a genus of ornithomimosaur dinosaurs – we usually have "dinosaurs" in singular here. This is also quite a tongue-twister; maybe just "is a genus of ornithomimosaur" is enough.
giving naming to the type species Garudimimus brevipes – "giving naming", I am really not sure about this grammar, but I'm also not a native speaker. Maybe just "; the only species is Garudimimus brevipes."
Multiple misinterpretations – this does not meet the
WP:NPOV. Especially when we don't have a secondary source that states they are "misinterpretations". We cannot assume that the most recent interpretation is the correct one. Please check for such issues in the remainder of the article also, it would speed up the review.
Findings of extensive undescribed ornithomimosaur remains – "Finding" means "result", right? I think you can just remove "Findings of" without loosing anything.
They were ornithomimosaurs with a mix of basal and derived features; unlike primitive ornithomimosaurs, both upper and lower jaws were edentulous (toothless)—a trait that is often reported in more derived ornithomimids. – Punctuation (";" followed by a "–") is not ideal here, I suggest to replace the "–" with a simple ",".
However, Garudimimus were not very cursorial animals as they had relatively short and stocky hindlimbs – You expect that the readers know that ornithomimids were cursorial. They won't.
this primitive taxon of Ornithomimosauria – no reason to formulate it in such a complicated way; better just "this primitive ornithomimosaurian", or stick with the word "genus". Don't use more technical terms when this can be avoided.
"holotype" – As the lead should be as accessible as possible, with as few technical terms as possible, think about replacing "holotype" with "only specimen".
However, with the description of new specimens of Deinocheirus in 2014, it was found that this genus was the sister taxon of Garudimimus – "it was found that the latter", otherwise it is confusing to read.
@
PaleoNeolitic: This was only the lead. I think the article needs some significant work to get it to GA niveau. How do we continue? First, it would help if you could go to the rest of the article first, trying to correct issues similar to those I listed above. But there are many many small issues. We might be quicker if we fail this nomination for now and you submit the article to the Paleo Peer Review, because there more people can contribute. If you prefer to leave the nomination open, I will continue section by section, and possibly try to call others in for help, but it would be a slow process. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
16:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for taking your time on the lead. If the consensus is about singular, then I'll be fixing the plural across the article. However, I would like to know if there's a bigger discussion about this issue/topic. If it's better this way, I guess that is more appropriate to move the article to Paleo Peer Review and fail the nomination for now.
PaleoNeolitic (
talk)
20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I can't remember any discussion, but you can see in other articles, for example the neighbour Deinocheirus, which is a FA, that singular is used. Even if both ways are possible, it is always better to have a uniform style across our article. This article seems to be the only one (at least among the GA's and FA's) that uses plural. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
21:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Regarding the Peer Review: This is not a quick and easy review to do. Moving it to Peer Review first would help me as a reviewer a lot, because others can jump in to help. I think you would profit as well, because the spectrum of comments would be broader. But it remains your decision! --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
21:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Given that, the best move here is to take the article onto the PeerReview in order to correct issues. Let's fail the nomination for now (sorry for the late response).
PaleoNeolitic (
talk)
03:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply