Talk:Lythronax/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 05:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Finally! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, also for the excellent images of the skull, I'm pretty happy about the juxtaposition of the two angles... FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I had no idea the review was in progress already! I'll jump in on some of these. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a notice is added by a bot on the talk page, but if you have turned off bot edits form your watchlist, you won't see it... I wonder if noticed it has begun. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was actually aware, but things are just being completed almost immediately already I hadn't jumped in to make any edits yet. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * At our last FAC, I was reminded how difficult it is for lay readers to comprehend our technical articles on dinosaurs, simply because of the sheer number of technical terms. At least in the lead, I suggest to avoid them where possible. Optional suggestions (for the lead):
 * In 2013, it became the holotype of the new genus – "In 2013, it became the basis for the new genus …"
 * Done, though I think basis would be even less comprehensible for the average reader, because it doesn't link to anything? How about just type specimen? FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * specific name -> "the name argestes" or at least "the specific name 'argestes'".
 * generic name -> same as above.
 * Took the latter on both of the above. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * in various details of the skull and postcranial skeleton – "in various details of the skeleton"
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * orbits: Link and gloss
 * I just said eye sockets instead. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * maxilla, process – as above
 * Doesn't "bone of the upper jaw" explain maxilla? Linked both and kind of explained process. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * These teeth differed in size, with the frontmost ones being almost 3 cm (1.2 in) long. – Even if you mean "tooth crowns" (excluding the roots), 3 cm seems much too small. According to the skull diagram crown height should be more up to 8 cm.
 * Facepalm - the source said 13 cm, not sure what happened... FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * and it is thought to have diverged earlier than the clade which includes Tyrannosaurus. – the use of "the" in "the clade" indicates that a specific clade is meant here, but not sure which one? Lythronax itself is forming a clade which also includes Tyrannosaurus. I guess you wanted to say that Lythronax was more basal than Tyrannosaurus?
 * Changed to "it is thought to have been more basal than Tyrannosaurus". But maybe this is pointless information? I was thinking most readers know what Tyrannosaurus is, so maybe it's good to mention it to give an easy reference point. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Lythronax is important in the study of the evolutionary origins – I suggest "is important for understanding the evolutionary origins"
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * both eyes of Lythronax faced forwards – this was already mentioned in the lead.
 * Good catch, fixed. I wasn't sure what Funk was going to put in the second paragraph of the lead but I forgot to take this out afterward. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "In 2017" – why is this year linked in the main text, but not the other years including the year of description of Lythronax?
 * Removed link. Not sure it would have been useful either way. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * At one of the last FACs, it was suggested by a FAC coordinator that we collapse the taxon navigation template at the very bottom of the article by default. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Collapsed it at the template itself, if that's what's meant: FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Unearthing the fossil remains took a year of careful excavation – "Unearthing" and "excavation", these are redundant. Suggest to remove one of these.
 * Reworded completely. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * took a year of careful excavation in 2010 – this means that excavation was during the entire year 2010, and only during that year? I doubt they excavated in winter.
 * The source only says "It required a year of careful excavation in 2010". I'm not sure what exactly that means. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we replace the word "year" with "season" since they are presumably equivalent in context? IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We could also either leave out the date 2010, or leave out the word "year"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * genus and species – species should also be linked.
 * "Species" appears in the paragraph before so I linked it there. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * tyrannosauroids should be linked and explained at first mention.
 * That is already linked as "tyrannosaur" in the discovery section. Should it be duplinked? I changed the mention under description to: "Although earlier small-bodied members of the Superfamily Tyrannosauroidea". FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * their presence could have varied with classification in the clade – suggest "their presence could have varied between species"
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * maxilla and jugal bones of the upper jaw – the jugal is not part of the upper jaw
 * Looks like this has been removed. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Since the outer margin on the side of the maxilla and jugal bones – not clear without direction of view. I guess dorsal view? Also, "on the side" seems superfluous or at least does not help much.
 * Reworded entirely, should address both of the last two points. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * faced almost forwards – well the "almost" could mean that they did not face forwards. Maybe add "entirely"?
 * I was also unsure what to do, as "anterolaterally" wouldn't mean anything to most readers, but there isn't a good way to say it plainly. So "almost entirely forwards", or how about "nearly forwards"? Becuase if it is between the two, it can't be almost entirely, can it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * maybe "faced both forwards and sidewards" (as a direct translation of anterolaterally), or "faced forwards to a similar degree seen in Tyrannosaurus", or "where more forwards-directed than in other tyrannosaurids except …"?
