil content important sites

5) Geography (distribution, and where applicable, subsections on economic geology, geoconservation, and cultural aspects) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we generally agree on the overall structure of the article, so its probably worth splitting up the workload. I personally would prefer to do the stratigraphy section. I can also assist with research history or geologic history after that (I assume there will be significant overlap in the sources). Rather than start from scratch, the pages for Jehol biota, Psittacosaurus, and Paleobiota of the Yixian Formation have a lot more references already consolidated. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I will pick what is left over. First need to finish that dinosaur above before I have the capacity to pick anything, though … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus? If so, ouch, good luck with that one. I'll be on call for copyediting and a looksover once it nears completion, too busy to contribute writing. The Morrison Man (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Thescelosaurus, our other collaboration above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've found some licensed images to upload that I'll keep here in case anyone sees fit to use them.

• 
• 
• 

Peking Man

Back from another long hiatus wanting to wrap up some old projects; I'm trying to get this to FA. Most reviewers would come from this wikiproject anyways, so since we now have this new peer review system, I guess I'll put it here first as I'm getting back into the swing of things Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back! I will have a look at this soon. For a start, does the article need to be updated? There are some newer papers that are not incorporated, like [15] and [16], you might want to check for additional ones. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I added the fire one and went through google scholar for erectus pekinensis and Zhoukoudian since 2020. I don't have access to Geological Society Publications, but since it's another summarization of Zhoukoudian excavation, I wouldn't think it'd add any new information Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• I make some copy edits as I go; feel free to revert if needed.
• Chibanian – In the box you say "Middle Pleitocene", should be consistent. Also, for the lead, I would give the range in years too.

Changed to Middle Pleistocene Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1960, the Cenozoic Research Laboratory was converted into an independent organisation as the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and was headed by Pei, Jia, and Chinese palaeoanthropologist Yang Zhongjian. – Lacks context. What's the link to Peking Man? Was the Cenozoic Research Laboratory established because of Peking Man? Why are the individuals relevant for this article?

added Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• and 14 other H. erectus sites have since been discovered across the country as of 2016 in the Yuanmou, Tiandong, Jianshi, Yunxian, Lantian, Luonan, Yiyuan, Nanzhao, Nanjing, Hexian, and Dongzhi counties.[6] – I would not mention all these counties here; these are not Peking Men anyways, right?

The way the subspecies thing is handled with H. erectus is kinda weird, they're all sort of grouped as "Chinese H. erectus" and are by and large considered to be more closely allied with each other than other H. erectus populations, but some of them have historically been given some subspecies distinction which are variably still recognized today. It's definitely relevant to list them somewhere Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• most notably soldier Lai Jinliang – also lacks context, this is not really helpful without further elaboration (why is a soldier notable here? Who is he? What did he do to be the "most notable" peer?). I suggest to delete this.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I am surprised that you name "Homo erectus pekinensis" only in the first sentence in the lead, but not in the main article. When, and by whom, was the species classified as a subspecies as H. erectus?

I mean the article title isn't the subspecies name so I'm preferentially using Peking Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I suggest to make the table collapsed per default.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• In the systematics discussion, I can't find anything on the relations of Peking Man with other H. erectus from China. There are multiple other H. erectus localities in China, but only the cave near Beijing had this particular subspecies? Are the other H. erectus finds attributed to other subspecies? How do they differ? Anything known about their interrelations? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Chinese H. erectus are grouped together (sometimes as "classic" H. erectus) but what exactly that means is mostly defined by the Peking Man as the population with the most fossil material. The other ones are mostly skull fragments (not the most diagnostic) and teeth which have extremely distinct shovelling which is brought up in the Mouth section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we have a section about relationships of Peking Man in the "Classification" section? All the information given there seem to be historic, but the current viewpoints don't become quite clear. This could mention the other H. erectus from China, and why it is difficult to compare them with Peking Man. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean I could say that the Yuanmou and Lantian specimens look more ancient (which makes sense since they're older) and clarify that Peking Man probably didn't descend from Java Man? What specific kinds of relationships were you thinking about? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I added a paragraph at the end of the "Out of Africa" theory section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a step in the right direction. But I really think you should also cover the basics about Chinese H. erectus, properly introduce Nanjing Man for example. What other H. erectus material is there in China? What kind of material is it (undiagnostic at subspecies level it seems)? Any other subspecies in China? Is Nanjing Man another subspecies, and how is it related to Peking Man (did it live earlier, later? Common ancestry?). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Nanjing Man, Yuanmou Man, Lantian Man, and Hexian Man all at some point got subspecific distinction but no one really uses subspecies names in general. There at one point was a shift to say there's only 1 subspecies in all of China, but no one specifically uses the name H. e. pekinensis outside of Zhoukoudian. I added a little more but I think the big problem with this question is the whole subspecies distinction is often ignored in general with how poorly defined subspecies even is. I could include dates on the list of all the Chinese erectus sites if that helps with context, or the cladogram from Homo erectus#Phylogeny? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that the sources are unclear, but I wonder how most recent, reputably published papers refer to Peking Man – as a subspecies, a population, or just to the locality? Do they use the name Homo erectus pekinensis or not? If they don't, maybe it would be more prudent to remove the subspecies name from the first sentence of the lead and have a separate sentence saying that it has often been regarded as a distinct subspecies? Another point: I also found the name "Homo pekinensis" (amongst others, in Anton and Middleton 2023, which is quite recent), which is not mentioned in the article at all? My feeling still is that the taxonomy coverage is still a bit unclear and unsatisfactory, but I don't know the sources of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That study is already cited in the article, but it wasn't arguing that Peking Man is a unique species, but that if someone were to in the future argue that Peking Man (and maybe other Chinese H. erectus) is sufficiently distinct enough if we were to find more complete fossil remains somewhere, then the species name would be H. pekinensis per priority. I most often see just "Zhoukoudian" instead of "Peking" or "pekinensis", which is not to say they absolutely do not support the subspecies distinction, more so the study doesn't want to focus on terminology as much Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think that the taxon "H. pekinensis" should be covered in this article, there are many papers that mention it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

