Talk:Puertasaurus/GA1

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

Reviewer: PaleoGeekSquared (talk · contribs) 19:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Here it goes, my first GA review! Reading now... ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  19:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay! Got caught up in something, some suggestions below:

Lead

 * From what I've seen, modern continents (ergo South America) are not usually linked in dinosaur articles.


 * I'd add Period after Late Cretaceous.


 * Perhaps link "age" to Age (geology).


 * Since the genus appears to be monotypic, Puertasaurus reuili should be bolded in the lead.


 * Perhaps put "the paleontologist" before "Fernando Novas and colleagues"?


 * because of the scarcity of its remains --> due to the scarcity of its remains, the latter is a bit more concise.


 * The largest of the four preserved bones is the dorsal vertebra, which is the broadest known vertebra of any sauropod, measuring 1.68 meters (5 ft 6 in) wide. could also be The largest of the four preserved bones is the dorsal vertebra, which at 1.68 meters (5 ft 6 in) wide is the broadest known vertebra of any sauropod.


 * You could add at least a small mention of the formation's other fauna, right now you only mention dinosaurs in the lead.

Discovery and naming

 * The holotype and only known specimen of Puertasaurus reuili was discovered on Cerro Los Hornos, near the La Leona River, in southwestern Patagonia, in Santa Cruz Province, Argentina. - This goes on for just a bit too long (on this town, near this river, in this region, in this province, in this country). Could be split up with a full stop somewhere.
 * I may need some help doing this... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would Cerro Los Hornos near the La Leona River. Cerro Los Hornos is located in southwestern Patagonia, in Santa Cruz Province, Argentina. be better, ? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the repetition of one of the location names seems a bit jarring. I tried fixing it here, hopefully it's more readable now. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, since Cerro Los Hornos is a town, it should probably say in, not on.


 * Museo Padre Molina (MPM) 10002 - I've never seen the full museum name and then specimen number used like that before, usually this would be done as MPM 10002, with a piped link.


 * It consists of four non-articulated vertebrae - I believe the term is, this is also a good opportunity to link to the Dinogloss..


 * As recommended above, you could add "the paleontologists" before the list of describers..


 * Fernando Novas is not linked on first mention but on its second..


 * Author names should more consistent (for example, you use "Fernando E. Novas" and also "Fernando Novas" later on).
 * Butting in, usually you only need to use last name after first full mention. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I know, forgot about that for a moment! Fernando E. Novas could still be Fernando Novas, though, as is done for the other authors..


 * Its discovery was announced on July 21, 2006 - Such specific dates are not customary within these articles nor are they really needed, perhaps just July 2006?.


 * Titanosaur is not linked on first mention, but down in the classification section, same goes for "vertebrae, specifically one cervical, one dorsal, and two caudal vertebrae", which are all linked in the description..

Description
1st para
 * Due to a lack of material - Though it's obvious that we have found fossils of it, this is worded as if no fossils are known at all, an alternative could be "Due to a lack of better material" or similar..


 * Fernando Novas, one of the paleontologists who described Puertasaurus reuili - I'd recommend removing this and replacing it with "Novas estimated it at approximately... ...and weighing" at the start of this sentence, since he was already introduced in Discovery and Naming..
 * ✅ Also removed the "ever to walk the earth" because... where else would they walk? (I actually didn't write that sentence, it is was one of the last relics from the articles "dark ages" )--Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * only rivaled in size by its relative Argentinosaurus. - A size estimate for Argentinosaurus could be informative here.
 * ✅ Added the largest estimates post-2012 estimates for it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * More recent reconstructions have followed this. - Not sure this is needed..


 * In 2013, the entire neck was estimated to have been approximately 9 meters (30 feet) missing "long" at the end of this?


 * In 2016, Gregory S. Paul also estimated a length of 30 meters (98 feet) - "also"? But this estimate is 30 metres, and the previous one is 27.


 * A 2017 study - by who?


 * which was lighter than Patagotitan, another giant sauropod - Not sure if this is too nitpicky, but could it be explained how this comparison is relevant?
 * ✅ Replaced "another" with "a more complete" --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hartman's 2013 estimate is repeated at the end of the first paragraph..

2nd para
 * transverse processes, opisthocoelous - I'd be good to have these linked to the dinogloss.


 * Link or explain "axial plane".


 * Centrum and neural arch are not linked on first mentions, but in the third paragraph.


 * Link laminae, and neural spine.
 * ✅ (I swapped some of the redirects for dinogloss links, too) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Link derived and basal.

3rd para
 * The centrum is especially concave. - On one or both ends? When clarified, this could also be linked to the dinogloss, if it is not the same as the previous one ( opisthocoelous).
 * ✅ I misread the source, it is actually dorsoventrally depressed, not having concave sides


 * provide evidence of powerful neck ligaments and cervical muscles. - Remove "cervical", since it means the same thing as neck (or relating to the neck).


 * These features are known - You should probably should add an "also" before "known".


 * zygapophyseal laminae has an entry in the Dinogloss.


 * diapohyses and parapohyses - You mean diapophyses and parapophyses? These also have Dinogloss entries, btw, along with pleurocoels and procoelous.


 * Two caudal vertebrae were also preserved, coming from the middle of the tail. - this could be more concise, ergo: Two caudal vertebrae from the middle of the tail were also preserved.

Classification

 * Futalognkosaurus is a duplink.


 * Many of those animals, - Many of these?


 * a 2017 study found it - Again, by who? There could also be some info about who classified/recovered it as what, and when these studies took place.

Paleoecology

 * As before, you could add Period after Late Cretaceous here, and link to Age (geology).


 * Link horizons.


 * No need to link rainfall.


 * carbonaceous fossils roots - Did you mean "carbonaceous fossil roots"?


 * You could say petrified wood instead of silicified wood, it means the same thing and more readers would understand it.

Image comments

 * I'd link dorsal vertebra in its first image mention.


 * Full stops (periods) should be removed from the captions of the size chart, neck comparison, and paleoecology images, according to WP:CAPTION.


 * The scale diagram caption could be clarified a bit, such as "The size of Puertasaurus compared to a human" or simply "size compared with a human".


 * Restoration could be linked to paleoart, recently started doing this and I've followed suit, since it's a pretty good idea (some readers won't know what restoration means, and reviewers seem to have questioned in the past as well).

These are all my comments for now, I've yet to check the sources, and will probably do so when these suggestions are answered. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  02:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like all these comments are answered, so I'll be looking at the sources soon (probably tomorrow), but so far it's looking GA worthy to me. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Source comments
Checking sources now, my comments on them so far: ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Discovery and naming
 * Source no.1 (used to cite the location of discovery) has no mention of Los Hornos or that the "Pari Aike Formation" was specifically the name used during the time of Puertasaurus's discovery, in fact, the source doesn't mention Puertasaurus at all. Perhaps you used the wrong citation?
 * This source is just for using Cerro Fortaleza instead of the Pari Aike. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Source no.2 has no mention of the sandstone lens that Puertasaurus was discovered in, nor does it mention the specimen number of the holotype.
 * This source is only for the 3% stat. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Source no.3 does not mention Fernando Novas, Leonardo Salgado, Federico Agnolin, the state of the vertebrae's preservation, the date when Puertasaurus was named, nor who it was named after.
 * Darn it, it used to have the information that I needed :( That source was for stating the discovery date, but the NatGeo source also lists that (can't believe that I missed that before). The CBS source is now irrelevant, so I will remove it from the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The CBS report (source no.3) mentions "Since the first bones were found on the banks of Lake Barreales in the Argentine province of Neuquen in 2000, paleontologists have dug up the dinosaur's neck, back region, hips and the first vertebra of its tail.", are there pelvic bones known from the animal? If so, it'd be good to point this out in the article and modify the skeletal diagram.
 * That's Futalognkosaurus, not Puertasaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I probably should note that source 5 (now 4) is used to cite the whole paragraph except for a few small bits of info. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything else looks good to me, passing now. Sorry for all the late replies, it was probably not a good idea to take this review during the holidays. Anyways, congratulations on your first good article! Which is coincidentaly also my first good article review. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  21:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)