Wikipedia:Peer review/Mosasaurus/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mosasaurus[edit]

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

The old peer review closed in November broke down because I had a huge amount of long-term real-life tasks to tackle (applications, research, grades, exams, etc), and I decided that it would be best to not renew the PR until I'm finished with all of them for real. Now I no longer need to worry about those tasks, so I now have a lot more time to work on the Mosasaurus article. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of points that remain on the previous peer review, so I'll be reposting and addressing them here. Once I find that all potential points are addressed I'll be taking this article to GA review. @FunkMonk: @Lythronaxargestes:

It has been a week since I posted this PR. If there are no responses soon, I will be closing this PR and moving to GA Review.

FunkMonk Lythronaxargestes are there anything you may have to comment about the article and the points I've addressed?

The ping didn't work, but I'll take a new look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Do both specific templates not work or the entire ping system broken as of now? Macrophyseter | talk 18:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe pings only work when they are followed by a new time stamp, and it seems you didn't leave one above. You can't add working pings to a previous comment either, if you don't also replace the time stamp. Took me a while to figure any of this out! FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. That explains why I wasn't getting responses when I pinged others in the past. Perhaps this will fix it @Lythronaxargestes: Macrophyseter | talk 07:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: @Lythronaxargestes: Are you going to take a look through the PR? If not, I'll just close this and go straight to GA Review. Macrophyseter | talk 15:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish a pass through the article by Sunday but if you'd like to go ahead with GA before then then feel free. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already looked through it, the few additional comments are below. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • You go into minute detail about Mosasaurini, but could we also get some details about the higher taxa that are based on the genus? In fact, if it is an issue of size, I think you could cut out on some of the detail on Mosasaurini in favour of more info on for example Mosasauridae, which I'd believe is a much more important historical taxon. And since Mosasaurini has its own article, I don't see why we need more info about it here than just "Mosasaurus is a member of the tribe Mosasaurini, whose monophyly has been disputed".
I'm not sure how I would go into more detail about the Mosasauridae, because its identity is as simply as being the family comprising of all mosasaurs. But I tranferred all the details about the taxonomy of Mosasaurini to its standalone article. Details about much higher taxa should be in the following subsection. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a photo of a supposed juvenile skull[1], perhaps worth showing under life history (probably needs some cropping)?
Added for now. Macrophyseter | talk
  • "which reignited research on the placement of mosasaurs as squamates" But wasn't that the only proposed placement? So shouldn't it be "research on the placement of mosasaurs among squamates?"
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a span of about 30 to 40 years" I think it's mor einteresting for thwe reader to know when this span was.
Added. I was initially hesitant to add year periods because they weren't explicitly mentioned in the source. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "published Classification of the Lizards" You don't mention the names of othe rpublications, not wure why it is necessary here.
This is because it is a book, not a journal. I title all books, hence why I also titled Russell (1967). Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to Lee (1997)" Since you mention the date in the preceding section, I don't think it's needed again.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lee observed to be part of the reason for the trend of consistently classifying mosasaurs as varanoid lizards." I don't understand this sentence.
Removed this mention entirely during my attempts at trimming the section. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " which creates many rooms for data interpretation" Much room?
I rewrote the sentence to say "interpreting data", so I think "many rooms" works for the new grammatical context ("Much rooms for interpreting data" sounds off). But I'm not sure.
Something that can be left for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and conical rostrum" Link and explain rostrum.
Done. I ended up substituting with more common-word synonyms to keep things concise.Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The external nares" Also explain this.
Done and same as above. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are positioned more posteriorly than any other mosasaur" Than in?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The neurocranium provided a brain" That is pretty strange wording. Contsined a brain?
Changed to "housed". Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while being a species being only" Second being is unnecessary.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the upper jaw, there were three types and were the premaxillary teeth, maxillary teeth, and pterygoid teeth." A bit clunky, you could just use a colon after "three types" and avoid "and were".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dentition section should make it cleare that it and mosasaurs in general had teeth on their palate, which is of course a given for us, but would probably seem very unusual for layreaders. This could be done by explaining in parenthesis when you mention the pterygoid teeth.
Done.Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a mix of present and past tense under description which could probably be looked over. For example, while it makes sense to talk about the fossils in present tense, does it make sense to talk about tooth replacement in present tense? After all, it is something that only happened when the animal was alive?
To be honest, getting the correct tense with extinct animals is still a bit confusing for me, largely because of the situations in which the distinction between describing the animal as a living being in the past or as the fossils they are now get rather ambiguous. For example, with the tooth development section you are mentioning right now, it's about differentiating whether explaining the process should be in the context of that we have jaw and teeth fossils with the processes in preservation today (present tense) or that we are contextualizing in that the process only happened long ago (past tense). Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's certainly difficult. At least when it comes to reconstructed behaviour, I think past tense should be used. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I've changed the remaining controversial part (the tense issue with tooth develoepment) to past tense. Hopefully it works out now. Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arious partial skeletons of M. conodon, M. hoffmannii (M. maximus)" What is the meaning of the parenthesis?
It was to note the caveat that some scientists considered the fossils of M. hoffmannii as M. maximus. But given that the article establishes the synonymy of the two taxa, I decided to just cut it. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragrapgh about bony correlates to the tail fluke, you should mention that tail flukes are known from soft tissue in other mosasaurs, so are not just inferred. And perhaps even that this is quite recent discovery, with mosasaurs not being depicted with such flukes until just a few yars ago.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The paddle is supported with five sets of finger-like metacarpals and phalanges" Finger-"like"? but the phalanges are the fingers? Wouldn't it be more correct to specify that the actual fingers were encased in the flipper, and supported it from within?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentences like the folowing and manyothers read really oddly in present tense: "and is well-suited for utilization for faster swimming", "The tail is bilobed and hypocercal, which means that the tail vertebrae extends toward the lower lobe".
The reason why they were in the present tense was because I was under the context that when assembled, the concerned structures would still have the functions mentioned in text. It's a similar situation with what I discussed in a preceding point. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The life restoration under Phylogeny and evolution of the genus still seems a bit misplaced, I think it would make more sense under for exmaple Habitat preference. I'd expect images of diagnostic features and specimens, or relatives, under classification.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll review classification and onwards later, this is already a big chunk to deal with for you first.
  • All footnotes should preferably also have citations.
Would it be necessary to cite literal translations from one modern language to another? I feel like there could be a case for self-evidence in this one, especially given how obvious it would be for those speaking English and French. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would definitely be best during FAC if everything could be sourced, but if you can't find anything I'd still leave it in and see what people see when the time comes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Half-comical, but can Google Translate be an acceptable citation? I don't think many places elsewhere would provide translations of every possible phrase in the French language. Of course I can simply remove the mention, but I don't want French speakers to mistake the popular translation as an inaccurate attempt at a literal one. Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In connection with the above, weren't some M. hoffmanni specimens identified from America?
Russell didn't recognize them as M. hoffmannii but instead M. maximus. Historically hoffmannii was considered strictly European. Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention authors and dates under Paleopathology, but not in most of the rest of paleobiology.
It's an inconsistency that I'm saving until I'm done with everything else as to not need to keep changing them. Do you have any opinions as to the best way to mention studies when needed? (i.e. how much detail to mention the authors of the studies or simply using in-text references) Macrophyseter | talk 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In for example Dilophosaurus, I recently changed it to just state names and occupations, not nationalities. If you want to save even more space, occupations probably aren't even needed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed author mentions to either their whole name if solo or their last names if duo or et al. I only kept university affiliation in places I thought remained nessesary such as Goldfuss. Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • During FAC, image reviewers will probably ask for some kind of verification for the various usermade restorations. You can avoid this by adding sources that support those images (proportions and other morphology) to their Commons descriptions.
  • "this skeleton is currently cataloged as IRSNB 3119" Why say currently here and not for other specimens?
The entire mention was removed in one of my earlier edits, so I guess the point is moot?
  • Ugh, a lot of embarrassing typos above, but I've answered a few points. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that you've pretty much gotten through all that is needed for this article to pass the reviews once I get the points firmly finished? Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd be ready to support at FAC once it gets there after this. But I think GAN is a good idea in the meantime to get more views and polish. FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the latest on size comparison diagrams? FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged Slate Weasel over at the Paleoart Review to see if we can coordinate a better one. Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new mosasaur paper[2] just came out, not sure if it's relevant here... FunkMonk (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lythronaxargestes[edit]

