Talk:Mimodactylus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Will start soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * the generic name references the MIM Museum – "refers to"?
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The only known specimen of this pterosaur (extinct group of flying reptiles) – not that anything needs to be changed necessarily, but I wonder if it makes sense to explain the term "pterosaur" in the body but not in the lead. Probably, at this point, the reader would have looked it up anyways, maybe this explanation is not needed.
 * Removed, I think we had this talk sometimes before, I added it once because it was asked for at a FAC, but it probably isn't necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * and joint between the skull and jaw flattened – maybe "and the jaw joint flattened"? I think we need an additional "the" in any case?
 * Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead says "Its snout is rounded" but the body says the snout is "not rounded".
 * Ah, i mixed it up with "broad", fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The dentition of Mimodactylus differs from that of most other ornithocheiroids. – This is a bit difficult to follow, since "Ornithocheiroidae" is not introduced and also does not appear in the cladogram, and because the following sentences mostly say in which taxa the features are also found, instead of pointing out differences. Maybe remove this sentence?
 * Removed, it did strike me as a bit odd in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Mimodactylus does not have the lancet-shaped teeth with sideways compressed crowns which are characteristic of istiodactylids, though, – Since this sentence is a direct follow-up of the previous sentence, I think it should not mark a new paragraph.
 * Right. I've split the section's paragraphs up differently now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * hind wards extending process – maybe "backward protrusion"?
 * Why not, took it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * the position of the pteroid has been a point of contention among researchers – make clear that this is now about pterosaurs as a whole (I assume)?
 * Added "in pterosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * and grouped the two together in the new clade Istiodactyliformes as well. – Why "as well"? Which previous study did that?
 * Removed. It was meant as "also", but not necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * While insectivory could not be ruled out, these researchers found the evidence to most likely indicate a diet of crustaceans – The food section is a bit long and this reads repetitive as it was already stated.
 * Merged into similar sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The British palaeontologist Mark Witton found it unlikely in 2013 that istiodactylids and their relatives were especially proficient on the ground, due to their disproportionate limbs and small appendages, though they may have had relatively large thigh muscles. He also found the feet too small in relation to their body size to have been used for climbing or suspension, as had previously been suggested.[10] – I wonder if we really should generalise this to Mimodactylus. Mimodactylus is of a separate family of which Witton had no knowledge when he made that statement. But not sure.
 * Removed, though the starts off a bit more generally (and Haopterus, the other mimodactylid, was known at the time, and covered in that chapter): "It seems unlikely that any ornithocheiroids, including istiodactylids, were particularly proficient terrestrial animals. Their disproportionate limbs and tiny appendages look ill suited for walking or running, and even though istiodactylid hindlimbs are more proportionate to their forelimbs than those of other ornithocheiroids, they remain offset enough to have probably hindered terrestrial locomotion." FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Reads very well. I particularly like the History of discovery section; Wikipedia seems to be the only place where such information is systematically collected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yeah, this is one of those articles where if there weren't news reports and press releases, there would be very little to say about its discovery just from the published paper. So I definitely think such can be worth including, if it adds unique, contextual information. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The above should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Thanks for your great work. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)