Wikipedia:Peer review/Irritator/archive1

Irritator

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to se how close it is to FA status. Oxalaia went pretty smoothly for a first time nomination, but Irritator/Angaturama has clearly grown much larger and has been more heavily discussed in palaeontological circles, so it will certainly take a lot more work. I've already listed it at the guild[1], It'll probably get started in the next couple days so that should take care of most of the prose and grammar issues.

Suggestions are much appreciated. As well as any sources I might have missed, can't be too comprehensive! ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a closer look soon, but seems the info on olfaction I brought up during the GA hasn't been added? I imagine I'll do a full review here and when done, I'll just support at the FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! As for the olfaction info, it was added during the GA (check the second para of Paleobiology). ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, seems I didn't find it because I searched for olfaction. Since this seems to be close to getting a copy edit, I'll wait until that is done, as there can be significant changes after. Also note that sometimes copy editors can change the meaning of sentences because they are unfamiliar with a subject, so take some of it with a grain of salt... FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, by weird coincidence, after I expanded Baryonyx, it and Irritator are now the same size (82 kilobytes)...

Great work on expanding Baryonyx! It's certainly been beefed up since the last time I saw it. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to add more suggestions FunkMonk, since the copyedit has now ended. I'm working on a paleogeography paragraph, which will be going under Paleoecology before the Taphonomy subsection. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, will begin soon. One thing I have been wondering about is what are all those "nowiki/"s for? FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is something to say about spinosaurid palaeogeography here?

Definitely, though I seem to have trouble finding sources for that. Do you know of any relevant papers? I've seen various ones before but I keep forgetting about their names since I was looking for different info at the time. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution section in the Baryonyx article is pretty much just about that. I think there is something more specific about Brazilian taxa in some of those sources. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I noticed is that "obturator notch" (under the Postcrania section) could use an explanation, but I'm unable to find any online reference on what an obturator notch specifically is. Perhaps Jens Lallensack knows? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is already in the glossary, see entry for pubis. Please let me know if you can understand it easily, otherwise I will try my best to make it clearer. I'm planning to put the glossary in article space quite soon, btw, so that articles can link directly to the definitions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understood the definition perfectly, though I think my explanation ended up a bit convoluted in an attempt to make it shorter.[2] Not sure... ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, somewhat difficult to understand, yes. What about "The pubis bore a relatively large and almost closed obturator notch, an indentation in the lower margin of the rear part of the bone that allowed for the passage of the obturator nerve."? This way, you also include the function of the structure – I personally always provide this kind of background when I have the opportunity, as it allows the reader to make connections, and gain a much better understanding of what is going on. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Added it. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

"commercial fossil-poachers excavated a chalk concretion containing the rear of a large skull with lower jaws" Do we know when?

I realised that a long while ago, but none of the sources I used seem to have that information (i.e. Machado and Kellner 2005 or Martill et al. 1996). I'm guessing that since the fossil was collected under uncontrolled circumstances we can't really be sure when it happened exactly. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"when the authors were disabused of this notion" Who were the authors?

Eberhard Frey and Hans-Dieter Sues, added. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the animals shown in the first map should be named in the caption.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what Jens thinks, but I would describe the condition of the skull first, then state it was named such and such, then the etymology right after. Now it jumps from the naming to the condition of the specimen and back to the name again. If you had the condition out of the way, you could keep the naming info together.

Definitely works much better, done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Depictions (bottom)" seems somewhat odd wording, as only one illustration is shown, perhaps say "similar to the one at the bottom", since it is obviously not from the time.

Took your wording. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"including a mostly straight conical tooth crown, a thin enamel layer" Why singular?

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this stems from earlier suggestions, but it seems a bit strange you don't cover the finds chronologically. Why jump from Irritator to postrcania in 2004, and then back to 1996 again for Angaturama? Wouldn't be more logical to cover the postcrania last?

Swapped the subsections, and (hopefully) took care of all the accompanying links and name mentions that needed switching. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, what are all those "nowiki/"s for?

I've been wondering that for a while, gonna see if I can find out how to remove them en masse. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use the visual editor? Could maybe be something added automatically by that? FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"were diagnosed by very strong lateral compression of the snout and a thin crest (complete shape unknown) on top of the premaxilla (frontmost snout bone)" Shouldn't this be in the description section? You don't diagnose Irritator under discovery either.

Removed entirely, since this information is already mentioned in the description. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Subsequent research led to the discovery of various postcranial spinosaur specimens from the Romualdo Formation." etc. Shouldn't all this info, and that about the mount, be under the section specifically about the postcranial remains?

Done. This works much better.

"They also noted Angaturama's premaxillary sagittal crest may also correspond" Why the last "also"?

Typo, removed. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If Angaturama and Irritator are actually regarded as" Why "actually"?

Removed ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled why there is a section dealing with both the location of the Irritator specimen and the postcranial remains (two seemingly unrelated issues)? Why not keep the stuff about location in the section dealing with irritator? Then all info on the postcrania, and perhaps the Oxalaia info, could be kept together in a section about additional fossils or something.