  • @Lythronaxargestes: I've addressed all of your comments including follow-ups. If you or Hemiauchenia do not have any more comments to make, I will conclude this PR as finished and nominate the article for GA and FA. Macrophyseter | talk 18:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Happy to declare my review complete. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comprehensive review! In that case, I will be concluding this PR and nominating for GA, hopefully for a quick pass. If anyone else has possible additional comments, it can be done there. Macrophyseter | talk 19:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can general comments be made about the bodyplan of Mosasaurus as a mosasaur? For an example of what I am talking about, see the start of Description in Acamptonectes.

Done.

I would like to see more of Street and Caldwell's generic diagnosis incorporated into this section. For instance, you don't mention the maxilla, frontal, quadrate, jugal...

Made some additions. I'm hesitant in adding most of the generic diagnostics because they mainly consist of distinctions in skull bones (i.e. frontal, jugal) that don't really show much to lay readers. I'm modeling the article after a few FAs like Allosaurus, which is more non-expert friendly in skeletal descriptions, but I've also done some hybriding with the style in Acamptonectes as well. Macrophyseter | talk 21:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allosaurus is a very old FA, though (the 2007 FAC is much more superficial than they would be today[3]), where more recent FAs would be better models. I can't get an idea what sets the skull of Allo apart from other theropods by reading the description, for example. But yeah, some recent FAs have maybe also been overly technical in places, so it's certainly a balancing act. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, do you think the current form of the description (specifically Skull for example) would make the cut? The contents I've added mainly concern the features that makes Mosasaurus distinct from other genera in a concise manner (at least making sure a lay reader doesn't need a medical dictionary to understand a shred of the content). I've ended up not really mentioning characteristics that neither establishes a diagnostic, significantly differentiates from other species, nor says something about the genus' functional morphology. Macrophyseter | talk 00:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hard for me to say, since I don't know much about mosasaur anatomy, but it reads pretty detailed, so unless someone can think of specific additions, I'd accept it as is. But since it describes diagnostic features, it is already ahead of the Allosaurus FA. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason dentition is discussed before the rest of the skull? Especially since you introduce a number of jawbones in that section that would perhaps be serviced by the schematic diagram.

Swapped. Macrophyseter | talk 21:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the discussion of tooth replacement belongs better in Paleobiology. It fits in both places, honestly. Perhaps other reviewers could chime in on this.

I can see why it would work, but I personally think it could fit within the Teeth section for the sake of crowding sections. I agree that we should see what others have to opinionate. Macrophyseter | talk 21:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult, in Dilophosaurus I placed it in a development section, but in Segnosaurus I put it under description... I think the latter was just because it was short and couldn't really be grouped with similar info under palaeobiology. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the passage of concern would fit in the life history section, but I'm still not too sure if creating a new section would be better. If it seems to remain more or less a grey area, I'll probably just keep as is until others have something to input. Macrophyseter | talk 00:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. I'm not overtly attached to either alternative. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I'd be happy to support at FAC too.

§History of discovery

Not much to say here, this section has already been reviewed thoroughly.

  • Perhaps move the Faujas image up a paragraph? In fact, maybe swap it with the skull since the specimen number and le grand animal is introduced later.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "argument for a whale": I think I may have commented on this before but "whale identity" works better.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the taxon was declared a nomen dubium": "Taxon" first appears here. Either define, link, or replace.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, not sure if I've brought this up previously but I think §Early depictions could easily go last. It would make the story flow better.
Done, although I personally think it's not as comfortable as a read due to chronological flow. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two reasons for such neglect: the first": Grammatical comment: start "The first" as a new sentence. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Description

I'm starting from a second pass here.

  • "Derived" is not explained at all before this point. Would explain or drop.
That's because they are two different meanings. The "derived" usages earlier are the strict common definition ("coming from"; "originates from"), while the "derived" used here is a strict evolutionary definition (members with descendant traits specialized from ancestors); hence why I defined the latter in Description. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is that the evolutionary definition is not clearly explained. I don't think "fully aquatic lifestyle" is enough to get it across. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some rewording. Does it work now? Macrophyseter | talk 20:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This works. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fin-holding downturn": Awkward turn of phrase. Would say something like "downturn that supported a fin". Is this from a source?
Cut.Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "superficial build": Is build not superficial by definition? Seems redundant.
Cut. But I used "superficial" as to not potentially confuse readers as imagining the similarities of Mosasaurus to Ichthyosaurus as Plotosaurus is a look-alike of Cymbospondylus. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, check that your anatomical descriptions are consistently in past or present tense. There are many inconsistencies.

§Size

  • "its length is subject to rough estimates": Not sure "subject to" is the right word—are rough estimates not the only way of inferring length?
Changed to "based on" Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also known as the Penza specimen and measures...": Ungrammatical.
Moved the semicolon. Would this work? Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reliably estimated at 1600 mm": Clarify this is total length.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, he may have misapplied the ratio": Is this original commentary? You cite Russell and Lingham-Soliar but no one else. I think this is risky.
This is the difficult part. Nobody in scientific literature has explicitly pointed out that Lingham-Soliar misapplied the ratio, and I originally did not make this error explicit. But I recall someone (either you or FunkMonk) pointing out the problematic nature of the implicit wording, hence why I made it explicit; because the estimate is cited so much now in literature, it's too notable to be omitted. So as a solution, I think citing both sources is a way for the observable contradictions of their applications to speak for verifiability through the basic calculations exception of WP:NOR. Both sources are open to access. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks it was my comment. Perhaps put this in a footnote? Not totally sure of the official stance on this but I feel like there's more leeway for original commentary in footnotes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lingham-Soliar (1995)'s": IMO, and this goes for other citations, there is no need to keep repeating the year, especially since only one study per relevant author is mentioned.
At least two other studies by Lingham-Soliar alone are mentioned. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prognathodon overtoni: Should mention that it's somewhat closely related, or else this conclusion seems arbitrary.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "et. al.": et al. I would also advise just writing "and colleagues" because this is confusing to lay readers. Goes also for elsewhere.
This is without checking, but don't other FAs use et al. in body? Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "typically characterized with skulls exceeding lengths of 1 meter": Characterized by? Not sure what this means.
Changed to "typically had" Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Standing explicit size estimates": "Standing"?
Changed to "valid." But I'm not sure if that works as best as I'm not sure if a size estimate of M. conodon based on M. lemonnieri skeletons when the latter was considered a synonym makes it now invalid once M. lemonnieri was proven distinct.Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Skull

  • "The skull of Mosasaurus is conical and tapers off to a ... conical snout": Redundant. Rephrase?
Blunder. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this tip": No tip is mentioned yet. Clarify it refers to the rostrum.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a single-file pattern of small pits": "A single row of" should do. Link foramina.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along the rostrum": Not clear how the position of these differs from the previous ones.
Changed wording a bit. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which are slender": "Where they are slender"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the bone of the lower jaws": Lower jawbone? Yes, the dentary is paired, but you haven't pluralized dentary either.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dentary jawline": I think this is not clear. "Top margin" or "top surface" would make more sense.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "perfectly straight": Drop perfectly, surely this is an exaggeration.
Changed to near-perfectly. Lingham-Soliar (2000) describes it as "extremely straight," but I don't want to try plagiarizing that. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The premaxillary bar... is robust": For the whole genus?
Specified differences in species. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more posteriorly... posterior positioning is only exceeded in": Unnecessary jargon. Consider replacing with "placed further toward the back of the skull... only placed further back in". Consider generally where you may be able to rewrite anatomical terms of orientation.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "latter portions of the maxilla": "Rear"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the dorsal concavity that would fit the nostrils": I almost think it may be helpful to include a "typical" mosasaur skull in that diagram for reference.
I'm not sure if available free images (including the skull diagrams) can demonstrate that concavity well. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "palatal complex": Would palate (wikilinked) not suffice?
Tentatively changed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bones of other processes": What does this mean? Bony processes? Processes of bone?
Wikiliked for clarity. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while being a species only half the length of the latter": Awkward. Suggest "even though the species was..."
Changed to "despite being" Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spaces within the braincase providing for": Drop "providing".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasauridae family": Link at first mention, remove other link below.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bone also housed": Still referring to the quadrate?
Changed to "quadrate" Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the lateral side": Redundant. "Outer surface" if you really need it.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mandible's coronoid process": Mandible not defined, use "lower jaw". Also, you may want to label the coronoid on the diagram.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Teeth

  • "the exception of in": "Those in"? "Except those of"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cutting edges of Mosasaurus": This sentence has parallelism issues: "the cutting edges ... are finely serrated, while [those of] M. conodon and M. lemonnieri lack serrations; the cutting edges... [possess] minute crenulations".
Split into multiple sentences. Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define crenulations?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. lemonnieri had eight to ten labial prisms": No data on lingual prisms or no lingual prisms? Same goes for various pterygoid tooth counts. Just a note at the start would be enough.
There was a note at the end, but I moved it to the front. About pterygoid teeth, it looks like there were some facts I missed in the sources. Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four types of teeth": Should clarify: are there morphological differences or is this a semantic distinction?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 05:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within the roots of the original tooth inside a resorption pit": Would put "resorption pit" first (pits inside the roots).
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "through an eight-stage process": Important idea, should start a new sentence.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "full development of dentin": Clarify what "full development" means (covering the whole tooth?)
Clarified.

§Postcranial skeleton

  • I think labelling the skeletal diagram (if you're keeping it) would benefit this section.
Going for extra credit. Macrophyseter | talk 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cervical vertebrae in the neck": I would do something like "cervical (neck)" to avoid redundancy. Same for other verts.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "barrel chest": Barrel-shaped?
It's a term. Wikilinked for clarity.
Not sure if I'm right about this but barrel chest seems to concern a type of pathology or individual variation as opposed to a broadly present trait of a taxon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't seem to say that barrel chest is necessarily a pathology, but rather can often be caused by pathology (From personal experience, I've heard the term used to describe some people without health conditions). But rereading the source, Lingham-Soliar does use "barrel-shaped", so I changed to such.Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extensive cartilage likely connected the ribs with the sternum": Clarify that this is opposed to the condition of fusion.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "high range of aquatic adaptability": What does this mean? OK if it's from the source.
The source worded slightly differently; this was a paraphrasing attempt on my part. Changed to "aquatic adaption" per source. Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bilobed": Define as two-lobed. Also consider moving some of this text up to your introductory paragraph where you also talk about the bilobed tail.
Done. I moved the mention of the hypocercal bilobed characteristics to the intro paragraph. Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "centra[i]": Easier to just define in the text...
I think someone else put that there. Changed to wikilink. Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at a small degree with little offset from the body": Not clear what all of this means. The angle is small? Offset from the axis of the vertebral column?
Changed to "but this bend is offset from the dorsal plane at a small degree" Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "haemal arches in the caudal vertebrae": To give a useful picture, clarify they are on the bottom.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "phalange finger bones": "Phalanges (finger bones)" is more correct, singular of phalanges is phalanx.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "well-suited for utilization for": Drop "for utilization".
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the hindlimb digits before the pelvic girdle. Suggest moving the former info to the end.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Classification

I'm generally happier with this section than when I first looked at it. Some minor comments:

§History of taxonomy

  • A few parenthetical notes are in sentence case. I don't think this is needed since they read as part of the sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsequently named Aktisaurus": Should clarify, still under the species conodon.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since M. glycys is provisional, I'm not sure an etymology is useful. It is an interesting fact but of dubious notability as of yet.
Perhaps I should see how this works out in FA? Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "traditionally form a tribe": Clarify within Mosasaurinae.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Systematics and evolution

  • "Some studies such as Madzia & Cau (2017) also place Prognathodon and Plesiotylosaurus": Incomplete thought.
Completed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Relation with snakes or monitor lizards

  • First paragraph lacks citations.
Their source is the first citation of the second paragraph. Looks like I didn't move it when I split the paragraph. Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that generally includes all descendants": Not clear what "generally" means, remove if not important.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "virtually ended the debate"... "many studies continued to support": These feel incompatible.
I meant that the debate between monitor lizards and snakes was ended. Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "polytomy, or unresolved sister relationships": "Clade with" unresolved relationships? A polytomy refers to the tree topology rather than relationships.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider briefly explaining "basal" in text.
Is wikilinking not sufficient? Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Debatable, but I usually do this because it saves readers a click. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many rooms": Much room? In this sense "room" is typically uncountable.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and made contradictions prevalent": Not a very meaningful sentence...
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, scientists have": "Other" scientists?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "utilized an asymmetric approach": If "asymmetric" can't be explained better in a concise way, I think it should be dropped.
Done. Do you think its okay not explain what the referred approach is? It's very technical, though. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine. I don't think it'd help the understanding of the subject. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Phylogeny and evolution of the genus

  • "Russell (1967), which proposed": "Who"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which Clidastes is a member of": "Containing Clidastes?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paraphyletic": Define this or link it.
Linked. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bell's study served as a precedent for later studies": I think this should be stated first, with exceptions after.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These problems were addressed in Street (2016)": Should add that she performed an updated phylogenetic analysis.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "namely the use of an artificial entity rather than a real taxon as the outgroup": Drop this entirely IMO. I think the motivation-based explanation works by itself. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Paleobiology

§Head musculature and mechanics

  • Has any work on this been done with a stem-snake identity in mind?
I don't think so...Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Mosasaurus head": "Head of Mosasaurus"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "properties of the skull": This is vague. What are they specifically? We can discuss what level of detail to include but this feels insufficient.
Changed to "structure". Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A diagram of selected jaw muscles and the pivots might be nice if possible.
I had one, but I ended up removing it after realizing there may be potential copyright issues because I traced it from Lingham-Soliar and it's not a fossil photograph.Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the cranium": Noticing that "cranium" or "postcranial" are not defined anywhere. Here might be a good place.
Wikilinked cranium and explained postcranial at first mention. But I feel like "cranium" is a word that should be expected for a lay reader to know...Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to better position them when hunting and prevent deflection": Is this one purpose or two? Do you mean something like "better position them and prevent deflection when hunting"?
Swapped. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from an attacking predator": This feels redundant.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "united into strong interlocking sutures": "United by"? I think the sentence reads a bit confusing at present.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "functioned to allow": "Allowed" should be enough.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adduction": Link this?
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "swing back and forth": "Forward and backward" might be clearer.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mosasaur genera such as": You go on to list a species so "mosasaurs" might be better.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ratchet feeding was rather insignificant": Is this in the sense of "not used often" or "impossible to use"?
Changed to "unimportant". Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "swallowed its prey": Swallowed whole? I would think that all mosasaurs swallowed.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the lower jaws": Should be singular, going by your preceding wording.
Made the precedent plural. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with little energy input underwater": I don't see why "underwater" is relevant? Unless water pressure is a consideration.
I'm pretty sure it's due to water viscosity, which would require more force to do stuff as opposed to in the air. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which may have contributed": "Also" contributed.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Mobility and thermoregulation

  • I'm not sure how I feel about these being lumped together. The only real connection is the comment on stamina...
In my view they're united by processes related to physical movement. Too much of a stretch? Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The swimming style varied between species": Is this based on morphological inferences?
I may have to reconsider this part, mainly about M. lemonnieri. I think I got the anguilliform description by inference from Lingham-Soluar (1991) mentioning that some M. lemonnieri fossils show pre-mortem lateral curvature, but I only have partial access to the source. But he also mentions that Platecarpus was observed with the same phenomenon, and it's well established now that the genus is not an anguilliform swimmer...Macrophyseter | talk 17:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to just overhaul and remove the anguilliform mention entirely due to the fact that I'm unable to retrace where exactly I got that from and its unlikeliness given recent developments. Macrophyseter | talk 05:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link sub-carangiform and anguilliform. Also enclose "eel-like" in parentheses.
Overhauled. Macrophyseter | talk 05:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a hydrofoil": Plural? Also "paddle's" slightly later.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enhanced by... enhanced ability of pronation": Reword the latter part.
Changed first mention to "supported" Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "great separation damage": "Great" is a weird adjective to quantify damage.
Changed to "significant" Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "separation damage from the bone's head to stem": Not clear what this means. Is this separation of the head from the stem?
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus bones": Suggest "Mosasaurus' bones".
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "basal metabolic rate": Perhaps add "resting" in parentheses.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leatherback sea turtle'": Extra apostrophe I think.
Removed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "temperature of warm blood": "Warm blood temperature".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no direct evidence": "Although".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "studies on the biochemistry... was likely present in all mosasaurs": I don't see how this follows. Is there some kind of phylogenetic bracketing involved?
Probably phylogenetic inference; for example, Clidastes was one of the three directly found to be warm blooded, which is an ancestor of Mosasaurus Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, more specifics like that would help. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added that Clidastes, which was established earlier to be closely related, was one of the mosasaurs specifically examined. Macrophyseter | talk 04:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uniquely among squamates": Interesting fact, should be a sentence of its own.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "foraging larger areas": "In larger areas".
Added. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as Antarctica": I think this sentence onward fits better in Paleoecology. The preceding text also bears a brief repetition in Paleoecology.
Fixed, although keeping the word Antarctica. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Sensory functions

  • "socket's": "Sockets'".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggesting that it had good vision": Maybe add something about correlation with eye size.
Added. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tylosaurine and plioplatecarpine": I think "non-mosasaurine" suffices. You have never mentioned Plioplatecarpinae.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inner ear structure of Mosasaurus may be distinct": This more or less is repeated in the next chunk of text, so remove this, I think.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "difference in inner ear sensitivity": Clarify this difference occurs with canal/body size?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "smaller mosasaurs like Platecarpus and modern monitor lizards": Put "modern monitor lizards" in front to avoid confusion.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "strength in smell": "A strong sense of smell"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the mosasaur": Not needed.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Intraspecific combat

