Alrighty, here's how it stacks up against the GA criteria:
1. Well Written - On the whole pretty good, I could follow most of the article even though I am not a plesiosaur expert (it might be difficult, though, for someone who doesn't know much anatomy). One thing though it you use too many semicolons. It's not bad grammar but it is a little distraction.
When you are discussing limb bones in the description section, it is often not clear whether you mean singular or plural. For example, when you talk about the humerus, both are preserved, yet you discuss it in the singular.
You use both past and present tense to describe bones in the description section. Since most of the skeleton still exists, you should describe it in present tense unless the bone in question is lost/destroyed (in which case it would be best to state that explicitly).
Also, a few of the sentences are difficult to follow:
"The edge where it meets the flat, triangular, and plate-like ischium curves inwards from the midline to each side; the corresponding edge of the ischium was similarly-shaped, forming two rounded fenestrae connected by a small, central, rhombus-shaped opening as in Futabasaurus."
"The small first sacral rib was directed further outwards and backwards than the other two ribs, which were larger and were directed less backwards and further downwards."
"The interclavicle was a large plate with a smooth upper surface and a bottom surface that has a prominent central groove; it also bears a small, pointed projection at its back end."
When you mentioned the wax endocast of its brain, I immediately wanted to know more about it (after all, fossil brains are rare). Sachs et al. doesn't say too much, but you could maybe add an extra sentence about it somewhere.
The description section is very in-depth on the holotype but doesn't address very well how it compares with other plesiosaurs. I don't think it really needs much, but people who don't know much about plesiosaurs need some context so they can understand the significance of these anatomical characteristics.
After looking over the GA criteria and review protocol, I realized it's not necessary for the article to comply with
WP:TECHNICAL so I won't fail the nomination for that. (Sorry, I'm still new to the GA process!) Ashorocetus (
talk |
contribs)15:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I've struggled a lot with that too, to be honest. I don't know of a good way to make things like this accessible to the general reader. But adding in some comparisons to other plesiosaurs does make it much more accessible to anyone with a working knowledge of skeletal anatomy. Ashorocetus (
talk |
contribs)17:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Looks like you've addressed all my concerns. The article looks very good now. The writing is clear and concise, everything is cited and in the citation, the coverage leaves no hanging questions but is not too in depth. Still good on neutrality, stability, and pictures. GA passed! Ashorocetus (
talk |
contribs)17:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply