Wikipedia:Peer review/Bonacynodon/archive1

Bonacynodon


I'm currently working on expanding this article from a stub, with my (possibly unrealistic) goal being to eventually get it to GA status. It's still not amazingly written, and there are probably lots of things that require cleanup or expansion. Reviewers should preferably have some experience with palaeontology, as the article is fairly technical.

Thanks. —Trilletrollet [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 17:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice, I'll have a look, might take some time before I can fuly read it, as I'm in the middle of some FAC reviews. For another time, if you mainly want to attract paleo editors, there is WP:paleopeerreview. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps more free images from the plos paper could be incorporated? Like locality maps, anatomical details etc.
 * Google scholar seems to show up more articles that mention this genus:
 * Ok, I've added two more images from the paper, including one of the second specimen. One problem I've been having with this taxon is that some anatomical features are seen in the illustrations, but not actually discussed in the text. For example, if you look at this image of the second specimen, it shows what looks like a complete postorbital bar, and yet the text does not mention it. Would it be original research to mention such features in the article?


 * Also, while there are other papers that mention Bonacynodon, none of them appear to provide any new information about it. Usually they just mention it in passing. —Trilletrollet [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 04:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks nice, I would maybe crop out those museum labels from the map, not particularly relevant for our purposes... But yeah, we unfortunately can't describe things not mentioned in the text, even if they are obvious from the photos. Perhaps the describers did not find it unique enough to note? Sometimes you can find additional description in supplementary materials, not sure if there is anything useful here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You could link fossil preparation. ✅
 * Not a big deal, but specimen numbers don't need to be bolded, not sure why they are here sometimes. ✅
 * "The holotype also contains" Includes? ✅
 * "The generic name Bonacynodon is derived from the surname of José Bonaparte" Can we get the meaning of cynodon? ✅
 * Link names and terms in image captions too. ✅
 * The life restoration shows pinnae, but following discussions at WP:paleoart, it appears they may not have been present in therapsids this basal? If that's the case, a modified version could be made. ✅
 * There are some WP:duplinks (not counting those also occurring in the cladogram), which can be highlighted with this script: ✅
 * Link and explain basal and derived. ✅
 * Reference 2 could need date. ✅
 * "the premaxilla and maxilla" State where on the jaw these are (frontmost and similar). ✅
 * Explain symphysis. ✅
 * "The front part bore" Front part of what? ✅
 * "coronoid process and a large masseteric fossa." Could be explained. ✅
 * "the postdentary bones" Explain what and where these are. ✅
 * The dentition section is a bit of a wall of text compared to the rest of article, could maybe be two paragraphs. ✅
 * Explain heterodont. ✅
 * There is a big chunk of white space at the right of the cladogram, I usually use that to include additional images of interest (seems we have quite a few more images of the fossils available), but up to you. I think in particular we could have some close ups of the teeth. ✅
 * Link cingula. ✅
 * Link morphology. ✅
 * Link Dinodontosaurus Assemblage Zone and anything else that is only linked in the intro also in the article body at first mention. ✅
 * " As a probainognathian, it was a fairly close relative of mammals, the only group of cynodonts alive today" Could be stated in the article body as well, since the intro should not have unique info. ✅
 * Could help lay-readers to "translate" anatomical direction terms to plain language. ✅
 * Could the description state more clearly which features mentioned are unique (diagnostic)? ✅. Apparently it only has one autapomorphy, which is the serrated canines.
 * Has it really not been included in any phylogenetic analyses since its description? If it has, it should be mentioned whether they agree or not with the original findings. ✅. All later analyses that have included Bonacynodon and Probainognathus have recovered them as sister taxa, but it's worth noting that all of these apparently were based on the same data matrix.
 * Anything about what its environment was like, apart from other animals? Climate plants, landscape, etc.? ✅. Little information seems to be available about the plants or landscape, unfortunately.
 * "It possessed at least three infraorbital foramina on each side." State more clearly where these are located. ✅
 * The intro could have some more description. ✅
 * To make it more layreader friendly, "referred" could maybe be replaced by "assigned". Do you mean changing "referred specimen" to "assigned specimen"? I don't really see how that would be easier to understand.
 * "Schwanke & Kellner (2009) hypothesised" So it was discussed in the literature even before being named? Perhaps worth mentioning when it was first reported in the literature under Discovery? ❌ I couldn't find any sources that state when it was first reported in the literature.
 * I've tried to follow your tips. Can you (or someone else) look through it again when you have time? —Trilletrollet [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 03:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking really nice to me now. As for the life restoration, I don't think we need to downright remove it, we just need to figure out whether a modified version without pinnae should be made. I'm not exactly an expert on this issue, but if you think the ear should be removed, I can do it, or it could be asked about at WP:paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)