Done. With the previous move of the skeletal mount info, I realised I could also integrate Oxalaia into the mention of the 2018 fire, and in a chronological fashion as well. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the most complete preserved skull" Completely?

Changed. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The duplink tool shows a few duplinks (not including the names that also figure in the cladogram).

Removed two or three I think, some of them are a result of the links appearing in images first. Another thing which could be brought up to the bot operator. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say both meters and metres, perhaps due to different parameters used in conversion tmeplate.

Removed the three uses of British spelling. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Irritator challengeri holotype (SMNS 58022), and 8.3 meters (27 ft) for the Angaturama limai holotype (USP GP/2T).[23] Some of the skull bones of SMNS 58022" It is a bit confusing that you arbitrarily refer to the specimens either by number or by taxon name throughout. I'd just stick with taxon name for consistency.

Done. I also used "Some of the skull bones of the former holotype" in the next sentence, to avoid repetition of "the Irritator challengeri holotype". ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The holotype skull, although heavily" Though it is named in the title, would also be good to namke it at first mention in the section text.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The preserved skull is 16.5 cm (6.5 in) tall and 10 cm (3.9 in) wide, its full length has been estimated at roughly 60 cm (24 in)" But what is the preserved length then?

That's odd, the preserved skull length is written in neither the original 1996 description, nor the 2002 redescription. Perhaps I'm missing it?[3] ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they thought scale bars were enough. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"low snout, with both sides relatively flat" Sides could also mean front and back, perhaps specify right and left or similar?

Are you sure? I've never seen anyone use the word "side" to refer to the front or rear part of something; the very definition of side is "a position to the left or right of an object, place, or central point." ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, unless front and back side was specified. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"these head crests were commonplace in spinosaurids, having possibly served a display function when alive." This reads as if the crest is alive, you could specify "when the animal was alive".

Done, I did this because in the Ceratosaurus FA review, I noticed that Jens Lallensack was asked to change "in life" to "when alive". This would imply that Ceratosaurus's horn was also alive, then. So the same suggestion should probably be implemented there. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yeah, I think it is too imprecise language though, maybe suggested by someone who isn't used to the jargon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could specify in the caption that the life restoration combines the specimens.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do none of the sources use the term "subnarial gap" (or variations thereof) for the diastema?

No, not that I can see. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Like in all spinosaurids, the ungual of the first finger (the "thumb") was strongly recurved and enlarged" Do we know how long it was?

Unfortunately no, all available information on the skeleton was implemented into the postcrania section of the article using multiple abstracts and one preliminary description. Given that the consequences of the fire seem to be keeping the museum staff busy at the moment, I suspect Elaine Machado won't publish her description anytime soon. So we'll have to make do with this information until then. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some jumping between tenses in the description I can see why you do this, as sometimes it refers to current preservation, but I wonder if there are other thoughts behind it.

You're correct on why I used these tenses. But I'm not sure what you want me to change, can you elaborate? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No changes needed, was just wondering if there was alternatives. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"When alive, these would have been covered in skin" When the animal was alive. Alternately, I think "in life" would make it sound less awkward.

I would have typically used "in life". Though as above, this was due to a suggestion given to Lallensack in the Ceratosaurus FAC. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Sail" now links to a disambiguation page, should link to Neural spine sail.

Whoops, fixed! ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier, might be some paleobiogeography info that could be added, using some of the sources present in Baryonyx.

Added a paragraph on paleogeography, might not be the best since I'm a bit unfamiliar with the topic. Thoughts? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see when I get to the part. FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"as a close relative to the feathered ornithomimosaurs and troodontids." They were hardly considered feathered at the time, though, so I doubt the source says this?

Added sources for evidence of feathers in both taxa. This could be done better with bundled citations, but I had trouble figuring out how to use the markup.[4] ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"in the clade Bullatosauria" good you mentioned this, gotta write a bit about it in the Gallimimus article, since the name turns out to have been inspired by the specific name bullatus...

Good to hear! Always interesting to be reading an article and finding information relevant to another project one was working on. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"antorbital fenestra contributed to by the jugal (cheek) bone" This reads a bit awkwardly. Wouldn't it be easier to say something like "have the jugal bone forming part of the antorbital fenestra" or something?

Though I've seen "contributed to" be used by many sources, I took your wording anyway, since it's less jargony. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"since the Irritator challengeri's holotype" Why genitive?

Removed "the". ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"is another autapomorphy" You have not linked or explained the term until then, perhaps just say distinguishing trait?

The term is first used and explained in the first paragraph of Classification. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"like the pterosaurs found in large numbers at the Romualdo Formation" Like assumed, it isn't the consensus anymore that they were all piscivorous.

Ah, I was planning on removing that but I forgot. Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"for the grabbing and holding of prey" Is the bolded needed?

Not sure what you mean? I don't see any bolding, not even in source mode. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the bolding is mine, I mean are the words I put in bold needed? FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Removed "the" and "of". ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and reduced antorbital fenestra" Should be fenestrae, if you're going for plural here.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"These attributes, present in other spinosaurids as well, made the skull more resistant to torsion from prey item loads when feeding." According to who and when? Give author and dates for such studies, and how they reached their conclusions.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The neck vertebra of this genus" Vertebrae.