added a sentence Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The cladogram could be helpful if added. But note that it is a specimen-based analysis, not a taxon-based analysis. Therefore, the terminal node is one particular skull, not the taxon. The Homo erectus article implies that this study considers "Peking Man" as a taxon but in fact they don't. As long as Wikipedia says that "Peking Man is a subspecies", I don't think that the name "Peking Man" should appear in that cladogram because it's simply not what the source says. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean the study doesn't really speak on the subspecies of H. erectus since it focuses more on organizing "late archaic Homo" in East Asia, so I wouldn't say it's specifically arguing against taxon distinction for anything inside the "H. erectus group" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I really begin to think that this article should not be about the subspecies, but about the fossils from Zhoukoudian. If papers do not use the subspecies name, it is a clear sign that the taxon is not widely accepted, so we should not present it here as fact. Furthermore, the sources (and the article itself) are mostly about the fossils from Zhoukoudian, not about the subspecies, which explains why taxonomic coverage is so poor in both. The German Wikipedia too introduces Peking Man as the name given to fossils from Zhoukoudian, not declaring it a subspecies (and I know, and highly value, the author of that German WP article, it is someone who really knows what he is doing). Consequently, this would mean that the article should not have a taxon box. I hope we will get some opinions from others on this point too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1921, in the Fangshan District, 47 kilometres (29 miles) southwest of Beijing (then referred to in the West as Peking), Swedish archaeologist Johan Gunnar Andersson was teaching Austrian palaeontologist Otto Zdansky and American archaeologist Walter Granger on the Zhoukoudian Site. At the Chi Ku Shan ("Chicken Bone Hill") locality, they were advised by local quarrymen to dig at the nearby Longgushan ("Dragon Bone Hill") locality. – I read several times but still don't know what was going on. Can this be reworded more clearly? What is this ("Chicken Bone Hill") locality, apparently a different site? Why did the Swedish archaeologist "teach" about the site before the first tooth was discovered? That all doesn't make sense.

added some more details Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Much better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• which Canadian palaeoanthropologist Davidson Black made the holotype of a new taxon, Sinanthropus pekinensis. – Taxonbox lists two authors, not only Black.

Black did this in a 1927 publication with him listed as the only author, but in naming the species he lists the authority as himself and Zdansky so I wasn't sure what to do, but I added Zdansky Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1927, Black classified newly discovered human remains from the Zhoukoudian Peking Man Site into a new genus and species as "Sinanthropus pekinensis". – This is a repetition of the sentence above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, PrimalMustelid chiming in for now. I might have further comments down the line for later. For now, we need to discuss the elephant in the room that is the taxonomy of H. erectus pekinensis. Address these following concerns, as the article does not address the taxonomic history of the taxon nearly enough:

• What was the basis behind the researchers erecting the genus and species Sinanthropus pekinensis? More specifically, what differentiated the dental specimens from other species of Homo according to them?

He considered the teeth to be clearly more primitive than Neanderthals and distinct from Java Man, but the latter point would come to be disputed which is why it eventually gets subsumed under the same species. I'm not sure what to put down other than "different from Neanderthal and Java Man" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is no mention of any synonymization process of the genus and species as far as I can see. When were they synonymized with H. erectus and why? At what point was the species converted into species rank, and why is it under H. erectus? How did consensus over its taxonomy evolve over time?

added a little more of Weidenreich's ideas, but when Mayr lumped everything into H. erectus there wasn't really any pushback. It's under erectus because of priority Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Remember that a featured article has to be comprehensive, and the taxonomy of one species of Homo isn't an exception here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Compsognathus

Ok, so I've been told to essentially assign the next old FA or GA fossil taxon article for which the people of this WikiProject will improve. Since I suppose I can be the one to give assignments from here on out, the next dinosaur genus is Compsognathus, which was promoted to FA on the 15th of March in 2007 and obviously has not been reassessed since. Have at it I suppose. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)