  • "direct evidence": I think it's useful to say "fossil evidence" here given you talk about a fossil next.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intraspecific combat with other individuals of its kind": Just drop "intraspecific" here.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skeleton consisting of multiple cuts...": "Bearing"? "Consisting" doesn't feel right.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are multiple other known fossils": Run-on sentence. Suggest splitting at "that were likely perpetrated".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some leading to infections and likely fatal": Does this refer to fatal infections or the injuries themselves being fatal?
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included attempted biting": "Include"? Unless the explanation is no longer viable.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the victims": "To" the victims.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "speculated the possibility": Suggest speculated "on" or "about".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Feeding

  • I wonder if this section would fit better after §Sensory functions.
Swapped. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "little knowledge": The following text seems like a lot of knowledge. Does this concern direct evidence?
Changed to "direct evidence" Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "large robust": Add a comma.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "handle virtually any animal": Not clear what "handle" means. Fight? Kill?
"Handle" is what is used in the source; this would include both fighting and killing and managing prey. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "savage feeding behavior": Any details given? The following text seems to describe typical predatory behaviour.
The source described the turtle shell bite marks as evidence of savagery. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fauna that was likely preyed on": I think this should be the second sentence.
Moved. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mosasaur": Clarify: Mosasaurus or M. hoffmannii?
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also hunted at deeper waters": In addition to surface hunting? Also, "in" deeper waters.
I don't think its well-explained for these species; the surface hunting evidence was specifically detailed for M. hoffmannii although certainly possible for the other species as well. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are negatively correlated": "Have been found to be"? I don't see how this can be definite.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a diet in prey": "Rich in" prey? "Of" prey?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With M. hoffmannii's low δ13C levels, this suggests": Drop "with" and "this".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "likely fed... its likely position": Repetitive.
Cut the first part. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "75 million years ago": I would say "old" instead of "ago" here, this is about age and not time.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1 meter (3.3 ft) long fish": Is a more specific taxonomic determination possible?
It's undetermined. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was measured at": Drop "was" and "at".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "other large mosasaurs": Which ones?
Specified. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the species": M. missouriensis? Should probably swap this with the mention of the name.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cutting-based prey": Weird turn of phrase, is this from the source?
Rewrote. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ensure niche partitioning": I would say this is more of an example than a reinforced requirement. Niche partitioning isn't something animals necessarily think about.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nautiloid": Link.
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were an alternate source of prey": Not sure this really says anything other than teaching the offspring how to hunt nautiloids. Does the source say this?
Yes. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "greater force; but differences": Comma, not semicolon.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Analysis of the tooth marks have concluded that the mosasaurs were either Mosasaurus or Platecarpus": This should be the second sentence in this paragraph, it's important information.
Moved. Macrophyseter | talk 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Life history

  • "in Mosasaurus itself": Missing italics here.
Fixed typo. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a number of other mosasaurs": Either stick with genera or species for this list.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pelagic deposits": Define and link "pelagic".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mosasaurus viviparity": Suggest "viviparity in Mosasaurus".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not exhibit bone mass increase": What is the increase relative to? Adults?
The source doesn't explicitly explain what "bone mass increase" is. But I've tried rephrasing surrounding words. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These structures indicate that": "Therefore" would suffice.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "born precocial": I think precocial is a term used to describe the young.
Doesn't the given sentence imply that, though? Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it remains an awkward turn of phrase. I suggest something like (and merging with the previous sentence) "signifying Mosasaurus was precocial: they were already efficient swimmers and lived fully functional lifestyles in open water at a very young age, and did not make use of nursery areas to raise their young." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Paleopathology

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 04:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this goes under §Intraspecific combat. In fact, maybe the sections should be merged.
I'm not too sure, because they both focus on different things. Intraspecific combat is specifically about the infighting behavior while Paleopathology is specifically about the diseases from the injuries themselves. Also, there is content that makes no sense to merge with Intraspecific combat. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two specimens from the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Science": Run-on sentence. Suggest introducing the specimens first, and then Lingham-Soliar's study in another sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The specimen IRSNB R25": We already know it's a specimen, just the number should work.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extensive amounts of bony callus": Calluses? Calloused bone tissue? A single callus? Same for later in this paragraph.
Wikilinked. "Bony callus" is how the source puts it. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "osteolytic cavities, abscess canals, foramina in a trigeminal nerve, and inflamed erosions": First and third need more explanation; in particular, it's not obvious to a reader that the third is abnormal.
Wikilinked the first and simplified the third to "damages" Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been developed": Drop "been".
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "associated with the dentary fracture": What does this mean?
Simplified to "as a result" Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the conditions of the dentaries... in good condition": Repetitive.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "immobilization of the fracture": Suggest "immobilizing the fracture".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but two possibilities exist: One possibility": Period here instead of colon. Also, this sentence is a strong argument for a merge with §Intraspecific combat.
Fixed. I think I can re-word to keep them distinct. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "half-liter": Weird that they talk about bone volume and not mass. Needs a convert template perhaps?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bone tissue destroyed": "Was destroyed".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "osteomyelitis": Should be easy to define this in parentheses.
Vernacularized to "bone infection" Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "voids of abscess": "Voids of" seems redundant.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may likely have also": Adjacent words indicating different levels of certainty.
Removed "likely" Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsidizing on": Is this the right word?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "currently remains speculative": "Unknown" would be more direct.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "always be present": Does this mean "consistently in every specimen"? Clarify. Seems extreme regardless.
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mosasaurs' spine": Spines, plural.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decompression illness": Link this.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from interference": Not clear what this means. Probably drop it, the sentence is long enough.
Simplified. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the formation of... that were produced from": "That were produced" is not needed.
Changed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frequent deep-divers or repetitive divers": Is there supposed to be a difference between "frequent" and "repetitive"?
I have the impression that "frequent deep divers" refers to animals that usually dives deep when they dive, and "reptitive divers" being animals who simply dive a lot, regardless of depth. But I may be incorrect here. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word "habitual" instead of "frequent" is much less likely to cause confusion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 04:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "being due to": "As" being due to.
Added. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "original state": What does this mean? In vivo?
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Paleoecology