 * I'm also thinking about all the other places it is mentioned, so would be good with something that isn't relative to other taxa. I think "forwards and sidewards" seems a bit confusing, and while some dictionaries say something like "in front and to the side" or "in front and away from the middle line", that might be confusing too. Maybe "forwards and to the sides" or "between the front and the sides"? Which is quite a mouthful. Or maybe we could in this case use the technical term for direction, and then add a longer explanation in parenthesis at first mention, as an exception? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * frontal bone (a bone at the top of the skull) – gloss should come at first mention. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was originally glossed there, but I removed it because it's glossed in Discovery already. Gloss regardless? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is only linked in the Discovery, not glossed? But there is an earlier instance of "frontal" in the description section also, the gloss comes too late. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thought "gloss" referred to the dinogloss. Fair enough, I'll move it. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * as in other all known tyrannosaurids – "all other known"
 * Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * serrated – could be linked
 * Both done. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Lythronax argestes belongs to the family Tyrannosauridae, a clade of large-bodied coelurosaurs – I suggest "belongs to the Tyrannosauridae, a family of" to keep it simple.
 * Done that. I've also broadly replaced "clade" with "group"; the term was first linked in the rewritten sentence. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Prior to Lythronax being formally named, the future holotype specimen UMNH VP 20200 was noted by Zanno and colleagues in 2013 – this also has the potential to leave readers behind. Maybe just "its skeleton was noted to be" or similar?
 * Reworded, hope it's better. I think specifying that it's the holotype is important for posterity (in case there are more specimens of Lythronax), but I've cut out the specimen number and the word "future". Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * although Lythronax was closer to Tyrannosaurus than other younger taxa like Daspletosaurus or Teratophoneus. – Younger than Tyrannosaurus? But Zhuchengtyrannus is late Campanian but closer to Tyrannosaurus?
 * Clarified that this concerns the relation of Lythronax to the Tyrannosaurus + Zhuchengtyrannus clade as a whole. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The placement of Lythronax within Tyrannosauridae was one of the more significant differences between the two similar studies. – Is this true? Placement seems not be too different; the contrasting placement of Alioramini for example seems much more significant. If you decide to keep it, I suggest to clarify what this significant difference is.
 * I'm not sure about this either. I feel like the difference is more the position of Daspletosaurus spp., which they explicitly compare to Loewen et al. wrote this text, I think? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the paragraph a bit, which also added in more context as far as Lythronax is concerned. Not sure if theres much more than can be added that is relevant to the taxon. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In 2017, American paleontologists Stephen Brusatte and Thomas D. Carr published – I have the impression that this paragraph is not focused on Lythronax enough. It is mostly about the placement of other taxa (e.g., Alioramini), which are of secondary importance for this article. On the other hand, the placement of Lythronax proposed by this study is not precisely described.
 * The study itself doesn't talk too much about Lythronax either (even in the supp info), so I'm not sure there's all that much we can say about it anyway. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In 2016, Paul suggested that Lythronax argestes – I suggest to add "in a popular book". Such sources are not on the same level as peer-reviewed papers, and I think we should make a distinction here.
 * Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * During the late Cretaceous – "Late Cretaceous" (upper case) since it is a formal name.
 * Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * From these results, Loewen and colleagues suggested that there was significant biogeographic division between northern Laramidian and southern Laramidian forms with limited interchange. – It does not become clear why these results indicate such a division.
 * Ok, I also have no idea how to make this more comprehensible. Lets think about it if/when others bring it up. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Loewen and colleagues proposed that were was only a single interchange of tyrannosaurids between North America and Asia. – I suggest to mention whether the tyrannosaurids moved from NA to Asia or vice versa, for clarity.
 * Clarified that it's the former. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * separated by North American genera. – I see what you mean, but I doubt most people will understand.
 * Tried with "among", better? FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * that there was dynamic and recurrent interchange of tyrannosaurid fauna – suggest to add "between northern and southern Laramidia" for clarity, because there is also the possibility Asia–NA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discovery of Lythronax suggests that these characters had appeared at least by 80 million years ago – suggest to add "independently", linked to convergent evolution, if covered by the source.
 * I don't think the source discusses how it was independent of Tyrannosaurus. Here is the actual quote:
 * "This pushes back the origin of the Tyrannosaurus-style skull morphology or rostrally-oriented orbits and expanded postorbital regions to at least 80 Ma, implying the continuous presence of two distinct cranial morphologies in Laramidian tyrannosaurids for at least 10 million years."
 * Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Lythronax was found in terrestrial sediments – "sedimentary rocks"
 * Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * These sediments – "these rocks"
 * Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That's it! Looking very good overall. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, only a few issues left to fix, and I added a few comments. I was thinking whether "typology 1, 2" should maybe be "cladogram 1, 2" instead, as I don't think most people would know the meaning of typology in this context (or at all)? FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Topology" lingo must have been OK'd for Elasmosaurus at FAC, right? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 04:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like it, we can just wait and see what they say once we get to FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am promoting now, and hope to see this at FAC soon! Congratulations to all authors! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)