I've listed this article for peer review because I want to a) get this article to B-class and b) see how close it is to the GA-criteria to see if it might be worth nominating for GA status.
While expanding this article, I used the format of Brachiosaurus as a reference for building it. I have added four of the five major headings to this article (Paleobiology being the one not making the cut) based on what I could find using Google Scholar. This is the first major entire-article expansion that I've ever done, and to be honest, I'm not yet very confident in my article writing skills, so any input is welcome. I plan to update the scale diagram and add a life restoration once they pass review at
WP:DINOART. I'm considering making a skeletal diagram for this guy if I can find proper resources.
It was discovered in southwestern Patagonia. It was described by Fernando Novas et. al. in 2005. Perhaps this could be It was discovered in southwestern Patagonia and described by Fernando Novas and colleagues in 2005.?
Done
Also, if you're planning on going for GA or FA, I would avoid terms like et al. (which the general reader wouldn't understand) and replace them with the more common alternatives "and colleagues", "and others", or "and his/her team"
Done
I wouldn't use "biggest", as it's a rather vague and simplistic word. Even simple.wikipedia prefers "largest".
Done
The discovery of the more complete Futalognkosaurus revealed that these estimates were likely too high. More complete than Argentinosaurus or Puertasaurus? Also clarify whose estimates you're talking about.
In 2012, Thomas Holtz estimated it - Again, estimated Argentinosaurus or Puertasaurus?
Done
(thought to be the second dorsal vertebra) - thought to be "a" second dorsal vertebra.
Done
A 2017 study stated that its mass was estimated to be roughly around 60 metric tons --> A 2017 study estimated its mass at roughly around 60 metric tons.
Done
A lot of terms under the description section could use links, parenthesised explanations, or simpler terminology. Examples being "craniocaudally", which could be replaced or parenthesised with "front to back"; fossae, parenthesised or replaced with "depression"; etc.
The per- and postspinal fossae on the neural spine are wide and deep, did you mean pre and postspinal?
Done
Is there any more information on the caudal vertebrae? Right know it's just a fragmentary sentence, which IMO would be better to merge with the above text (your choice on that though).
one of the most diverse groups of sauropods. perhaps "sauropod groups" would be better?
Done
Many of those animals, especially Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan were especially massive. Add a comma before "were".
Done
It is generally recovered as stable, although a 2017 study found it (along with Quetecsaurus) to be the least stable members of the group. - What is generally recovered as stable?
I personally found the paleoecology section a very confusing read. So, you open with saying there's dispute, give the actual answer, and then talk about the past interpretations (the aforementioned dispute). This is a bit jarring since you slap the answer in the middle of the "dispute" discussion instead of at the end, and it's not in any sort of chronological order to make up for the bizarre subject order. Additionally, I'm left unsure of what the actual answer even is, since the answer is Cenomanian according to the Cerro Fortaleza Formation page (as well as the Talenkauen, Orkoraptor, and Austrocheirus pages) but the last statement on it in order is this: "These deposits were finally decided to pertain to the Cerro Fortaleza Formation, which dates to the Campanian or Maastrichtian." This statement leaves me thinking it came from the Campanian or Maastrichtian, since "these deposits" were "finally decided" to be from that time. Which are you trying to say is correct?
Lusotitan (
Talk |
Contributions)
02:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Better in flow, but I'm still pretty sure the Cerro Fortaleza Formation is supposed to be Cenomanian, not Maastrichtian, contrary to how this concludes. Also, "lithologic unit" probably won't mean much to a general reader, perhaps a more basic word or an explanation in parentheses would help.
Lusotitan (
Talk |
Contributions)
20:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
A similar flow issue occurs with the Description section; it begins with "Due to lack of material", but the amount of material isn't explained until the paultry Discovery and naming section. The latter section should be first and Description second, so the appropriate context has been given.
Lusotitan (
Talk |
Contributions)
02:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Donereply
Since Lusotitan's review is so thorough (don't think a review can ever be too thorough, though), I may save my thoughts for the GA review. I wonder if more sources could be found, as the article is surprisingly short, and I found this uncited paper
[1], which though it is mainly about Alamosaurus, appears to have some info on Puertasaurus that could maybe be used. Though the journal is CC licenced, the photos of Puertasaurus material appears to be taken directly from the original description, and can probably not be used.
FunkMonk (
talk)
04:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Oh, yeah, haha, it was kind of hard to make out who said what above (I guess that's why different reviewers make sections during FACs)... But I will probably add more comments here soon.
FunkMonk (
talk)
20:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
On another note, the title "Axial Column" has two problems, the second word should not be capitalised, and I think it is too esoteric. "Vertebral column" would suffice.
FunkMonk (
talk)
05:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I wonder if the image layout would look better if you left aligned the size diagram and right aligned the vertebra photo. Looked good when I tried it out, now the diagram is pushed down by the taxobox, as far as I can see on my screen.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)reply
The distal end of a cervical is the front, the part facing towards the skull. Thanks, btw., for notifying me of this Peer review; will see if I can contribute some comments soon. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
08:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Done
The formation is composed of mostly sandstone, mudstone, and lignite. – Not sure if this is central enough to appear in the lead.
The largest of the four preserved bones is the dorsal vertebra, which is the broadest known vertebra of any sauropod. – Why not give the measurement here?
Not sure if we can/should include Hartmans weight estimate from his personal webpage when he states "I'll speculate maybe in the 60-70 tonne range, but treat that as arm waving until it's verified by volumetric or double integration analysis". At least, I would somehow reflect this uncertainty. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Puertasaurus is differentiated from other sauropods based on a variety of features. – Make clear that these are not autapomorphies, but a unique combination of characters.
No, that is incorrect. They are NOT unique features. It is the combination of features that is unique (and for this reason, you should mention all of them). --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
17:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
especially Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan, were especially massive. – two times "especially".
Done
Puertasaurus is generally recovered as a stable lognkosaur, although a 2017 study found it (along with Quetecsaurus) to be the least stable members of the group. – I think you should explain what stable means here.
The zygapophyseal (the zygapohyses are the processes below the neural spine) articulation – Better: "The zygapophyseal articulations, which connect two adjacent vertebrae" or something similar. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Done
First paragraph of paleoecology suggests that the Pari Aike Formation is distinct from the Cerro Fortaleza Formation, while it was previously stated that they are synonymous. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The life reconstruction shows the animal taking quite a long stride with its right forelimb, while its hindlimbs appear to be in standing position. Does not appear to fit. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Otherwise, it is a very good start, and should be a promising GA candidate soon. Make sure you explain/link all difficult technical terms. I made some copy edits to the article, but please revert if needed. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The stage that Puertasaurus was alive in is debated, but I suppose that the regular reader might not be looking for that specific of information? Perhaps I could replace it with (stage uncertain)? --
Slate Weasel (
talk |
contribs |
uploads)
12:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The fossils under "description" were part of a special exhibition on South American dinosaurs that was touring through different museums, including, as far as I remember, the Museum König and the Senckenberg in Frankfurt. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
16:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Looks good to me, though as usual, I'm not much of a sauropod expert. By the way, if no one else gets to it before me, I'll GA review this when the time comes.
FunkMonk (
talk)
11:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I've added the skeletal diagram and have requested a copy edit. Once that's done and I finish ironing out the other issues that you've mentioned above, I'll nominate it for GA status. Thanks for all the comments so far! --
Slate Weasel (
talk |
contribs |
uploads)
22:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I think I might review this, since it could serve as a good introduction for me to GA reviews (being a pretty short article). Plus, I've had a couple articles reviewed for me already so it's only fair I give something back.
▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)reply