§Distribution, ecosystem, and ecological impact

  • "at or nearby both sides": Does this mean fossils being found in the ocean? Or shoreline deposits? Just "coastal deposits on both sides" may work.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aformented": "Aforementioned".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Western Interior Seaway, and Mediterranean Tethys": Needs "the".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Multiple oceanic climates encompass the seaways": Should be the other way around, no?
I think it's good as is unless the vocabulary choice is bad. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Encompass" is basically "include", so I don't see how climates can encompass the seaway. The only way I see this making sense is if you mean climactic zones, in which case this should be specified. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Mediterranean Tethys

Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 04:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Maastrichtian": This has not been defined as a geological stage in the text.
Linked. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "northern Tethyan margin provides": "Provided"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "climate that was dominated": Don't see how animals can dominate a climate. Needs "habitat" somewhere.
Added "with habitats" Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the dominant species in this province": Specify that this is specifically the northern province, this confused me.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halisaurus is not linked.
Linked. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also dominated the area": I don't see how multiple groups can dominate one area. Reword this?
Reworded. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "undetermined": Do you mean "indeterminate"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mosasaur fauna are": "Fauna" is singular here and needs a "the".
Fixed and pluralized. Macrophyseter | talk
  • "and they exclusively feature": This sentence is way too long, break here?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some species of Halisaurus": Is there a count? Another case in the next paragraph.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "species of sharks": Should be "genera" or "types" based on following text.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Protosphyraena is a swordfish sensu stricto.
Was applied informally. Changed to "swordfish-like"
  • "as typical in the province": Reads redundantly.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "’Platecarpus ptychodon’": You have two backward quotes here.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were also the dominant mosasaurs": Same issue with "dominant", "common" makes more sense here.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has some presence": "Had". "Also had"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Western Interior Seaway

  • "Campanian deposits": You haven't define Campanian either.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "depth... below the surface": Latter part seems self-explanatory.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two neighboring Appalachia and Laramidia continents": "Two neighboring continents, Appalachia and Laramidia,"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and together with the formation": Too long. Break sentence around here.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many of the most famous marine assemblages of the Late Cretaceous": Doesn't seem too relevant.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that the presence": Another verb like "meaning" or "implying" might help.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interior Subprovinces": I think this can be de-capitalized.
They are capitalized in the source. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "border": Again, past tense.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The faunal structure of both provinces": This sentence fits best right after the one about turnover.
Swapped. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Niobraran order": Not defined. In fact, you have not discussed the Niobrara Formation either.
It's an informal use, which I intended to mean as the faunal order of the Niobraran age. In addition, I think discussing the Niobrara Formation is unnecessary in this case as its contents are not specifically discussed here. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add "faunal" to make it clear. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 04:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a complete turnover of marine faunal structure": This is the second mention. Maybe move that text down here?
Moved. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including mosasaurs": "The" mosasaurs?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "largely disappeared": Are they still present in the fossil record or is this a statement about the uncertainty thereof?
Removed the "largely" part Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the closure of the Cretaceous": Clarify. Does the end of the Navesinkian correlate with the K/Pg?
Presumably, so I changed to "end of the Cretaceous" Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were still a diversity of fauna that coexisted with Mosasaurus": Just start the sentence here I think, you're just restating stuff in the first part.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the goblin shark Scapanorhynchus, Pseudocorax, the sand tiger Odontaspis, Serratolamna": Unless you want to identify Pseudocorax and Serratolamna with those groups I think you should move them before.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Antarctica

  • "up to 4–12 °C": It doesn't make sense that you say "up to" and then give a range.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the MBT/CBT technique deriving data from cyclization and methylation processes in": This is really complex. Suggest dropping the quoted portion.
Simplified. Macrophyseter | talk 19:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "12 °C (54 °F) ±5": Use 12 ± 5 °C (54 ± 9 °F).
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 19:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intervals of subpolar and warm episodes": Do you mean that they alternate? Otherwise "intervals" is redundant.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "isolated teeth and studies": Comma before "and" to distinguish these thoughts.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indeterminable": "Indeterminate" again—and how can it be found to be non-Aristonectes if it's indeterminate?
Cut. But you can find that an indeterminate species to be non-Aristonectes if the morphology contradicts but instead indicates some random generalist elasmosaurid that can't be identified further. Macrophyseter | talk 19:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Habitat preference