Changed. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It would have used these to sense prey moving in the water, as is indicated by foramina (openings) on its premaxillae analogous to those of crocodilians." I wonder if this is maybe a bit too much info about another taxon. But certainly relevant in the Spinosaurus article...

I shortened it somewhat, is this good? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"They stress rather that this head morphology indicates a generalistic feeding" Why do you suddenly jumo to present tense?

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"necessary to pull the jaw closed quickly" To close the jaws quickly? Seems a bit clunky.

Took your wording. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"same-species juveniles" A bit convoluted, why not just "juveniles of its own species"?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any more comments, FunkMonk? I think I'm pretty confident in nominating this for FAC soon. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll look at the rest of the article soon. As our main spinosaurid editor, maybe you'd want to take a look at the Baryonyx peer review[5] (it should be in the best shape before sending it off to WikiJournal)? There is a lot of new material in the article, perhaps some that could be used here too... FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Been planning on giving it a look, I'll do that soon. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"as has been indicated by the use of techniques like isotope analysis and bone histology" I'd say something like "as has been shown in studies using techniques such as" or similar.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"According to phylogenetic bracketing" This could be really briefly explained.

Explained and sourced. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"in an August 2018 publication" Why do we need the month? You don't give the month for the earlier 2018 publication, so you could just say "from later in 2018" or something.

Used "in a later 2018 publication". ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"who's opening gradually" Why not whose, as you say elsewhere?

Fixed typo. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1996, the specimen became the holotype of the new genus Irritator" Genera don't have holotypes (only type species). It would perhaps be best to list the whole binomial first, and then explain the compound words.

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit strange that the intro jumps from taxonomic history to description and then back to Angaturama. If you arrange it chronologically, you can also describe part of Angaturam in the description paragraph, as it will have been already presented by then.

Done, I just did some reassembling and expanding of the lead based on further ideas I got from your advice. It now consists of four paragraphs, you should probably take another look and see if there's anything I should fix/remove.

Removed info on the group and basin of the formation, as it is not very necessary and isn't included in other articles either.
Added more descriptional info on the Angaturama snout tip as well as a sentence on the possible skeleton's anatomy.
Rearranged everything so it follows the order in the main text of the article.
Some copyedits and small fixes.
Removed author names.
Removed mentions of holotypes for genera.
Removed overly-detailed info (hopefuly). ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice, further comments on the intro below. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the part about history in the intro is a bit overly detailed, I think it could be summarised a bit further, especially the info about the irritator specimen. For example, do we need to present what a maniraptoran is, that it was an "early" pterosaur, and where professor Challenger is from? You could just say "the fictional character" or similar. To save space, names of palaeontologists arne't really needed in sucha summary either.

All done, see above. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a family of large and likely semiaquatic predatory dinosaurs" To make the hsitory paragraogh shorter, this explanation could go in the paragrapgh that covers the biology of the group.

Done, see above. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The genus name comes from the English word "Irritation"" Only stated in the intro it was derived from English, But does the source really say so? The term "irritation" seems to be of Latin origin...

It seems that the word English word Irritation is derived from Latin, but the name of the animal itself is derived from the English word. A language isn't specifically stated in the source though, so should I add one to cite this fact? I think wikitionary could also be used in these cases. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should just leave out the language then, we have no idea what the authors would have said. FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Many paleontologists regard the genus as a potential senior synonym of Angaturama limai" I would reverse this, and say they regard Angaturama as a senior synonym... In that way, you can also present that genus before.

Good idea, done. I think you meant "junior synonym" in your suggestion though, hehe. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Irritator and Angaturama's skull fossils were both parts of the same specimen" Could be simplified by saying "skull parts belonged to the same/a single specimen".

Used "the same". ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Angaturama snout tip was enlarged" Not sure what is meant by this, the description section doesn't say sp specifically.

Clarified with "expanded to the sides in a rosette-like shape". ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The holotype skull was thoroughly restored before being redescribed in 2002" Restored or prepared?

Changed to prepared. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Abelov just did an image of several spinosaurs, including Irritator.[6] Not sure if any of it is useful, there are some issues, as usual. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It just happens that I put it up on the image review page a few seconds ago, with some comments on its accuracy and possible use.[7] ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, I think I only see one "Being worked on", then it should be good to go for FAC, and I'll give my automatic support (since I already reviewed). Unless you want more reviews first, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All comments have been answered, I'm good with closing up the PR and going straight for FAC. Speaking of which, Thalassodromeus really needs more reviewers... ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the latest change, but it's a minor point anyway, good luck! And yeah, I hate to ping people, but seems I might have to do that for Thalasso... FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot to publish it. Done now.[8] ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

If Angaturama and Irritator are regarded as a member of the same genus, the latter would be the valid scientific name under rules of priority, since it was named less than a month earlier - carries an odd emphasis. would be better as, "since it was named almost a month earlier"

Agreed, took your wording. Thanks for the copyedits by the way! ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks in pretty good shape...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]