Talk:"Pliosaurus" andrewsi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to pick up this review. I'll ping you in a few days once I've gone through it! grungaloo (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, as you speak french, can we discuss in french about this ? Amirani1746 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to do the review in English since the page is in English, but if there's any confusion that comes up I can try putting it into French. grungaloo (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Research History

 * I made some changes directly, mostly fixing some verb tense issues, some sentence reordering, moving some wikilinks, etc. Please take a look to see if anything is out of place.
 * - Is "possible" needed here? Could it just say "The first mention of..."?
 * - For simplicity I'd drop "a certain", and swap "assimilated" for "catalogued". Also I changed the page numbers to 316–318, the Oxford Clay Formation is mentioned on 316.
 * - This sentence is a bit confusing because the ideas run together without proper conjunctions. I think it needs to be broken up. The first sentence could start "The specimen consisted of..." and then split "Richard Lydekker referred..." into its own sentence.
 * - Following from the previous sentence this implies that the holotype is giving the anatomical description. I would suggest changing to "Tarlo also gave an anatomical..." or something similar, assuming that's what you meant.
 * - A bit of a WP:OVERCITE at the end of this sentence. You could probably do away with most of the refs here and just keep one or two.
 * - I'm not sure what is meant by "and those for some unexplained reason". It also doesn't seem necessary to understanding the point. You could drop this, or maybe try rewording?
 * - Based on my read of the source, I think you're trying to say that the fossils showed that "P." grossouvrei showed enough difference to not be seen as a synonym of "P." andrewsi. Is that right? If so, the sentence needs a "not" added in there since right now it's written as though the species should be considered synonyms.

Description

 * A general note to try using simpler terms where possible so it can be understood by a broad audience. If you can, try replacing terms like "mandibular symphysis" (you could probably just drop the term and get the same intent), "caninoform" (could also link it), "articular surfaces". I get that sometimes you just need to use a certain word, so no worries if they don't all work out!
 * - This sentence only seems to talk about teeth, so it's not clear what is meant by "the latter". I'd try dropping it.
 * - WP:OVERCITE, Ref 6 p164 covers this entire statement, so you could do away with other refs on this sentence even.

Classification

 * - "theses latter were classified", I don't understand what's being said here, could you try rephrasing it?

Paleoenvironment

 * I made a few fixes here, mostly moving some refs after punctuation or removing duplicate cites in a sentence. Otherwise this part is really well written, no issues!

Hi again, I've finished my review. Overall this looks really good. All the citations I checked looked are valid, no issues with images, no copyvios detected. Most of the issues are general prose/clarity things. Let me know if anything I've said doesn't make sense or if you disagree with any comments. Otherwise, ping me when you're done! grungaloo (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks your review. I will start correcting the details but i want to say something about the first mention : if i say "The first possible mention of "Pliosaurus" andrewsi", is that the first possible fossil reffered to this taxon is discussed about being a representative of this genera. For the rest, i will see what can i do. Amirani1746 (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, Unique case of dental wear among plesiosaurians, the crown has an abrasion which extends considerably further than any other known representatives of the group, it is a characteric that we found is some source describing the taxa. Amirani1746 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello again, I think i've finished the review. Amirani1746 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks for the fixes! grungaloo (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)