  • "An early study on the habitat preference": Reads weirdly. "Mosasaurus habitat preference" might be better.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "elaborated on this": If it's an early study, what is there to elaborate on?
Wouldn't it imply that the study is early but not the earliest? Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but I maintain that "early" is confusing and not so important (since it's clear this is part of the "traditional" paradigm). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the early mention entirely. Macrophyseter | talk 04:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is through a biogeochemical one": "Is biogeochemical analysis" is more direct.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "compared to the earlier method": What's the comparison here? Is that not an instance of this kind of analysis?
I think the wording messed up. Rewrote. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "isotope levels can misrepresent the actual habitat preferences of Mosasaurus": This is clear already, don't think you need to say this.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Mosasaurus specimen": Indet species? Same for the New Jersey one.
Changed to Mosasaurus sp. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with each of the three elements signifying either shallow, deep, fresh, or highly saline": You list three elements and four attributes. What's the correspondence?
One of the elements represented fresh water, with the presence of saline water associating with the absence of that element rather than the presence of another. Removed the last example to avoid confusion. Macrophyseter | talk 19:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Interspecific competition

  • "on similar animals such as on": No need for second "on".
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to the contributions of multiple environmental factors": This sentence is confusing from this point. Something like "because it is influenced by multiple environmental factors"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as evidenced by the different biological factors driving their differing δ13C values": Text is repetitive, consider deleting.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "help add": "Add" is enough.
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another case of presumed niche partitioning": I read this expecting more from the same paper. A paragraph break makes sense here.
Split. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ensure resource partitioning": Same comment as before about "ensuring".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this evidently did not": "This niche partitioning"?
Unrelated, so reworded for clarity. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ramming-attack": No dash.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only known fauna capable of such damage": Add "likely" capable. Also perhaps mention the snout morphology of T. bernardi.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only known fauna": "Fauna" is a weird word to use, consider "animal" instead.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it has been speculated": Is this Lingham-Soliar's conclusion? If so, say so.
Yes. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was loosely implied": What does this mean?
It means that this was the biggest stretch I've attempted and should be removed. So removed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "motivated for": "By".
Removed. Macrophyseter | talk 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§Extinction

  • "radiation of their diversity": I think "evolutionary radiation" or "diversification" would be better.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "youngest fossils": Specify "geologically".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the demise of the genus was a result": Two things. First: don't think we can say this with absolute certainty. Second: should start a new sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at least... or less": At most? Still redundant either way.
removed "at least" Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "include but are not limited to": I think just "include" is clear enough.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the boundary event": I think this should go as the second sentence, since the rest of the section pertains to the K-Pg.
Moved. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vertebra fossils": "Fossil vertebrae"? "Vertebral fossils"?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "post-mortem": May be jargony, consider replacing with "formed after death".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deposition of the layer itself was likely the result of a tsunamite": Is the layer itself not a tsunamite, the result of a tsunami? Also, should start a new sentence.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mega-hurricanes": This is in the source but I find this weird. I don't think hurricanes would have as an immediate of an effect as is necessary to create these deposits?
Well the text doesn't say that the causes had to be immediate. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chicxulub asteroid": Mention as probable extinction cause.
Is it not heavily implied in subsequent text? Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "subsequent reverberations" could still be connected to "extinction event" by adding a few words. It's not a given that the reader can understand your implications. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly mentioned that the asteroid catalyzed the extinction event. Macrophyseter | talk 04:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "physical kinetic destruction": "Kinetic" is redundant.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a ref. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The discoveries have been found with an association of fossils of": Suggest simplifying to "The fossils were found in association with".
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a representation of a lag deposit": Does this mean the entirety of the Main Fossiliferous Beds constitute the lag deposit?
Clarified. Macrophyseter | talk 20:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

§External links

  • As with all sections like this, I find myself immensely questioning the utility of the links presented here, except maybe Oceans of Kansas.
Remodeled after recent FAs. Macrophyseter | talk 20:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. Overall I don't see any broad issues requiring major revision in this latter part of the article. Good work and an enjoyable read. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through this article, and I have to say it is thorough and comprehensive, and despite its immense length rivalling that of the Donald Trump article, it is concise and lacks repetition. It could be made more clear that because Street's taxonomic revisions were in an unpublished PhD. thesis, that they are not considered to be taxonomically valid unless at some point they are formally published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input! I've been looking into how to make the implications of an unpublished work more clear, but it's a bit difficult to find a good source as support. I am aware that the ICZN discusses what does and does not count as a published work, but I haven't been able to find any explicit wordings that say that taxons in unpublished works cannot be taxonomically valid. The invalidation may be common sense, but I recall reading somewhere that some scientists take advantage of this wording to run nomen ex dissertationae as taxonomically valid, and I haven't found any sources that put more light to these situations. Do you know of any resources that firmly put thesis works as invalid? It's also annoying that nomen ex dissertationae as a term seems to exist almost nowhere on Google... Macrophyseter | talk 05:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this SVPOW piece comes discusses it in some detail. The relevant ICZN criteria are:
  • 8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:
    • 8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record,
    • 8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase, and
    • 8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and durable copies.

A PhD. thesis arguably fails all three criteria, and PhD thesis are universally not considered published descriptions for the purposes of taxonomy if they haven't been acknowledged by other papers. I would write something like "Street's 2016 PhD thesis re-evaluated the relationships of the species Mosasaurus and reassigned some species to different genera, but these haven't been adopted by other workers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note discussing the caveat in brief. Macrophyseter | talk 07:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mosasaurus/archive2&oldid=1014384116"